An official website of the United States government
This study analyzed terminal degree and career choices of students who performed undergraduate research. In one analysis, the study compared terminal degree and career choices between a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) and traditional non-course-based undergraduate research experiences at one primarily undergraduate institution (PUI). Students who pursued postbaccalaureate programs chose terminal degrees at levels exceeding 75%, with no significant difference between a CURE experience and a traditional research experience. Analysis of terminal degree and career choices at four PUIs providing traditional research experiences showed a marked difference in the number of students pursuing terminal degrees. Two PUIs showed rates > 75%, whereas students at the other two PUIs pursued terminal degrees <50% of the time. The majority of students not pursuing terminal degrees chose M.S. degrees in education and healthcare. An analysis was also performed among students participating in traditional summer undergraduate research on a research-intensive university (RIU) campus with a medical school. Students were accepted from two programs, an NIH IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) program recruiting students from the RIU and an NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program recruiting undergraduates from rural PUIs and minority-serving institutions, particularly tribal colleges. Analysis showed that >70% of the students who pursued postbaccalaureate programs chose terminal degrees. INBRE undergraduates displayed a marked preference for the M.D. degree (73.9% vs. 17.4%), whereas the REU students chose the Ph.D. degree (75.0% vs. 22.9%). American Indian students were also analyzed separately for career choice and showed an equal preference for the M.D. and Ph.D. degrees when pursuing postbaccalaureate education. Overall, the results provide evidence that undergraduate student research stimulates student careers in areas needed by the nation’s citizen stakeholders.
more »
« less
An Exploration across Institution Types of Undergraduate Life Sciences Student Decisions to Stay in or Leave an Academic-Year Research Experience
Undergraduate research is one of the most valuable activities an undergraduate can engage in because of its benefits, and studies have shown that longer experiences are more beneficial. However, prior research has illuminated that undergraduates encounter challenges that may cause them to exit research prematurely. These studies have been almost exclusively conducted at research-intensive (R1) institutions, and it is unclear whether such challenges are generalizable to other institution types. To address this, we extended a study previously conducted at public R1 institutions. In the current study, we analyze data from 1262 students across 25 public R1s, 12 private R1s, 30 master’s-granting institutions, and 20 primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) to assess 1) to what extent institution type predicts students’ decisions to persist in undergraduate research and 2) what factors affect students’ decisions to either stay in or consider leaving their undergraduate research experiences (UREs) at different institution types. We found students at public R1s are more likely to leave their UREs compared with students at master’s-granting institutions and PUIs. However, there are few differences in why students enrolled at different institution types consider leaving or choose to stay in their UREs. This work highlights the importance of studying undergraduate research across institutions.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1644236
- PAR ID:
- 10342761
- Author(s) / Creator(s):
- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more »
- Editor(s):
- Spell, Rachelle
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- CBE—Life Sciences Education
- Volume:
- 20
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1931-7913
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- ar47
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The importance of undergraduate research experiences (UREs) has been increasingly defended and documented in the last decades. As a consequence of its popularity, internships, summer camps and other types of UREs have become more competitive and harder for students to access, and, in the last years, colleges, universities and educative centers have developed an interest in offering their own opportunities in the form of Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs). This paper introduces a model for an accessible, low-cost, high-efficiency CURE in Mathematics with the involvement of collateral STEM disciplines like Statistics, Data Science or Business. The model is a work-in-progress that has been offered and tested for two academic years (2021-22 and 2022-23), with the course delivered in the fall and its fruits coming throughout the whole year. This paper presents a justification of the CURE and its design and a description of the methodology used, the challenges surpassed and the results obtained during those first two editions or iterations, including publications, exposure in national conferences and other success data. It emphasizes the key aspects that make the course simple and exportable, so the reader acquires the know-how and can easily instrument the course at their own institution. The CURE was developed at a two-year college as part of a larger NSF-awarded project, and has established connections with four-year institutions, high schools, national and international professional associations, journals and conferences, employers, private investors and government agencies.more » « less
-
Cook, S; Katz, B; Melhuish, K (Ed.)The Carnegie Classification sorts institutions by their different styles of education. Two prominent types of institutions are high research activity universities (R1) and liberal arts focused colleges (LA). Institutional characteristics may positively (e.g. Eide et al., 1998) or negatively (e.g. Astin, 1997) affect graduate school aspirations. We analyzed responses from a national undergraduate mathematics major sample using chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests to identify differences between students’ knowledge about graduate school and its application process by these two types of institutions. Using this same sample, we used chi-squared tests to explore the differences between departmental (professors, advisors, and mentors) support by institution type. We interpret these results with the theories of social and cultural capital and offer suggestions for future research investigations.more » « less
-
Although there are numerous evidence-based benefits to undergraduate research for new-majority students (students who are from traditionally underrepresented ethnicities, first-generation college students, students from lower-income families, or transfer students) (Hurtado, S. et al., 2011; Kinzie et al., 2008a; Lopatto, 2007), they are less likely to participate or stay in mentored research experiences (Finley & McNair, 2013; Haeger et al., 2015). In order to determine not only who has access to undergraduate research, but to also identify what barriers to full-inclusion exist for new-majority students, we conducted a mixed methods study at a public, Hispanic Serving Institution. We analyzed institutional data to explore who participates in research and who does not. We also specifically sampled a group of students who expressed an interest in research experiences but who never actually participated for our student survey (N=96). Additionally, we conducted five focus groups with students, staff, and faculty (N~30). We found positive results in the analysis of patterns of participation and found no significant or substantial differences between students who did or did not participate in undergraduate research in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, or first-generation status. The undergraduate researcher population did have significantly more STEM majors and Pell grant recipients. The qualitative analysis identified barriers to participation in research in the following areas: access to research opportunities, programmatic structures, research culture and norms, and campus climate. We present these findings along with descriptions of initiatives that have been successful in diversifying research participation and strategies to create more inclusive research environments.more » « less
-
Frantz, Kyle (Ed.)In-person undergraduate research experiences (UREs) promote students’ integration into careers in life science research. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted institutions hosting summer URE programs to offer them remotely, raising questions about whether undergraduates who participate in remote research can experience scientific integration and whether they might perceive doing research less favorably (i.e., not beneficial or too costly). To address these questions, we examined indicators of scientific integration and perceptions of the benefits and costs of doing research among students who participated in remote life science URE programs in Summer 2020. We found that students experienced gains in scientific self-efficacy pre- to post-URE, similar to results reported for in-person UREs. We also found that students experienced gains in scientific identity, graduate and career intentions, and perceptions of the benefits of doing research only if they started their remote UREs at lower levels on these variables. Collectively, students did not change in their perceptions of the costs of doing research despite the challenges of working remotely. Yet students who started with low cost perceptions increased in these perceptions. These findings indicate that remote UREs can support students’ self-efficacy development, but may otherwise be limited in their potential to promote scientific integration.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-04-0108
