Search for: All records

Abstract Undergraduate field experiences (UFEs), where students learn and sometimes live together in nature, are critical for the field-based science disciplines. The Undergraduate Field Experiences Research Network (UFERN) brings together UFE educators and researchers to improve and broaden participation in field education. Integrating research on UFEs and general STEM education and the expertise of the UFERN community, we present a model and evidence that describes the impact of intended student outcomes, student context factors, and program design factors on UFE student outcomes. The UFERN model is relevant for a diversity of UFE formats and the diverse students potentially engaged in them, and it supports the field science community to consider a range of ways students can engage with the field. The UFERN model can be applied to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of student-centered UFEs and to guide research on the mechanisms underlying outcomes across UFE formats and disciplines. 

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. 

The COVID-19 pandemic shut down undergraduate research programs across the United States. A group of 23 colleges, universities, and research institutes hosted remote undergraduate research programs in the life sciences during Summer 2020. Given the unprecedented offering of remote programs, we carried out a study to describe and evaluate them. Using structured templates, we documented how programs were designed and implemented, including who participated. Through focus groups and surveys, we identified programmatic strengths and shortcomings as well as recommendations for improvements from students’ perspectives. Strengths included the quality of mentorship, opportunities for learning and professional development, and a feeling of connection with a larger community. Weaknesses included limited cohort building, challenges with insufficient structure, and issues with technology. Although all programs had one or more activities related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice, these topics were largely absent from student reports even though programs coincided with a peak in national consciousness about racial inequities and structural racism. Our results provide evidence for designing remote Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) that are experienced favorably by students. Our results also indicate that remote REUs are sufficiently positive to further investigate their affordances and constraints, including the potential to scale up offerings, with minimal concern about disenfranchising students. 

Abstract Field experiences can provide transformative opportunities for many individuals who eventually pursue ecology, natural resource, and conservation careers. However, some of the same elements of field‐based programs that define and provide pivotal experiences for some represent barriers for others, especially students from underrepresented groups. Barriers may be financial, physical, cultural, or social. Issues of gender, identity, and race/ethnicity, for example, can be isolating or shut down learning during intensive field experiences when group leaders are not prepared to respond to interpersonal challenges. We explore some benefits and barriers presented by field learning experiences as well as some challenges and potential strategies to broaden inclusivity with the hope of encouraging further conversation on diversity and inclusion in field experiences.