The Clearinghouse Model of Support for Undergraduate Research: Measuring Student Research Engagement and Interventions at a Large Research University

Q4 Social Sciences
R. Reichle
{"title":"The Clearinghouse Model of Support for Undergraduate Research: Measuring Student Research Engagement and Interventions at a Large Research University","authors":"R. Reichle","doi":"10.5325/jasseinsteffe.11.1-2.0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:One model for engaging undergraduates in the high-impact practice of research is for a central university-wide office to serve as a \"clearinghouse\" for advising students and connecting them with research and creative activity. The efficacy of such offices is an open question. Frequently, clearinghouse-style offices do not organize or conduct research projects themselves; thus, they are not always able to assess and evaluate students' ultimate research outcomes, particularly if students become engaged in research outside of coursework or formal channels. This in turn creates a \"challenge of the count\" for research offices interested in assessing campus-wide research engagement and the effectiveness of their advising services. The present study evaluates the practice and outcomes of clearinghouse research offices using a comprehensive description of undergraduate research that mitigates data deficiencies. This dataset was then used to analyze the ultimate research outcomes for the cohort of students that matriculated in 2014 and assess the clearinghouse-style advising intervention. Students who underwent advising were significantly more likely to conduct research compared to those who did not undergo advising, and research office engagement was associated with higher rates of conference presentations and publications. These outcomes suggest a key role for clearinghouse undergraduate research offices.","PeriodicalId":56185,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness","volume":"360 1","pages":"28 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jasseinsteffe.11.1-2.0028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

abstract:One model for engaging undergraduates in the high-impact practice of research is for a central university-wide office to serve as a "clearinghouse" for advising students and connecting them with research and creative activity. The efficacy of such offices is an open question. Frequently, clearinghouse-style offices do not organize or conduct research projects themselves; thus, they are not always able to assess and evaluate students' ultimate research outcomes, particularly if students become engaged in research outside of coursework or formal channels. This in turn creates a "challenge of the count" for research offices interested in assessing campus-wide research engagement and the effectiveness of their advising services. The present study evaluates the practice and outcomes of clearinghouse research offices using a comprehensive description of undergraduate research that mitigates data deficiencies. This dataset was then used to analyze the ultimate research outcomes for the cohort of students that matriculated in 2014 and assess the clearinghouse-style advising intervention. Students who underwent advising were significantly more likely to conduct research compared to those who did not undergo advising, and research office engagement was associated with higher rates of conference presentations and publications. These outcomes suggest a key role for clearinghouse undergraduate research offices.
支持本科生研究的信息交换中心模型:衡量一所大型研究型大学的学生研究参与和干预
让本科生参与高影响力的研究实践的一种模式是,在大学范围内设立一个中央办公室,作为“交流中心”,为学生提供建议,并将他们与研究和创造性活动联系起来。这些办公室的效力是一个悬而未决的问题。通常情况下,信息交换中心式的办公室本身并不组织或开展研究项目;因此,他们并不总是能够评估和评价学生的最终研究成果,特别是当学生在课程作业或正式渠道之外从事研究时。这反过来又给那些有兴趣评估校园范围内的研究参与及其咨询服务有效性的研究办公室带来了“计数的挑战”。本研究评估票据交换所研究办公室的做法和结果,使用本科生研究的全面描述,以减轻数据不足。然后,该数据集被用于分析2014年入学的学生群体的最终研究结果,并评估清算所式的建议干预。与没有接受咨询的学生相比,接受咨询的学生更有可能进行研究,而且研究办公室的参与度与更高的会议演讲和出版物率有关。这些结果表明,交换信息的本科生研究办公室发挥着关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness publishes scholarly work on the assessment of student learning at the course, program, institutional, and multi-institutional levels as well as more broadly focused scholarship on institutional effectiveness in relation to mission and emerging directions in higher education assessment. JAIE is the official publication of the New England Educational Assessment Network, established in 1995 and recognized as one of the leaders in supporting best practices and resources in educational assessment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信