Virtually the same? Evaluating the effectiveness of remote undergraduate research experiences (preprint)

ABSTRACT 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. To address this, we investigated indicators of scientific integration for students who participated in remote life science URE programs in summer 2020. We found that these students experienced gains in their scientific self-efficacy and scientific identity similar to results reported for in-person UREs. We also found that these students perceived high benefits and low costs of doing research at the outset of their programs, and their perceptions did not change despite the remote circumstances. Yet, their perceptions differed by program, indicating that programs differentially affected students’ perceptions of the costs of doing research. Finally, we observed that students with prior research experience made greater gains in self-efficacy and identity, as well as in their perceptions of the alignment of their values with those of the scientific community, in comparison to students with no prior research experience. This finding suggests that additional programming may be needed for undergraduates with no prior experience to benefit from remote research.

"How do we do this at a distance?!" A descriptive study of remote undergraduate research programs during COVID-19 (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic shut down undergraduate research programs across the U.S. Twenty-three sites offered remote undergraduate research programs in the life sciences during summer 2020. Given the unprecedented offering of remote research experiences, we carried out a study to describe and evaluate these programs. 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 the perspectives of participating students. Strengths included the quality of mentorship, opportunities for learning and professional development, and development of a sense of 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 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.