测量对本科化学研究经验的综合理解:评估口头和书面研究成果

IF 3.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Max R. Helix, Laleh E. Coté, Christiane N. Stachl, Marcia C. Linn, Elisa M. Stone and Anne M. Baranger
{"title":"测量对本科化学研究经验的综合理解:评估口头和书面研究成果","authors":"Max R. Helix, Laleh E. Coté, Christiane N. Stachl, Marcia C. Linn, Elisa M. Stone and Anne M. Baranger","doi":"10.1039/D1RP00104C","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Understanding the impact of undergraduate research experiences (UREs) and course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) is crucial as universities debate the value of allocating scarce resources to these activities. We report on the Berkeley Undergraduate Research Evaluation Tools (BURET), designed to assess the learning outcomes of UREs and CUREs in chemistry and other sciences. To validate the tools, we administered BURET to 70 undergraduate students in the College of Chemistry and 19 students from other STEM fields, comparing the performance of students who had less than one year of undergraduate research to those with more than one year of research experience. Students wrote reflections and responded to interviews during poster presentations of their research project. BURET asks students to communicate the significance of their project, analyze their experimental design, interpret their data, and propose future research. Scoring rubrics reward students for integrating disciplinary evidence into their narratives. We found that the instruments yielded reliable scores, and the results clarified the impacts of undergraduate research, specifically characterizing the strengths and weaknesses of undergraduate researchers in chemistry at our institution. Students with at least a year of research experience were able to use disciplinary evidence more effectively than those with less than one year of experience. First-year students excelled at explaining the societal relevance of their work, but they incorporated only minimal discussion of prior research into their reflections and presentations. Students at all levels struggled to critique their own experimental design. These results have important implications for undergraduate learning, suggesting areas for faculty members, graduate student research mentors, and CURE or URE programs to improve undergraduate research experiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":" 2","pages":" 313-334"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring integrated understanding of undergraduate chemistry research experiences: assessing oral and written research artifacts\",\"authors\":\"Max R. Helix, Laleh E. Coté, Christiane N. Stachl, Marcia C. Linn, Elisa M. Stone and Anne M. Baranger\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D1RP00104C\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Understanding the impact of undergraduate research experiences (UREs) and course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) is crucial as universities debate the value of allocating scarce resources to these activities. We report on the Berkeley Undergraduate Research Evaluation Tools (BURET), designed to assess the learning outcomes of UREs and CUREs in chemistry and other sciences. To validate the tools, we administered BURET to 70 undergraduate students in the College of Chemistry and 19 students from other STEM fields, comparing the performance of students who had less than one year of undergraduate research to those with more than one year of research experience. Students wrote reflections and responded to interviews during poster presentations of their research project. BURET asks students to communicate the significance of their project, analyze their experimental design, interpret their data, and propose future research. Scoring rubrics reward students for integrating disciplinary evidence into their narratives. We found that the instruments yielded reliable scores, and the results clarified the impacts of undergraduate research, specifically characterizing the strengths and weaknesses of undergraduate researchers in chemistry at our institution. Students with at least a year of research experience were able to use disciplinary evidence more effectively than those with less than one year of experience. First-year students excelled at explaining the societal relevance of their work, but they incorporated only minimal discussion of prior research into their reflections and presentations. Students at all levels struggled to critique their own experimental design. These results have important implications for undergraduate learning, suggesting areas for faculty members, graduate student research mentors, and CURE or URE programs to improve undergraduate research experiences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":69,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\" 2\",\"pages\":\" 313-334\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/rp/d1rp00104c\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/rp/d1rp00104c","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

了解本科生研究经历(UREs)和基于课程的本科生研究经历(CUREs)的影响是至关重要的,因为大学争论将稀缺资源分配给这些活动的价值。我们报告了伯克利本科生研究评估工具(BURET),旨在评估化学和其他科学的ure和cure的学习成果。为了验证这些工具,我们对化学学院的70名本科生和来自其他STEM领域的19名学生进行了BURET测试,比较了本科生研究少于一年的学生和有一年以上研究经验的学生的表现。学生们在他们的研究项目的海报展示中写下自己的思考和对采访的回应。BURET要求学生传达他们项目的意义,分析他们的实验设计,解释他们的数据,并提出未来的研究。评分标准奖励那些将学科证据整合到他们的叙述中的学生。我们发现,这些工具得出了可靠的分数,结果澄清了本科生研究的影响,具体地描述了我校化学专业本科生研究人员的优势和劣势。至少有一年研究经验的学生能够比经验不足一年的学生更有效地利用学科证据。一年级学生擅长解释他们工作的社会相关性,但他们在反思和演讲中只对之前的研究进行了很少的讨论。各个层次的学生都在努力评价自己的实验设计。这些结果对本科生学习具有重要意义,为教师、研究生研究导师以及CURE或URE项目提供了改善本科生研究经验的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring integrated understanding of undergraduate chemistry research experiences: assessing oral and written research artifacts

Understanding the impact of undergraduate research experiences (UREs) and course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) is crucial as universities debate the value of allocating scarce resources to these activities. We report on the Berkeley Undergraduate Research Evaluation Tools (BURET), designed to assess the learning outcomes of UREs and CUREs in chemistry and other sciences. To validate the tools, we administered BURET to 70 undergraduate students in the College of Chemistry and 19 students from other STEM fields, comparing the performance of students who had less than one year of undergraduate research to those with more than one year of research experience. Students wrote reflections and responded to interviews during poster presentations of their research project. BURET asks students to communicate the significance of their project, analyze their experimental design, interpret their data, and propose future research. Scoring rubrics reward students for integrating disciplinary evidence into their narratives. We found that the instruments yielded reliable scores, and the results clarified the impacts of undergraduate research, specifically characterizing the strengths and weaknesses of undergraduate researchers in chemistry at our institution. Students with at least a year of research experience were able to use disciplinary evidence more effectively than those with less than one year of experience. First-year students excelled at explaining the societal relevance of their work, but they incorporated only minimal discussion of prior research into their reflections and presentations. Students at all levels struggled to critique their own experimental design. These results have important implications for undergraduate learning, suggesting areas for faculty members, graduate student research mentors, and CURE or URE programs to improve undergraduate research experiences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
26.70%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal for teachers, researchers and other practitioners in chemistry education.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信