Abstract

For more than 30 years, the US National Science Foundation's Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program has supported thousands of undergraduate researchers annually and provides many students with their first research experiences in field ecology or evolution. REUs embed students in scientific communities where they apprentice with experienced researchers, build networks with their peers, and help students understand research cultures and how to work within them. REUs are thought to provide formative experiences for developing researchers that differ from experiences in a college classrooms, laboratories, or field trips. REU assessments have improved through time but they are largely ungrounded in educational theory. Thus, evaluation of long‐term impacts of REUs remains limited and best practices for using REUs to enhance student learning are repeatedly re‐invented. We describe how one sociocultural learning framework, cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT), could be used to guide data collection to characterize the effects of REU programs on participant's learning in an educationally meaningful context. CHAT embodies a systems approach to assessment that accounts for social and cultural factors that influence learning. We illustrate how CHAT has guided assessment of the Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology (HF‐SRPE), one of the longest‐running REU sites in the United States. Characterizing HF‐SRPE using CHAT helped formalize thoughts and language for the program evaluation, reflect on potential barriers to success, identify assessment priorities, and revealed important oversights in data collection.

Highlights

  • Undergraduate research experiences in research laboratories and at field stations or remote field sites strengthen student preparation within scientific disciplines (Kuh, 2008)

  • To help Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) programs connect program evaluations with the cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT) framework, we have developed some guiding questions related to activity system components and contradictions (Table 1)

  • Given the priorities identified by CHAT, we would want to collect data that help explore hypotheses related to the procedures and cultural expectations that determine who is selected to participate in Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology (HF-SRPE) or other REU

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Undergraduate research experiences in research laboratories and at field stations or remote field sites strengthen student preparation within scientific disciplines (Kuh, 2008). An undergraduate student (subject) writing a research proposal (outcome) may not possess the necessary background knowledge to read a highly technical literature review on their topic (mediating artifact); the research mentor or other laboratory members (community) may not have enough time to adequately support the student by answering questions and providing feedback (division of labor); or expectations conveyed via a micromanagement approach (rules) conflict with the ability for the student to meaningfully connect with the literature or think independently about their project (object) These conflicts between system components may result in specific obstacles that are manifestations of fundamental tensions (primary contradictions) within the activity system (Foot & Groleau, 2011). Criterion validity has not been formally evaluated or analyses were done incorrectly

Formal evaluations have been conducted and provide strong evidence for criterion validity
| CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call