In the Summer of 2020, as COVID-19 limited in-person research opportunities and created additional barriers for many students, institutions either canceled or remotely hosted their Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) programs. The present qualitative phenomenographic study was designed to explore some of the possible limitations, challenges, and outcomes of this remote experience. Overall, 94 interviews were conducted with paired participants; mentees (N=10) and mentors (N=8) from six different REU programs. By drawing on Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a framework, our study uncovers some of the challenges mentees faced while pursuing their research objectives and academic goals. These challenges included motivation, limited access to technology at home, limited communication among REU students, barriers in mentor-mentee relationships, and differing expectations about doing research. Despite the challenges, all mentees reported that this experience was highly beneficial. Comparisons between the outcomes of these remote REUs and published outcomes of in-person undergraduate research programs reveal many similar benefits, including student integration into STEM culture. Our study suggests that remote research programs could be considered as a means to expand access to undergraduate research experiences even after COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 1, 2024
Virtually the Same? Evaluating the Effectiveness of Remote Undergraduate Research Experiences
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
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10416079
- Author(s) / Creator(s):
- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more »
- Editor(s):
- Frantz, Kyle
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- CBE—Life Sciences Education
- Volume:
- 22
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1931-7913
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Freitag, Nancy E. (Ed.)The National Summer Undergraduate Research Program (NSURP) is a mentored summer research program in biosciences for undergraduate students from underrepresented backgrounds in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Conducted virtually over 8 weeks every summer starting in 2020, NSURP provides accessible and flexible research experiences to meet the needs of geographically diverse and schedule-constrained students. Drawing from mentee reporting and surveys conducted within the NSURP framework involving over 350 underrepresented minority undergraduate students over three cohorts (2020–2022), matched with mentors, this paper highlights the potential benefits of students participating in virtual mentored research experiences. In addition to increased access to quality research experiences for students who face travel or academic setting constraints, we found that virtual mentoring fosters cross-cultural collaborations, generates novel research questions, and expands professional networks. Moreover, this study emphasizes the role of virtual mentorship opportunities in fostering inclusivity and support for individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM fields. By overcoming barriers to full participation in the scientific community, virtual mentorship programs can create a more equitable and inclusive environment for aspiring researchers. This research contributes to the growing body of literature on the effectiveness and the potential of virtual research programs and mentorship opportunities in broadening participation and breaking down barriers in STEM education and careers.more » « less
IMPORTANCE Summer Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) are established to provide platforms for interest in scientific research and as tools for eventual matriculation to scientific graduate programs. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancellation of in-person programs for 2020 and 2021, creating the need for alternative programming. The National Summer Undergraduate Research Project (NSURP) was created to provide a virtual option to REUs in microbiology to compensate for the pandemic-initiated loss of research opportunities. Although in-person REUs have since been restored, NSURP currently remains an option for those unable to travel to in-person programs in the first place due to familial, community, and/or monetary obligations. This study examines the effects of the program's first 3 years, documenting the students’ experiences, and suggests future directions and areas of study related to the impact of virtual research experiences on expanding and diversifying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
-
Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) are an increasingly utilized model for exposing students to research. The lack of robust assessments is a major hurdle to wider adoption of CUREs. The Coronavirus Infectious Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated a drastic shift of in-person courses to the online format. Using the Participant Perception Indicator (PPI) survey, we measured students’ self-reported changes in learning from such a biochemistry course at a large university in south Florida based on the Biochemistry Authentic Scientific Inquiry Lab (BASIL) model. By doing this, we were able to better understand the student-benefits of CUREs and how these benefits are affected by changes in learning modalities between two relevant semesters, i.e., winter and summer of 2020. Anticipated learning outcomes (ALOs) help partially fill the gap left by the loss of physical interaction in experimental procedures. Our analysis indicated that students learned more through bioinformatic experiments compared to their wet-lab counterparts. Using pre- and post- surveys, students reported that their experience and confidence gains lagged behind their knowledge gain of technique-based skills. Students are not as confident in their understanding of techniques when unable to perform those in the physical laboratory. Thus, despite extensive pursuit of the purpose and protocols of the experiments and techniques, neither their experience nor their confidence was on par with their knowledge. This study is one of the first examples demonstrating a quantitative student-learning assessment of a CURE in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The novel assessment strategies targeted to identify gaps in learning mastery could facilitate the adoption of CUREs, fostering opportunities for all undergraduate students to vital laboratory research experiences in STEM.more » « less
-
This Work-in-Progress paper investigates how students participating in a chemical engineering (ChE) Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program conceptualize and make plans for research projects. The National Science Foundation has invested substantial financial resources in REU programs, which allow undergraduate students the opportunity to work with faculty in their labs and to conduct hands-on experiments. Prior research has shown that REU programs have an impact on students’ perceptions of their research skills, often measured through the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) survey. However, few evaluation and research studies have gone beyond perception data to include direct measures of students’ gains from program participation. This work-in-progress describes efforts to evaluate the impact of an REU on students’ conceptualization and planning of research studies using a pre-post semi-structured interview process. The construct being investigated for this study is planning, which has been espoused as a critical step in the self-regulated learning (SRL) process (Winne & Perry, 2000; Zimmerman, 2008). Students who effectively self-regulate demonstrate higher levels of achievement and comprehension (Dignath & Büttner, 2008), and (arguably) work efficiency. Planning is also a critical step in large projects, such as research (Dvir & Lechler, 2004). Those who effectively plan their projects make consistent progress and are more likely to achieve project success (Dvir, Raz, & Shenhar, 2003). Prior REU research has been important in demonstrating some positive impacts of REU programs, but it is time to dig deeper into the potential benefits to REU participation. Many REU students are included in weekly lab meetings, and thus potentially take part in the planning process for research projects. Thus, the research question explored here is: How do REU participants conceptualize and make plans for research projects? The study was conducted in the ChE REU program at a large, mid-Atlantic research-oriented university during the summer of 2018. Sixteen students in the program participated in the study, which entailed them completing a planning task followed by a semi-structured interview at the start and the end of the REU program. During each session, participants read a case statement that asked them to outline a plan in writing for a research project from beginning to end. Using semi-structured interview procedures, their written outlines were then verbally described. The verbalizations were recorded and transcribed. Two members of the research team are currently analyzing the responses using an open coding process to gain familiarity with the transcripts. The data will be recoded based on the initial open coding and in line with a self-regulatory and project-management framework. Results: Coding is underway, preliminary results will be ready by the draft submission deadline. The methods employed in this study might prove fruitful in understanding the direct impact on students’ knowledge, rather than relying on their perceptions of gains. Future research could investigate differences in students’ research plans based on prior research experience, research intensity of students’ home institutions, and how their plans may be impacted by training.more » « less
-
In efforts to increase scientific literacy and enhance the preparation of learners to pursue careers in science, there are growing opportunities for students and teachers to engage in scientific research experiences, including course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), undergraduate research experiences (UREs), and teacher research experiences (TREs). Prior literature reviews detail a variety of models, benefits, and challenges and call for the continued examination of program elements and associated impacts. This paper reports a comprehensive review of 307 papers published between 2007 and 2017 that include CURE, URE, and TRE programs, with a special focus on research experiences for K–12 teachers. A research-supported conceptual model of science research experiences was used to develop a coding scheme, including participant demographics, theoretical frameworks, methodology, and reported outcomes. We summarize recent reports on program impacts and identify gaps or misalignments between goals and measured outcomes. The field of biology was the predominant scientific disciplinary focus. Findings suggest a lack of studies explicitly targeting 1) participation and outcomes related to learners from underrepresented populations, 2) a theoretical framework that guides program design and analysis, and, for TREs, 3) methods for translation of research experiences into K–12 instructional practices, and 4) measurement of impact on K–12 instructional practices.more » « less
