Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

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.