Understanding How Undergraduate Research Experiences Influence ...

12 downloads 14985 Views 276KB Size Report
Aspirations for Research Careers and. Graduate Education. By Omolola A. Adedokun, Dake Zhang, Loran Carleton Parker, Ann Bessenbacher, Amy Childress,.
RESEARCH

AND

TEACHING

Understanding How Undergraduate Research Experiences Influence Student Aspirations for Research Careers and Graduate Education By Omolola A. Adedokun, Dake Zhang, Loran Carleton Parker, Ann Bessenbacher, Amy Childress, and Wilella Daniels Burgess

Extant and emerging literature on undergraduate research experiences (UREs) focuses on the identification of their benefits to student participants. However, a notable limitation in these studies results from little or no examination of the processes through which UREs influence student career decisions and education aspirations. This study offers descriptions, drawn from an analysis of students’ reflective journals, of three processes through which UREs affected students’ educational and career aspirations. Through UREs, students increased their awareness of career options, clarified their career choices, and enhanced their professional credentials. Although we cannot make generalizations beyond the scope and context of this qualitative study, the data provide some insight into paths through which UREs influence students’ educational and career aspirations.

82

Journal of College Science Teaching

T

he Boyer Commission’s (1998) call for increased involvement of undergraduates in faculty-mentored research experiences has led to increased funding (e.g., through the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute) to support American colleges and universities in creating opportunities for authentic research experiences for undergraduate students across multiple disciplines (Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007). Along with increased funding for undergraduate research experiences is increased documentation of the benefits and gains to student and faculty participants, although focus is often more on student gains. Reported gains of Undergraduate Research Experiences (hereafter, UREs) to students center mainly on enhanced educational outcomes and career development (Bauer & Bennett, 2003; Dolan & Johnson, 2009; Hathaway, Nagda, & Gregerman, 2002; Hunter et al. 2007; Kardash, 2000), including enhanced scientific and critical-thinking skills (Ahlm, 1997); research skills (Halstead, 1997; Kardash, 2000; Russell, Hancock, & McCullough, 2007); motivation and research selfefficacy (Kardash, 2000); collaborative, interdisciplinary, and team skills (Davis & Glazier, 1997); and ability

to communicate and discuss scientific findings with lay and professional audiences (Hunter et al., 2007). Gains to faculty mentors include advancement of faculty research goals and the personal satisfaction derived from contributing to student professional growth (Adedokun, Dyehouse, Bessenbacher, & Burgess, 2010). Perhaps the most well-known benefit of UREs is the impact on student aspirations for research careers, especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. UREs have been shown to influence student aspirations for graduate education and careers in research oriented fields, increase student awareness of career options, clarify student career choices, and enhance student preparation for graduate education (Hunter et al., 2007; Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, & DeAntoni, 2004). Indeed, many colleges and universities have developed UREs as research career promotion programs (Seymour al., 2004) for improving undergraduate student retention and graduation in STEM disciplines and as a means of recruiting undergraduate students, especially those from underrepresented groups, into graduate studies in STEM areas. Often, these research career promotion programs are based on the notion that student final career outcomes are composed of many

smaller decisions about further education or professional development. This sequence of educational and professional preparation for careers in science and engineering is termed the pipeline (Burkam & Lee, 2003), and UREs are viewed as a factor influencing student decisions to remain (or exit) the pipeline. For example, many UREs sponsored by the National Science Foundation’s SURF program and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute undergraduate education program are programmatic initiatives for recruiting and retaining students in STEM disciplines with the overarching goal of expanding the STEM pipeline. Despite the increasing awareness and recognition of the positive impacts of UREs on student aspirations for, and choice of, research-oriented careers, especially in STEM disciplines, little is known about the processes through which these benefits or gains are achieved and the specific elements of UREs that contribute to these benefits. Villarejo, Barlow, Kogan, Veazey, and Sweeney (2008) noted that there are only a few available systemic studies of UREs. Further, this research is limited by the lack of clarity and inconclusiveness of studies examining the relationship between the URE and student aspirations for research careers. Villarejo et al. (2008) noted: A weakness common to many of these studies is that the direction of causality is undefined—it is not clear whether students who were interested in research careers elected to participate in UREs or whether UREs influenced students to pursue careers in research. (p. 395) Similarly, there is a paucity of research on the manner in which UREs influence student career aspirations

and the elements of UREs that have the most impact on student career choices. Also, there appears to be no clear delineation between the effects of URE processes versus structures on student aspirations for graduate education and careers in research fields. The authors of the current study are unaware of studies examining the processes through which UREs influence student career decisions and aspirations for graduate education. Although the study by Seymour and colleagues (2004) provided detailed information about the benefits and gains of UREs, the authors did not highlight the processes through which these gains were achieved. Taken together, these identified gaps in the literature suggest the need for research that identifies the structures (or elements) and processes of UREs that are most meaningful for student career aspirations. Understanding these processes will contribute to the body of literature on best practices for preparing and training undergraduate students for future careers in STEM research.

Purpose of the current study The purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate how UREs influence students’ education and career aspirations. In particular, we are interested in exploring and identifying (1) the processes through which UREs influence students’ perceptions, motivations, and aspirations for graduate education and future research oriented careers and (2) the specific elements of the undergraduate research experience that enhance student career choices. Thus the research questions guiding the study are (1) What are the processes through which UREs influence student career decisions? and (2) What are the elements of the experience that catalyze or contribute to these processes? In this study, we

define processes as the mechanisms or variables (i.e., short- and midterm outcomes) that link or connect participation in UREs with the long-term outcomes (i.e., enhanced aspiration for graduate education and research careers in STEM disciplines). As such, we view processes as possible mediators of the relationship between the URE program and its intended overarching outcome.

Methods Participant description Data for this study came from the students that participated in a STEMfocused URE program in a midwestern Research I university in the spring semester of the 2009/2010 academic year. The URE program was designed to involve undergraduate students in faculty-mentored interdisciplinary STEM research with the overarching goal of enhancing their aspirations for graduate education and future careers in STEM research fields. To apply for an internship, students were required to have a minimum GPA of 3.0 and sophomore class standing. Students worked for 4–10 hours per week in their faculty mentor’s laboratory for 16 weeks; the scope and nature of the research projects varied according to discipline, mentor, and student interest. The students also participated in a one-credit-unit seminar class that exposed them to issues related to interdisciplinary research conduct and processes. Class assignments for the seminar class included three reflective journal entries that encouraged students to reflect on their learning experiences in the URE. The semester culminated in a poster session that provided students the opportunity to convey their research findings to lay and scientific audiences. A total of 28 students participated in the URE program in the spring semester of 2010, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2012

83

research

and

teaching

TABLE 1 Characteristics of participants. Descriptions

Spring 2010 program journal participants (n = 25)

Gender Male Female

8 17

Academic standing Sophomore Junior Senior Academic major Engineering and technology Science (including health sciences and agriculture ) Previous research experience Yes No Preparticipation aspiration for graduate education Yes No

out of which 25 completed the reflective assignments. Table 1 describes the characteristics of the participants in the URE program in spring 2010.

Research design The nature of the research questions and the small sample size necessitated a qualitative research design. Specifically, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study (Sandelowski, 2000) to generate a categorical summary of the processes and elements of the URE identified by participants and their relationships to student career choices. Qualitative description is “one of the most frequently employed methodological approaches” in studying professional development through practice in a field (Sandelowski, 2000, p. 335). Qualitative descriptive studies are well suited to answering questions about the practical impacts or implications of an event or an experience on people’s perception and meaning 84

Journal of College Science Teaching

10 9 6 8 17 24 1 24 1

making (Sandelowski, 2000), such as those posed in this study, and do not seek to generate widely applicable theory. Like the current study, the goals of qualitative descriptive studies are “to present a detailed description” of the views and perceptions of a group of participants and to minimize unnecessary interpretation (Artinian, 1988, p. 138). Qualitative descriptive studies strive to “offer a comprehensive summary” of the data and an “accounting of the meanings that participants attributed” to events or experiences (Sandelowski, 2000, p. 336), as such qualitative descriptive studies derive their analysis categories from the data itself rather than preexisting codes, categories, or frameworks.

Data description Data for the study were drawn from reflective journals kept by participants during their URE. Participants were required to complete three

electronic journal entries (via BlackBoard) during their semester-long internship and were provided with prompts for reflections. Although completion of the journal entries was a requirement of the seminar course, students were told that these journals would not be graded for content and that only the course supervisor and researchers would have access to their reflections. The particular assignment that we drew on for this study asked students to reflect on and write about the influence of the URE program on their education and career pathways, including their perceptions of and interests in graduate education and research careers. The data collection instrument for this study was approved by Purdue University’s Institutional Review Board.

Validity of data Reflective journals are “valid” sources of qualitative data that engage learners in becoming aware of their own learning and educational experiences and thus provide “key insights” and rich research data that might be difficult to gather in other ways (Phelps, 2005, pp. 41–42). Although reflective journals have been used in URE research (e.g., Adedokun & Burgess, 2011) they are not without limitations. For example, Phelps (2005) noted that reflective journals are self-reported and students often provide responses that they think the teachers or researchers want to read. To establish the validity (i.e., trustworthiness) of the data from student journals, all the 28 spring 2010 interns were asked, in a separate open-ended question, to indicate their perceptions of the reflective journals. Responses to this question were grouped into three categories. The first category, comprised of remarks from 11 interns, indicated that the reflective journal stimulated stu-

dents to think about their roles and development as researchers. The second category consisted of the responses of 5 interns who considered the selfreflective journals as an avenue to track their progress in the internship and to keep records of what they did. The third category of responses came from 3 interns who reported that the self-reflective journals were helpful in expressing the challenges, conflicts, or frustrations that they experienced in the program. In all, student comments suggest that their journal entries were sincere and not just expected responses to a class activity.

Data analysis We conducted conventional qualitative content analysis to synthesize themes from students’ journal entries. Qualitative content analysis, well suited to qualitative descriptive studies (Sandelowski, 2000), has been used extensively to study how students develop as professionals in their fields (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). The goal of conventional content analysis is to describe the experiences of participants directly from their own statements (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Data analysis for this study involved iterative and interactive phases of analysis that are common to qualitative descriptive studies using the method of conventional content analysis as follows: (1) repeated reading of the data; (2) tagging and highlighting of key words or phrases in the data that represent common or important concepts; and (3) data organization and reorganization through coding, categorization and refining of categories, and relating and making connections among identified categories and themes to construct a parsimonious description of participant experiences (Baptiste, 2001; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).

Three researchers participated in the qualitative content analysis with the goal of documenting the meaning ascribed by participants to their UREs (Altheide, 1987). The data were coded for content that described participants’ statements in three general areas: (1) their perceptions of how the URE influenced their education and career plans, (2) their attitude toward graduate study, and (3) their view of research and research careers. Student statements that addressed these three areas were assigned descriptive codes and sorted into emergent categories. This first round of analysis produced categories describing the influences of the URE on student education and career decisions. For example, one of these categories was termed “know more career options” and included statements indicating that the URE had made students more aware of their postgraduate options; another was termed change majors and included statements indicating that the URE encouraged students to alter their academic focus. After this initial coding

and categorization, the researchers reexamined the categories and collapsed them into three broader processes of impacts (depicted as Paths A, B, and C in Figure 1). A second analysis of this same data set was conducted to identify and describe the elements of the URE that students mentioned as contributing to each of the previously identified impacts. Student statements were again given descriptive codes and sorted into emergent categories. This analysis produced several distinct elements of the URE that students linked to changes in their career plans (depicted as Boxes A, B, and C in Figure 1). These elements included, for example, interpersonal relationships with mentors and peers and the development of technical skills.

Findings This study was designed to answer two questions: (1) What are the processes through which UREs influence student career decisions? and (2) What are the elements of the experience that catalyze or contribute to these

FIGURE 1 Paths through which undergraduate research experiences influenced students’ education and career aspirations. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Vol. 42, No. 1, 2012

85

research

and

teaching

processes? Analysis of student reflective journals revealed three primary processes through which UREs influence student aspirations for graduate education and careers in STEM areas. As depicted in Figure 1, PA illustrates increased awareness of STEM career options, PB represents clarification of preferred career pathways, and PC reflects enhancement of student professional credentials for careers and graduate education in STEM areas (e.g., medical school). The analysis also revealed specific elements of the URE that catalyzed each of the

identified processes. For the sake of clarity, the elements of the URE associated with processes PA, PB, and PC are labeled and described in boxes A, B, and C, respectively. The processes, their related elements, and supporting data are discussed next. Table 2 provides frequencies for each category and additional verbatim responses to support the categories and assertions created in the analysis.

Path PA: Increased awareness of career options Path PA describes the process through

which UREs provide students with opportunities to become aware of previously unknown STEM-related career options, thereby influencing their career choices. Specifically, the data revealed that, during their URE, students were able to increase their awareness of career options through opportunities to establish professional, academic, and social networks with professors and graduate students (Figure 1, Box A). Fifteen students mentioned that their professional and social interactions with senior researchers (i.e., gradu-

TABLE 2 Frequencies and exemplar quotes for identified pathways and associated elements. Paths PA: Increased awareness of career options

Contributing elements Network, relationship, community support

PB: Career clarification

Enhanced research confidence and skills

Development of research identity

Positive

Frequencies 15

10

10

Examples “I am still currently working with my research advisor on understanding and studying about different graduate programs.” “I have also learned about the many different opportunities that I could pursue through graduate studies.” “I have learned a variety of new research techniques this semester that I know will help me in my future scientific endeavors.” “I really feel that I grew as a scientist this semester, and that I am now more qualified for future scientific occupation.” “I thought research was boring and definitely not something that I would be interested in. It didn’t take long before I was hooked, though, and realized that I truly love research.” “The more that I am immersed in my studies the more I realize that my passion for research is something that separates me from my peers in my field and that it is something that I am good at.”

Negative

PC: Enhancement of students’ professional credentials

Recommendations, techniques, presentations, publications, awards, fellowships, networks

9

15

“I still really like research, but I am not as excited about living and breathing the project.” “I find that being in a lab is pretty undesirable to me, as well as seeing the stress that graduate students are under seems also undesirable.” “I presented the poster at a general undergraduate research poster session in addition to the DURI poster session . . . [my] professor has listed me as a coauthor on a paper for the . . . High Performance Buildings Conference this summer.” “Knowing all of these new techniques will make me more desirable for employers as well, which is very good in today’s economy.”

86

Journal of College Science Teaching

ate students, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty) provided them with information regarding possible postgraduation career and education pathways. For example, one student stated: Working under [my faculty mentor] throughout this year has helped me see all the opportunities that wait for someone willing to put in the effort of [i.e., efforts required for] graduate school and postdoctoral work. Similarly, 4 of the 15 participants in this category mentioned that they identified their “real interests” and decided to change their majors in order to pursue their newfound career interests. For example, a student stated: I started this experience as a chemistry and chemical engineering double major with plans on going into industry and doing medical disease or pharmaceuticals research. I am now in the process of switching majors to become an interdisciplinary science major and have emphasizes [sic] in statistics and public health. Another student mentioned that a mentor–mentee relationship with graduate students in his lab provided him with opportunities to learn about the career options open to those with a graduate degree: I have had the opportunity to meet many different graduate students during my internship. This has helped me better understand how the work for graduate students is done and what their schedule is like. I have also learned about the many different opportunities that

I could pursue through graduate studies. The research experience also provided students with opportunities to bridge the gap between their academic knowledge and its application in the real world. Some students participated in science and engineering projects that provided services to patients, students, customers, or clients. These experiences increased students’ awareness of opportunities for service-related careers in STEM fields. This finding is best illustrated with the example of an intern who discovered nontraditional career paths and options in medicine: In the beginning I was assuming that I would go through my undergraduate years and then head straight to medical school because that was the only path I knew. I thought that I needed to be working directly with patients and that research would be boring and noninteractive. After spending time working with a research project and seeing how much excitement actually comes from the hands-on development of a project, I now know that it [research] is an intriguing profession. I’ve always planned on taking the traditional route to medical school but now I plan to attend a year of graduate school in between my undergraduate courses and medical school . . . preferably doing some type of psychological research, as I wait to hear back from the medical schools I applied to. If I hadn’t taken the DURI internship I would not know that there were other options.

Path PB: Career clarification

The research experience also influenced student career and educational aspirations through career clarifica-

tion (PB). The data suggest that the experience provided students with opportunities to clarify their career choices—that is, the experience helped some students to confirm their interests in research careers and discouraged other students from pursuing research careers. For example, one student summarized the effect of the URE on her career pathway: “This internship has probably played a part in helping me see what I really wanted to do.” The impact of the URE on career clarification is evident in the experience of another intern who made the following detailed journal entry: I honestly only decided to join [URE program] because I thought it would look great on my medical school application, especially since I . . . wanted to become an oncologist. I thought research was boring and definitely not something that I would be interested in. . . . It didn’t take long before I was hooked, though, and realized that I truly love research. I had a big life decision to make . . . everyone that knew me knew I wanted to become a doctor. I felt that I would be letting them down if I changed career plans. . . . Finally, I realized that I had to make my decision for me. . . . For me, I now know that this is research. Instead of medical school, in the fall I will be starting a program to earn a master’s degree in biology and biotechnology.  After completion of the program, I would like to work in the pharmaceutical field, researching future potential cancer therapeutics and treatments. To think of how different my life may be had I not joined my reVol. 42, No. 1, 2012

87

research

and

teaching

search lab or the [URE] program is unbelievable to me. The analysis revealed two elements of the UREs that contributed to career clarification. First, the URE provided students with authentic research activities and hands-on opportunities to develop their research confidence and skills; this helped them to see that they can do what researchers do. For example, a student mentioned that “I really feel that I grew as a scientist this semester, and that I am now more qualified for future scientific occupation.” Second, the URE allowed students opportunities to develop a research identity. Most of the students reported that their UREs assisted them in building a positive view of themselves as a researcher thereby stimulating (and in some cases confirming) their interests and aspirations for graduate research education and careers in STEM disciplines. For example, a female student enthusiastically said, “I want to be a strong, American, woman researcher, and inspire other young girls as I have been inspired by my graduate student advisor. (And I am not normally this patriotic!)” However, some students (eight) reported that their participation in UREs led them to realize that they are not cut out for graduate education and/ or careers in research-oriented fields. For example, one student said, “From this research experience, I was able to determine that I wouldn’t like to pursue research as a career.” For three of these students, their disinterest in research careers stemmed from interactions with faculty mentors and graduate students, particularly the opportunities to see firsthand the demands and levels of commitment required to be successful in graduate education and research careers. Ac 88

Journal of College Science Teaching

cording to a student in this category, “Conducting academic research is a huge time commitment. . . . I do dislike the repetitive tasks that are associated with a lot of research projects.” Moreover, four students mentioned that the URE helped them to realize that their initial interest was not in “pure” or laboratory research per se, but in the application of research. For example, one student said: This internship has probably played a part in helping me see what I really wanted to do. . . . [I] want to be able to provide new information and techniques when it comes to production and marketing in the horticultural field to benefit the company that I will work for. Additionally, one female student’s research experience confirmed a negative stereotype of science and engineering researchers that prevented her from developing a positive research identity. She was unable to see any congruence between her life goals and the life of a research scientist and said, “Starting a family is very important to me also. I am not one of those women who want to have kids when they are in their thirties or forties. . . . Family comes first.”

Path Pc: Enhancement of student professional credentials The research experience also influenced student aspirations for further education and future careers in STEM areas through the enhancement of their resume and professional credentials (PC). Students reported that their participation in the URE program helped them to develop professional networks and provided access to resources (e.g., letters of recommendation) that would enhance their re-

sume, employability, and applications to graduate and professional schools. For example, a student attributed his success in securing financial support for graduate studies to participation in the URE. He said: I am fairly certain that my experience at [the URE program] is an important reason why I was awarded the fellowship to pursue a master’s degree. . . . Being able to list [participation in the program] as a past experience makes an undergraduate stand out from the masses, and I am glad [my] professor got me started in the program. It’s also a good place for a letter of recommendation. The elements of the URE that contributed to this process (see Box C) include the opportunity to publish research findings or present at conferences and opportunities to interact with faculty mentors. For example, 16 students mentioned that they have obtained an authorship or coauthorship in publications, presentations, or have received awards for their work. Such experiences improve student standings during the competition to obtain entry into graduate programs, especially medical schools. Similarly, the opportunity to network with faculty provided access to financial support for graduate education. For example, a student mentioned that his faculty mentor offered him a funded graduate position to continue the work he started during his URE.

Summary and conclusion The goal of this study was to investigate how UREs influence students’ education and career plans. We were interested in identifying the processes and (respective or matching) structures or elements of UREs that influ-

ence student career aspirations. The results of the study provide insight into student experiences in undergraduate research programs, especially the processes through which the learning experiences may influence their aspirations for graduate education and careers in STEM areas. Unlike other studies that focus on enhanced aspirations as a benefit of UREs, our study highlights the following processes through which UREs influence student decisions about their future career and educational opportunities: increased awareness of STEM career options, career clarification, and enhancement of student professional credentials. The study also identified the factors that catalyze these processes. The opportunities for professional and academic networks and relationships and community support emerged as factors that catalyze the process of increased awareness of career options. Development and enhancement of research confidence and research identity promote career clarification. Finally, opportunities to obtain letters of recommendation to support applications to graduate schools; presentations at conferences and meetings; and publications, awards, and fellowships emerged as factors that promote the enhancement of student professional credentials. These findings, though important, should be interpreted with caution, as findings may be specific to the program described in this study. This study used qualitative data from 25 students participating in one URE program; hence, the results cannot be generalized beyond the scope and context of the study. For example, a similar study in another context may identify other processes and respective catalyzing factors that were not reported in the current study. Also, the lack of a comparison group hinders us from clarify-

ing whether students who choose or show interest in UREs already have predispositions to graduate education and research careers. The limitations notwithstanding, the results of this study offer insight into how UREs benefit students: UREs provide them with information regarding possible future career choices, help them to clarify their career options, and enhance their professional credentials. Notably, the three processes of the effect of UREs on student careers identified in this study have been reported by other researchers as benefits or gains of undergraduate research experiences. That is, the processes identified here are not only gains but potential mechanisms for the achievement of other gains. In a sense, these processes seem to be mediators or medium-term program outcomes that connect participation in UREs with its overarching goal of enhancing student aspirations and choice of research-oriented STEM careers. Our findings thus support Hunter and colleagues’ (2007) assertions that faculty and student participants in their study “saw the pragmatic benefits of research experiences in preparing students for work or graduate education as ancillary rather than primary gains” (p. 61). On the basis of the findings of the current study and Hunter et al. (2007), we suspect that the effect of UREs on career aspiration is an indirect rather than a direct effect. Further studies using larger samples and advanced statistical techniques including path analysis and structural equation modeling will help to clarify this suspected relationship. Additionally, longitudinal studies are needed to hypothesize and estimate some or all of the paths identified in this study and to examine the possible logical and sequential relationships among the outcomes of UREs. The findings of this study hold important implications for future re-

search. Understanding the processes of the effect of UREs on student aspirations for STEM careers and identifying the particular elements that catalyze the processes will help in designing and implementing successful URE programs that could be replicated across campuses to expand the STEM career pipeline. The results show that the relationships that students build during their UREs are just as important as their experiences performing research in the field or laboratory. Through these relationships, students acquire the knowledge and networks needed to pursue research-oriented careers. Such relationships are essential for interns to acquire information related to their areas. Additionally, it is important that students build personal relationships with their research mentors (at both the graduate and faculty level) so that they can understand that their mentors have responsibilities and attachments outside of their research interests. Put together, the study suggests that participant aspirations for graduate studies were influenced not only by personal interests and the structural elements of their UREs, but also by the dynamics of the social and professional interactive processes taking place within these experiences. Thus, it is important for evaluators and researchers, when describing the influences of UREs on aspirations, to distinguish between the effects of the structural elements and the process elements. There is the need for further studies that dig deeper into how the structures of UREs vary and how these variations affect student outcomes. Finally, this study indicates that acquisition of the professional benchmarks associated with research such as publications, recommendations, awards, presentations, and fellowships are critical to students’ career and graduate education decisions. Vol. 42, No. 1, 2012

89

research

and

teaching

Future research should explore how to successfully integrate these experiences into UREs. n References Adedokun, O. A., & Burgess, W. D. (2011). Uncovering student preconceptions of undergraduate research experiences. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5/6), 12–22. Adedokun, O. A., Dyehouse, M., Bessenbacher, A., & Burgess, W. D. (2010, April). Exploring faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of mentoring undergraduate research. Poster presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, Colorado. Ahlm, K. (1997). A researcher’s guide to key assessment principles and techniques. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 18, 70–72. Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10, 65–77. Artinian, B. A. (1988). Qualitative modes of inquiry. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10, 138–149. Baptiste, I. (2001). Qualitative data analysis: Common phases, strategic differences. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2(3). Retrieved from http:// www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~kmacd/ IDSC10/Readings/Data%20analysis/ QDA.pdf Bauer, K. W., & Bennett, J. S. (2003). Alumni perceptions used to assess undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 210–230. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blue print for America’s research universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York. Burkam, D. T., & Lee, V. (2003). 90

Journal of College Science Teaching

Mathematics, foreign language, and science coursetaking and the NELS: 88 transcript data (NCES No. 2006-327). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Davis, D. S., & Glazier, D. (1997). How do we evaluate undergraduate research? Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 18, 73–76. Dolan. E., & Johnson, D. (2009). Toward a holistic view of undergraduate research experiences: An exploratory study of impact on graduate/ postdoctoral mentors. Journal of Science Education Technology, 18, 487–500. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112. Halstead, J. A. (1997). What is undergraduate research? Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 1390–1391. Hathaway R. S., Nagda, B. A., & Gregerman, S. R. (2002). The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 614–631. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91, 36–74. Kardash, C. M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns

and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 191–201. National Science Foundation. (2003, August). Enhancing research in the chemical sciences at predominantly undergraduate institutions (Report from the Undergraduate Research Summit). Lewiston, ME: Bates College. Phelps, R. (2005). The potential of reflective journals in studying complexity “in action.” Complexity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 2, 37–54 Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316(5824), 548–549. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 334–340. Seymour, E. L., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S., & De Antoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates: First findings from a three-year study. Science education, 88, 493–594. Villarejo, M., Barlow, A. E. L., Kogan, D., Veazey, B. D., & Sweeney, J. K. (2008). Encouraging minority undergraduates to choose science careers: Career paths survey results. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7, 394–409. Omolola A. Adedokun (oadedok@ purdue.edu) is an assessment specialist, Loran Carleton Parker is an assessment specialist, Ann Bessenbacher is a project coordinator, Amy Childress is a project coordinator, and Wilella Daniels Burgess is the managing director, all at Purdue University’s Discovery Learning Research Center in West Lafayette, Indiana. Dake Zhang is an assistant professor of special education in the Department of Educational Psychology at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Copyright of Journal of College Science Teaching is the property of National Science Teachers Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.