Recommended Citation: Southwell, Melissa, Madeleine Doiron. 2025. Can a Hands-On Introduction to Research Increase Motivation to Participate? Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (2): 43-54. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/2/3
Journal Articles
Journal
Analyzing Student Perspectives: Undergraduate Research Experiences and Career Readiness Development
Recommended Citation: Burt, Cora, Joseph Wirgau, John Brummette. 2025. Analyzing Student Perspectives: Undergraduate Research Experiences and Career Readiness Development. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (2): 36-42. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/2/6
Multiple Mentors’ Competency and Undergraduate Researchers’ Science Identity
Recommended Citation: Avondet, Callie L., Yolanda Chavez, Sara E. Grineski, Danielle X. Morales, Timothy W. Collins. 2025. Multiple Mentors’ Competency and Undergraduate Researchers’ Science Identity. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (2): 21-35. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/2/1
Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) are central to science education in the United States (Adedokun et al. 2013; Kuh 2008; Shanahan et al. 2015). During these experiences, faculty and sometimes postgraduates (graduate students or postdoctoral fellows) mentor undergraduate researchers. UREs happen for various durations throughout the year. These experiences help students become part of the science community, and participation bolsters their science identity, which is comprised of both science personal-identity and science social-identity (Camacho et al. 2021; Morales, Grineski, and Collins 2021). Science personal-identity is an individual’s adoption and perception of themselves as a scientist (Camacho et al. 2021; Estrada, Hernandez, and Schultz 2018). Science social-identity refers to a student’s sense of belonging and prioritization of contributing to the scientific community (Camacho et al. 2021). Students with stronger science identities, whether personal or social, are more likely to enter a science occupation (Stets et al. 2017).
The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States disrupted many UREs. In 2020, illness and social distancing requirements forced students out of the lab, ending or changing many UREs (Speer, Lyon, and Johnson 2021). Research conducted before COVID-19 demonstrated that mentorship played important roles in undergraduate researchers’ development (Byars-Winston et al. 2015; Camacho et al. 2021; Collins et al. 2017; Morales et al. 2021). Since then, research has shown the continued importance of faculty mentorship during the COVID-19 pandemic (Speer et al. 2021).
Faculty mentorship directly influences undergraduates’ growth from their research experiences. Mentors provide essential guidance throughout the research process and sometimes help their protégés enter science careers by helping them define their research and career interests and navigate the next steps for graduate school or the job market. To measure effective mentorship, Fleming et al. (2013) created the Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA). The MCA consists of 26 questions that undergraduate researchers answer about their mentor(s). It includes six categories: “maintaining effective communication, aligning expectations, assessing understanding, addressing diversity, fostering independence, and promoting professional development” (p. 1003). Scholars have previously used the MCA to assess faculty mentorship in UREs. Before COVID-19, higher faculty mentor competency was positively associated with higher science personal-identity gains among undergraduate researchers (Morales et al. 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, studies using the MCA showed that mentor competency was significantly associated with undergraduate researchers’ graduate school intentions and even mental health (Grineski, Morales, and Collins 2024).
Frequently, faculty engage postgraduates to mentor undergraduate students. An unpublished study reported that 44 percent of students engaging in summer UREs at US universities had a postgraduate mentor (Chavez et al. in review). The literature on these mentorship contributions is minimal. When examined, the literature more often has focused on postgraduates’ presence than their competence, and reports are mixed on their influence. Some studies report that undergraduate mentees who predominantly communicate with a postgraduate mentor have less contact with their faculty mentor, reducing undergraduate students’ gains compared to students who communicate regularly with both their postgraduate and faculty mentors (Aikens et al. 2016; Joshi, Aikens, and Dolan 2019). Morales, Grineski, and Collins (2018) found that students with a faculty and postgraduate mentor had the lowest gains (regardless of mentor-mentee gender concordance) compared to students with only a faculty mentor. However, another study found the opposite. When controlling for communication patterns within a triad, an undergraduate who is directly mentored by both a faculty mentor and postgraduate mentor, who all communicate together, experience the highest gains (Aikens et al. 2016). Two qualitative studies have explored the key competencies for postgraduate mentors (Ahn and Cox 2016) and the benefits and drawbacks of postgraduate mentorship (Mabrouk and Remijan 2023). These studies provide insight into how postgraduate mentorship affects UREs, but there is currently no study, to the authors’ knowledge, that has systematically evaluated postgraduate mentor competency in UREs.
COVID-19 changed mentorship practices in URE, as most traditional in-person lab interactions ceased in late spring 2020 and then slowly restarted near the close of 2020 and into 2021. Studies have not fully clarified the implications of the global pandemic on undergraduate researchers. Research has shown that many students reported stronger relationships with their research advisers due to the pandemic and the move to virtual mentorship, partially because of the informality associated with video calling (Speeret al. 2021). However, COVID-19 also magnified challenges with negative mentorship. Students with less competent mentors (faculty or postgraduate) were less motivated to pursue a graduate degree in science because of COVID-19 (Morales, Grineski, and Collins 2022). Grineski et al. (2022) found that over two-thirds of students still doing research late in the spring 2020 semester experienced task uncertainty and motivation issues. Furthermore, Grineski et al. (2021) found that each negative COVID-19 research impact that students experienced was associated with increased depression and anxiety symptoms. It is not known how mentorship quality and structure during COVID-19 was associated with undergraduate student science personal-identity and social-identity.
In studying student science identities, it is recognized that identities are fundamental sources of motivation and that they are both personally and socially constructed (Byars-Winston et al. 2016; Camacho et al. 2021; Carlone and Johnson 2007; Kim, Sinatra, and Seyranian 2018). Science identity is considered a personal and social construct because previous identity research shows that both social and personal identification make up an individual’s identities (Camacho et al. 2021; Kim et al. 2018; Tajfel and Turner 1986). To give an example, Carlone and Johnson (2007) explain that the science identity of women of color in STEM fields is based on both self-recognition (often because of personal interests and goals) and others’ recognition (or lack thereof). This underscores the importance of considering both the personal and the social science identities. Although it may be more common to consider science identity as a personal or individual process, Kim and colleagues (2018) argue that considering social identities “expand[s] our thinking to include the role played by other people in the environment in the creation and maintenance of ingroups and outgroups and the view of STEM identity development as a community-oriented and socially situated process” (612). Read together, this understanding of the social and personal aspects of identity formation point to their mutually reinforcing yet distinct roles in overall science identity formation. As Camacho et al. (2021) noted, “personal and social identities can shape a student’s educational experience and decision to pursue a career in science” (2). In line with their work, both science personal-identity and science social-identity will be examined. Studying mentor competency in relation to science personal-identity helps clarify that mentorship can help students understand how science fits with their interests and goals. Similarly, evaluating a relationship between mentor competency and science social-identity provides greater insights into how mentors can advance students’ sense of belonging within STEM.
Accordingly, the following questions were addressed: How does faculty and postgraduate mentoring competency affect undergraduate researchers’ science personal-identity and science social-identity? How did COVID-19 affect undergraduate researchers’ science personal-identity and science social-identity?
Answering these questions addresses gaps in the literature. The first contribution looks at mentor competency of both faculty and postgraduate mentors within mentoring triads. Although it is well known that many students work with postgraduate mentors, more knowledge is needed about how they shape student growth and development. Second, the effects of COVID-19 research challenges on undergraduate student science identities is evaluated. Science identity is an important predictor for student persistence in STEM fields (Estrada et al. 2018; Merolla and Serpe 2013), however it is not yet known how COVID-19 influenced this. It is important to document the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on students. Results can inform future decision-making about UREs during global or local crises. They also will help undergraduate research program directors and faculty mentors better support student development in adverse conditions (Burns, Dagnall, and Holt 2020; Grineski, Morales, and Collins 2023).
Methods
Survey data collected from students at 18 US universities about their research experiences and opportunities during spring and summer 2020 were analyzed. The research team connected with undergraduate research program directors through the National Institutes of Health’s BUILDing SCHOLARS URE program and by soliciting participants on the Council on Undergraduate Research’s LISTSERV. Some of the program directors who responded ran several programs at their institution, and others helped connect the research team to other research programs at their institution (Grineski et al. 2023, 2021, 2022; Morales et al., 2022, 2024).
The 18 program directors cooperating with the study sent the survey link to 2,237 qualified students. The response rate was 54.5 percent. The survey included 160 questions (excluding contact information). It took approximately 30 minutes. This analysis included only students who participated in research in spring 2020 (some also participated during summer 2020) and had at least one faculty mentor (n = 841). The project was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board (#00133477).
Variables
Table 1 lists coding of all variables, including the survey questions used to create the variables, and Table 2 contains descriptive statistics for variables in the analyses. More detail on the survey questions can be found in the supplemental material. The dependent variables are science personal-identity and science social-identity. The independent variables are faculty mentor competency, postgraduate mentor competency, and COVID-19 research disruptions. There was a continuous variable for faculty mentor competency and a dichotomous variable for postgraduate mentor competency based on above and below median competency. Above median was referred to as “high” competency and below median as “low” competency. Postgraduate mentor competency was dichotomized because not all students had a postgraduate mentor. The postgraduate mentor mean MCA score was 4.10 (standard deviation: 0.8; range: 1.27–5; descriptive statistics not shown in Table 2). Then, to examine the intersection of faculty and postgraduate mentor competency, a dichotomous variable was created for faculty mentor competency (also based on the median) and cross-classified with postgraduate mentor competency. This yielded six categories (see Figure 1). These categories referenced whether the mentors were high competency (HC) or low competency (LC) and if the student was in a mentoring dyad or triad. Dyads referred to mentoring relationships between one faculty member and one student. Triads referred to relationships including one faculty mentor, one postgraduate mentor, and one undergraduate student. Control variables were known to be associated with outcomes, including GPA, communication frequency with faculty mentor, grade, major, race/ethnicity, previous research experience, gender, sexual minority status, first-generation student status, and research conducted during summer 2020.





Statistical Methods
After running descriptive statistics (Table 2), multiple imputation was performed because failure to account for missing values could introduce additional bias into the research and result in less statistical power (Sterne et al. 2009). Utilizing STATA 16, 20 data sets with 200 iterations between each estimated data set were imputed.
Then generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were performed, which extended the generalized linear model to clustered data. Because students from the same universities likely had similar experiences, not accounting for clustering would violate the independence assumption of generalized linear models (Hardin and Hilbe 2013). Students at the same university were placed into a cluster. GEEs assumed each cluster (rather than each case) was independent of each other (Collins et al. 2017; Hardin and Hilbe 2013). Similar models have been used in other studies of undergraduate research (Collins et al. 2017; Grineski et al. 2018, 2022; Morales et al. 2022). There were a total of 256 clusters in the analysis. When testing for GEE model fit, the inverse Gaussian distribution with a log link fit both science personal- and social-identity models best compared to normal or gamma with a log or identity link and inverse Gaussian distribution with an identity link.
Using the multiply imputed data, three GEEs were run for each dependent variable. Model 1 examines faculty and postgraduate mentor competency as separate variables. Models 2 and 3 consider faculty and postgraduate mentor competency combined. These models were run twice, rotating the reference from LC-LC triad (Model 2) to HC-HC triad (Model 3). Using both the most competent and least competent categories as the reference showed the differences between two mentorship extremes.
Results
Science Personal-Identity
Table 3 presents Model 1 results for science personal-identity. Faculty mentor competency was significantly associated with higher scores. Students who rated their faculty mentors to be 1 point more competent had 2.7 percent higher personal science identity scores (p = 0.003). Above-median competency postgraduate mentors were associated with higher science personal-identity scores relative to students working with postgraduate mentors who had below-median competency scores (p = 0.018). There were no significant differences in science personal-identity for those with no postgraduate mentor versus one with low competency. Additionally, having many COVID-19 research impacts or a canceled research experience had no significant impact on science personal-identity compared to students who had few COVID-19 disruptions.


Table 4 presents results for Model 2, which used 6 mentorship competency combinations with an LC-LC triad as the reference category. Students in an HC-LC triad were found to have 11.0 percent higher science personal-identity scores than those in an LC-LC triad (p = 0.006). The same held true for students in an LC-HC triad; they had science personal-identity scores that were 12.2 percent higher (p = 0.002). This meant that students in triads with at least one adviser rated above the median were associated with higher personal-identity scores than when both mentors were below-median competency. Students in an HC-HC triad also had scores that were 11.0 percent higher (p = 0.003).

Model 3 (Table 4) shows the association between mentor competency and science personal-identity compared to students in an HC-HC triad. Students in an HC dyad had 6.2 percent lower science personal-identity scores than those in an HC-HC triad (p = 0.006). Students in an LC dyad had 9.2 percent lower scores than students in an HC-HC triad (p < 0.001). Consistent with the findings in Model 2, students in an LC-LC triad had significantly reduced science personal-identity relative to the HC-HC triad group (p = 0.003).
Science Social-Identity
In Model 1 (Table 3), both faculty mentor competency and postgraduate competency were significant (p < 0.05) for science social-identity. When faculty mentors were rated 1 point higher on the MCA, students reported science social-identity scores 6.3 percent higher. Students whose postgraduate mentor was at or above the median competency had an approximately 7.1 percent higher science social-identity score than their peers with a below-median competency postgraduate mentor. There were no significant differences in science social-identity for those with no postgraduate mentor versus one with below median competency. Students with many COVID-19 research disruptions or with canceled research experiences had no significant difference in science social-identity compared to students with few disruptions.
In Model 2 for science social-identity (Table 3), every mentorship combination except an LC dyad was significantly positively associated with higher science social-identity scores compared to an LC-LC triad. Students in an HC dyad had 13.8 percent higher social-identity scores than students in an LC-LC triad (p < 0.001). Students in an HC-LC triad had 16.2 percent higher social-identity scores than those in an LC-LC triad (p = 0.002). In an HC-HC triad, students reported 14.4 percent higher social-identity scores than those in an LC-LC triad (p < 0.001). When students were in an LC-HC triad, they had about 18.6 percent higher social-identity scores than their peers in an LC-LC triad (p < 0.001).
In contrast (Model 3, Table 4), if students had one mentor at or above median competency (i.e., HC-LC triad or LC-HC triad) there were no significant differences in science social-identity compared to an HC-HC triad. Students in an LC dyad had about 90 percent lower science social-identity scores than peers in an HC-HC triad (p = 0.001). Students in an LC-LC triad reported about 12.6 percent lower social-identity scores than their peers in an HC-HC triad (p < 0.001). This was the reverse of the finding already noted in Model 2.
Control Variables
Model 1 shows several significant control variables for each dependent variable. Students with engineering (exp(B) = 0.965, p = 0.041), health (exp(B) = 0.932, p = 0.012), social and behavioral science (exp(B) = 0.891, p <0.001), math, computer science, and physical science (exp(B) = 0.956, p = 0.043), and other (exp(B) = 0.743 p ≤ 0.001) majors were more likely to report lower science personal-identity scores than their life science major peers. Experienced (two-plus semesters of research) undergraduate researchers reported about 3.4 percent higher personal-identity scores than their peers with less experience (p = 0.025). For science social-identity, transgender or gender-nonconforming (TGNC) students were more likely to report lower science social-identity scores than men (exp(B) = 0.826, p = 0.013). Students with an “other” major reported 28.9 percent lower science social-identity scores than their life science major peers (p ≤0.001). Students who conducted research in summer 2020 had scores that were 5.0 percent higher than those who did not (p = 0.004).
Discussion
This study evaluated the ways the quality of multiple mentors affected undergraduate researchers’ science personal-identity and social-identity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research centered both faculty and postgraduate mentor competency; the literature has previously ignored postgraduate mentors or focused mainly on whether or not they mentor. Furthermore, the investigation provides insight into how COVID-19 affected undergraduate researcher outcomes.
For science personal-identity and social-identity, when accounting for faculty mentor competency separately, it was found that undergraduates exhibited higher scores when their postgraduate mentor had an above median mentoring competency (vs. below median). Having no postgraduate mentor versus having one with low competency was not associated with any difference in science personal- or social-identity. This suggests that, although a competent postgraduate mentor is an asset, a weaker postgraduate mentor is not worse than only having a faculty mentor. Others have emphasized that postgraduate mentors contribute to undergraduate students’ science identity formation through their teaching skills, personality, presence, and helping students become more independent (Mabrouk and Remijan 2023). Paired with the findings of this study, this suggests that the benefits of postgraduate mentorship may be generalizable to other contexts.
When cross-classifying faculty and postgraduate mentor competency, it was found that having both mentors, provided at least one mentor was high competency, was associated with higher science personal-identity scores. Every mentorship triad combination was associated with significantly higher science personal-identity scores than the LC-LC triad. Furthermore, the only combinations associated with significantly lower science personal-identity scores than an HC-HC triad were an LC-LC triad and, importantly, both types of dyads, regardless of faculty competency. When predicting science social-identity, the direction and significance of the mentor competency combinations were identical to the findings for science personal-identity with two exceptions. First, an HC dyad was associated with greater science social-identity relative to an LC-LC triad. Second, an HC dyad was statistically equivalent to an HC-HC triad for science social-identity (for personal-identity, the dyad was significant and negative).
These findings, when taken together, emphasize the value of mentoring triads and are consistent with research documenting the benefits of having multiple mentors, especially when students have direct contact with both faculty and postgraduate mentors (Aikens et al. 2016; Joshi et al. 2019). The different types of mentorship offered by faculty and postgraduate students may provide the most value and gains for students’ science personal-identity (Mabrouk and Remijan 2023). Having a postgraduate mentor provides undergraduates with more science connections, possibly boosting students’ science social-identity. Camacho et al. (2021) found that students with a mentor feel more connected to the science community. Having an additional mentor, and therefore more connections, seems unlikely to hurt undergraduate researchers’ sense of community connection. Experience with multiple mentors provides students with positive experiences (Frederick et al. 2021). There is little evidence of a postgraduate “penalty” (Morales et al. 2018). The only time a postgraduate mentor has a significantly negative effect on science identity (personal or social) is when a comparing a low-competency triad to a high-competency triad.
The findings also indicate that students’ science personal-identity and social-identity were not associated with COVID-19 research disruptions. Although not focused on science identities, other studies have found mixed effects in how the pandemic influenced STEM students. For example, the American Association of American Medical Colleges reported a 20 percent increase in medical school applications in 2020 (Marcus 2020). Undergraduate researchers early in the pandemic who experienced more severe COVID-19 life impacts also had posttraumatic growth (i.e., when crises result in positive life changes; Morales et al. 2024). When looking at the outcome of how COVID-19 shaped graduate school intentions, however, having more COVID-19–related challenges in students’ personal lives was associated with decreased motivation (Morales et al. 2022). Taken together, these findings shed light on the complexity of the pandemic’s influence on students’ science trajectories.
The consistency of science identities associated with COVID-19 research challenges is a hopeful finding, given that it is associated with entry into a science career (Stets et al. 2017). Because identity is a “core sense of self” (Jones and McEwen 2000), science personal-identity may be somewhat resistant to change, based on five months of unforeseen circumstances due to COVID-19. There is little research on how science identities change through time to allow triangulation of these findings, but one study analyzing the course of one semester found very little change in science identity for students enrolled in a gateway chemistry course at a major public institution: only 5.6 percent of students experienced a statistically significant change in science identity (Robinson et al. 2019).
This study did include several limitations. “Low-competency” mentors still received high scores on the MCA (faculty < 4 and postgraduate < 4.08 out of 5). This may conflate the negative impacts of true low-competency mentors with mediocre mentors. Another limitation was the questions on the survey. Because there was no control for other factors that might increase science identity (such as public recognition of the importance of research during the pandemic), another effect might have been captured. Findings pertaining to the positive impact of the postgraduate mentor on science personal-identity and science social-identity might be spurious, and instead related to conducting research at a more research-intensive institution that had more graduate students and postdoctoral students. This limitation could not be fully addressed because the survey did not have usable data on where each student completed the URE. Students were clustered by their home institution in the models, accounting for any effects of home institution as a nuisance parameter. However, this remained a limitation because not all students did their URE at their home institution. Also, because data were collected in July 2020, students engaged in summer research were likely still completing their experiences, and those engaged only in spring 2020 research were several months removed from their projects. Students with more significant COVID-19 research impacts may not have been able to take the survey, also skewing the sample.
Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the survey prevented evaluation of students’ science personal-identity and social-identity pre-pandemic and throughout their career. It was not able to be determined whether students with higher science identities chose more competent mentors or whether working with more competent mentors resulted in higher science identities. A presurvey-postsurvey design would have been ideal for evaluating the role of COVID-19 and science identities, but this was not possible given the sudden onset of the pandemic in March 2020. Finally, although the sample included students from across the United States, it might not have captured nationwide regional and local impacts of COVID-19 on undergraduate researchers.
Conclusion
These findings have practical implications for UREs. Most significantly, the study finds that the Morales et al. (2018) postgraduate “penalty” had minimal effect on this group of students for these outcomes at this historical moment. Instead, having a postgraduate mentor was associated with better outcomes. Faculty and program directors should consider involving postgraduate mentors in UREs. Programs can incentivize postgraduate mentorship by providing additional funding for those who take on mentoring roles, explaining to faculty mentors the benefits of postgraduate mentorship for undergraduates, and providing additional resources and supports for postgraduates filling mentorship roles.
Furthermore, the study indicates that mentorship quality is important to student science identities. Providing mentors with training that encourages reflecting on their research mentoring skills, such as Entering Mentoring (Handelsman et al. 2005), will boost mentor competency (Young and Stormes 2020) and potentially student outcomes. Specific to postgraduate mentors, graduate programs may include mentor training in already required pedagogy courses for teaching assistants. Training postgraduates in formal settings expands the number of mentors trained to effectively work with undergraduate students.
Data Availability
The data underlying this study are not publicly available due to student privacy issues. They are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and IRB approval.
Institutional Review Board
This project was approved by the IRB at the University of Utah (#00133477).
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest to declare.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by funding from the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program at the University of Utah awarded to Callie Avondet. It also was supported by the National Science Foundation under linked award nos. 1930558 and 2055379. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Science Foundation.
References
Adedokun, Omolola A., Ann B. Bessenbacher, Loran C. Parker, Lisa L. Kirkham, and Wilella D. Burgess. 2013. “Research Skills and STEM Undergraduate Research Students’ Aspirations for Research Careers: Mediating Effects of Research Self-Efficacy.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50: 940–951. doi: 10.1002/tea.21102
Ahn, Benjamin, and Monica F. Cox. 2016. “Knowledge, Skills, and Attributes of Graduate Student and Postdoctoral Mentors in Undergraduate Research Settings.” Journal of Engineering Education 105: 605–629. doi: 10.1002/jee.20129
Aikens, Melissa L., Sona Sadselia, Keiana Watkins, Mara Evans, Lillian T. Eby, and Erin L. Dolan. 2016. “A Social Capital Perspective on the Mentoring of Undergraduate Life Science Researchers: An Empirical Study of Undergraduate-Postgraduate-Faculty Triads.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 15(2): ar16. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-10-0208
Burns, Danielle, Neil Dagnall, and Maxine Holt. 2020. “Assessing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Student Wellbeing at Universities in the United Kingdom: A Conceptual Analysis.” Frontiers in Education 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2020.582882
Byars-Winston, Angela, Janet Branchaw, Christine Pfund, Patrice Leverett, and Joseph Newton. 2015. “Culturally Diverse Undergraduate Researchers’ Academic Outcomes and Perceptions of Their Research Mentoring Relationships.” International Journal of Science Education 37: 2533–2554. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1085133
Byars-Winston, Angela, Jenna Rogers, Janet Branchaw, Christine Pribbenow, Ryan Hanke, and Christine Pfund. 2016. “New Measures Assessing Predictors of Academic Persistence for Historically Underrepresented Racial/Ethnic Undergraduates in Science.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 15(3): ar32. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0030
Camacho, Tissyana C., Yolanda Vasquez-Salgado, Gabriela Chavira, David Boyns, Scott Appelrouth, Carrie Saetermoe, and Crist Khachikian. 2021. “Science Identity among Latinx Students in the Biomedical Sciences: The Role of a Critical Race Theory–Informed Undergraduate Research Experience.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 20(2): ar23. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-06-0124
Carlone, Heidi B., and Angela Johnson. 2007. “Understanding the Science Experiences of Successful Women of Color: Science Identity As an Analytic Lens.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44: 1187–1218. doi: 10.1002/tea.20237
Chavez, Yolanda, Sara E. Grineski, Daniel Adkins, Timothy W. Collins, and Danielle X. Morales. In review. “The Impact of Postgraduate Mentors on Undergraduate Research Gains.”
Collins, Timothy W., Sara E. Grineski, Jessica Shenberger, Xiaodan Morales, Osvaldo F. Morera, and Lourdes E. Echegoyen. 2017. “Undergraduate Research Participation Is Associated with Improved Student Outcomes at a Hispanic-Serving Institution.” Journal of College Student Development 58: 583–600. doi: 10.1353/csd.2017.0044
Estrada, Mica, Paul R. Hernandez, and P. Wesley Schultz. 2018. “A Longitudinal Study of How Quality Mentorship and Research Experience Integrate Underrepresented Minorities into STEM Careers.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 17(1): ar9. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066
Fleming, Michael, Stephanie House, Vansa Shewakramani Hanson, Lan Yu, Jane Garbutt, Richard McGee, Kurt Kroenke, Zainab Abedin, and Doris M. Rubio. 2013. “The Mentoring Competency Assessment: Validation of a New Instrument to Evaluate Skills of Research Mentors.” Academic Medicine 88: 1002–1008. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318295e298
Frederick, Angela, Sara E. Grineski, Timothy W. Collins, Heather A. Daniels, and Danielle X. Morales. 2021. “The Emerging STEM Paths and Science Identities of Hispanic/Latinx College Students: Examining the Impact of Multiple Undergraduate Research Experiences.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 20(2): ar18. doi: 10.1187/cbe.20-08-0191
Grineski, Sara, Heather Daniels, Timothy W. Collins, Danielle X. Morales, Angela Frederick, and Marilyn Garcia. 2018. “The Conundrum of Social Class: Disparities in Publishing among STEM Students in Undergraduate Research at a Hispanic Majority Institution.” Science Education 102: 283–303. doi: 10.1002/sce.21330
Grineski, Sara E., Danielle X. Morales, and Timothy W. Collins. 2023. “Modifying Summer Undergraduate Research Programs during COVID-19 Increased Graduate School Intentions but Exacerbated Anxieties.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 22(3): ar32. doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-12-0243
Grineski, Sara E., Danielle X. Morales, Timothy W. Collins, Shawna Nadybal, and Shaylynn Trego. 2021. “Anxiety and Depression among US College Students Engaging in Undergraduate Research during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of American College Health 72: 1–11. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2021.2013237
Grineski, Sara, Danielle X. Morales, Timothy W. Collins, Shawna Nadybal, and Shaylynn Trego. 2022. “A US National Study of Barriers to Science Training Experienced by Undergraduate Students during COVID-19.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 6534. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116534
Handelsman, Jo, Christine Pfund, Sarah Miller Lauffer, and Christine Maidl Pribbenow. 2005. Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching.
Hardin, James W., and Joseph M. Hilbe. 2013. Generalized Estimating Equations. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Jones, Susan R., and Marylu K. McEwen. 2000. “A Conceptual Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity.” Journal of College Student Development 41: 405–414.
Joshi, Megha, Melissa L Aikens, and Erin L Dolan. 2019. “Direct Ties to a Faculty Mentor Related to Positive Outcomes for Undergraduate Researchers.” BioScience 69: 389–397. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biz039
Kim, Ann Y., Gale M. Sinatra, and Viviane Seyranian. 2018. “Developing a STEM Identity among Young Women: A Social Identity Perspective.” Review of Educational Research 88: 589–625. doi: 10.3102/0034654318779957
Kuh, George D. 2008. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington DC.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Mabrouk, Patricia Ann, and Michael Gapud Remijan. 2023. “Critical Traits of Graduate Student Mentors Affecting Students’ Science Identity Development in an NSF-Funded Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program.” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 31: 103–21. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2023.2164988
Marcus, Jon. 2020. “‘Fauci Effect’ Drives Record Number of Medical School Applications.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/07/942170588/fauci-effect-drives-record-numberof-medical-school-applications
Merolla, David M., and Richard T. Serpe. 2013. “STEM Enrichment Programs and Graduate School Matriculation: The Role of Science Identity Salience.” Social Psychology of Education 16: 575–598. doi: 10.1007/s11218-013-9233-7
Morales, Danielle X., Sara E. Grineski, and Timothy W. Collins. 2018. “Effects of Gender Concordance in Mentoring Relationships on Summer Research Experience Outcomes for Undergraduate Students.” Science Education 102: 1029–1050. doi: 10.1002/sce.21455
Morales, Danielle X., Sara E. Grineski, and Timothy W. Collins. 2021. “Effects of Mentoring Relationship Heterogeneity on Student Outcomes in Summer Undergraduate Research.” Studies in Higher Education 46: 423–436. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1639041
Morales, Danielle X., Sara E. Grineski, and Timothy W. Collins. 2022. “Undergraduate Researchers’ Graduate School Intentions during COVID-19.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1508: 137–154. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14698
Morales, Danielle X., Sara E. Grineski, and Timothy W. Collins. 2024. “The Silver Lining of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Undergraduate Research Experiences, Mentorship, and Posttraumatic Growth.” Research in Higher Education 65: 576–599. doi: 10.1007/s11162-023-09763-6
Robinson, Kristy A., Tony Perez, Justin H. Carmel, and Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia. 2019. “Science Identity Development Trajectories in a Gateway College Chemistry Course: Predictors and Relations to Achievement and STEM Pursuit.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 56: 180–192. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.004
Shanahan, Jenny Olin, Elizabeth Ackley-Holbrook, Eric Hall, Kearsley Stewart, and Helen Walkington. 2015. “Ten Salient Practices of Undergraduate Research Mentors: A Review of the Literature.” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 23: 359–376. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1126162
Speer, Julie E., Max Lyon, and Julia Johnson. 2021. “Gains and Losses in Virtual Mentorship: A Descriptive Case Study of Undergraduate Mentees and Graduate Mentors in STEM Research during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 20(2): ar14. doi: 10.1187/cbe.20-06-0128
Sterne, Jonathan A. C., Ian R. White, John B. Carlin, Michael Spratt, Patrick Royston, Michael G. Kenward, Angela M. Wood, and James R. Carpenter. 2009. “Multiple Imputation for Missing Data in Epidemiological and Clinical Research: Potential and Pitfalls.” BMJ 338: b2393. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2393
Stets, Jan E., Philip S. Brenner, Peter J. Burke, and Richard T. Serpe. 2017. “The Science Identity and Entering a Science Occupation.” Social Science Research 64: 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.10.016
Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner. 1986. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. Stephen Worchel and William G. Austin, 7–24. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Young, Kelly A., and Kaitlyn N. Stormes. 2020. “The BUILD Mentor Community at CSULB: A Mentor Training Program Designed to Enhance Mentoring Skills in Experienced Mentors.” Understanding Interventions Journal 11(1). https://www.understandinginterventionsjournal.org/article/12482-the-build-mentor-community-at-csulb-a-mentor-training-program-designed-to-enhance-mentoring-skills-in-experiencedmentors
Sara E. Grineski
University of Utah, sara.grineski@soc.utah.edu
Sara E. Grineski is a professor of sociology at the University of Utah. Her research interests include mentorship, diversity, and undergraduate research.
Callie L. Avondet graduated with undergraduate degrees in sociology and history from the University of Utah in May 2024. She is currently a doctoral student at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champagne. As an undergraduate student, Avondet investigated undergraduate research.
Yolanda Chavez is a PhD student in sociology at the University of Utah. Her research interests include socially marginalized students, mentorship in higher education, and undergraduate research.
Danielle X. Morales is an assistant professor of urban studies at University of Massachusetts Boston. Her research interests include STEM education, undergraduate research, diversity, and mentorship.
Timothy W. Collins is a professor of geography at the University of Utah. His research interests include undergraduate research, mentorship, and diversity.
Reflection, Reflexivity, and Science Identity in an Undergraduate Research Program
Recommended Citation: Mendoza, Rocío, Ann Y. Kim, Gino Galvez, Chi-Ah Chun. 2025. Reflection, Reflexivity, and Science Identity in an Undergraduate Research Program. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (2): 12-20. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/2/2
Student retention and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has been an issue for decades, particularly in undergraduate research experiences (UREs; e.g., Seymour and Hewitt 1997). One aspect of addressing STEM retention is encouraging students to develop a science identity (Schwartz et al. 2010) and understanding URE practices that contribute to successful identity exploration and development and the barriers that impede this process. Science identity can be broadly defined as the ways one perceives oneself to be aligned with or a part of the science community (Carlone and Johnson 2007). Higher levels of science identity are associated with positive outcomes, including academic performance, persistence, matriculation in graduate programs, and entry into the workforce (Chang et al. 2008; Estrada et al. 2011; Robinson et al. 2018). Identifying with science, however, can be more difficult for some students, especially individuals who identify as women, LGBTQ+, or have minoritized racial or ethnic backgrounds (Hughes 2018; Ong et al. 2011). This is due to the often gendered and racialized environments and STEM disciplinary cultures that can further marginalize and isolate students from specific backgrounds (Carter, Razo Dueñas, and Mendoza 2019). Their success in STEM fields depends on the development of their science identity and their other personal identities (Chang et al. 2008; Hurtado et al. 2009; Jackson et al. 2016).
Traditionally, research on science identity development has emphasized the role of conventional research activities. Science identity is expected to grow or strengthen as students acquire knowledge of scientific research methods, hands-on research skills, and professional development experiences, such as research presentations and networking with others at professional conferences. These elements are regarded as best practices for undergraduate research training programs. Authors argue that also central to student development of a science or research identity is having a safe space, support, and guidance to engaging in reflection.
Although reflection has several definitions across fields and disciplines, early ideas of reflection are attributed to John Dewey (1933). They include the following four criteria, as outlined by Rodgers (2002): (a) it is a meaning-making process that helps a person move to deeper levels of understanding; (b) it is systematic and follows a disciplined process; (c) it is communal, meaning that reflection does not happen in isolation, but with others; and (d) it needs to prioritize or value the “intellectual growth of oneself and others” (845). Because undergraduate student identity development is a fluid, nonlinear, and ongoing process (Patton et al. 2016), reflection can be a powerful means for facilitating students’ science or research identity development.
To facilitate reflection on the development of a science or research identity, the authors developed a writing and peer-sharing intervention for an undergraduate research training program (referred to hereafter as the training program) that supports students pursuing research and graduate degrees in the biomedical field. There is a long tradition across fields and disciplines, such as health, social psychology, and education, of using writing exercises to foster reflection. Scholars have facilitated writing exercises to explore psychological well-being (Pennebaker 1997; Walton and Cohen 2011), a sense of belonging in undergraduate education (Jehangir 2010; Walton and Cohen 2007, 2011), and academic achievement (e.g., Cohen et al. 2009; Sherman et al. 2013; Walton and Cohen, 2007; Walton et al. 2015). This article presents the formative evaluation of a reflective writing and peer-sharing intervention through analysis of students’ perceptions of engaging in such an activity. Reflection is essential to the learning process in undergraduate research spaces, where the discussion of personal identities may not be encouraged in academic departments, particularly in STEM; further, reflection through writing can be a powerful tool when guided appropriately to facilitate these topics. The following question guided the research: What role does reflection play in identity exploration among undergraduate students in a research experience training program?
Methods
This study takes a qualitative approach to examining the role of a reflection activity in the identity exploration of undergraduate students participating in a research experience training program. The training program was a federal grant-funded, two-year URE aimed at diversifying the behavioral and biomedical science research enterprise by encouraging minoritized STEM students to pursue PhD programs. The training program was implemented in a broad-access, baccalaureate-granting, minority-serving institution, with Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution (AANAPISI) designations. Since 2015, the training program has enrolled 391 undergraduate students. In the 2020–2021 years (from which these data are derived), the reflection activity was introduced to the 16 students in the first-year cohort.
The training program’s curriculum was designed to cultivate research skills and personal and professional (science or research) identity development among its participants (see Urizar et al. 2017 for a detailed description). The reflection activity consisted of a writing and peer-sharing exercise repeated three times over the course of the two years that students participated in the training program. In the beginning of their first year, students answered two writing prompts as homework (see CSULB n.d.). The first prompt asked whether students had thought about themselves as a researcher or scientist, whether this perception blended with other identities, and how these identities played out in different environments (e.g., working in a lab versus being at home with family). The second prompt asked students to think about how their identities and roles might have informed or impacted the research they were pursuing or their intended future career. Two weeks later, students participated in a peer-sharing activity, discussing their responses in their weekly Learning Community (LC) classes. In preparation for peer sharing, students were instructed to reread their written responses. Students responded in writing to the same prompts and repeated the peer-sharing activity another two times, at the midpoint and the end of the program.
Participants
Six students participated in the study. Table 1 contains relevant participant demographic characteristics. The interview participants represented over one-third (37.5 percent) of the entire trainee cohort, and its demographic distribution was comparable to that of the overall trainee cohort except for the greater representation of students from behavioral sciences in the sample.

Data Collection
All 16 students in the first-year cohort of the training program were invited to participate in interviews about their involvement in the reflection activity, and six students (37.5 percent) volunteered. Data were drawn from three Semi-structured group or individual interviews, and students participated in the interviews based on their availability; this resulted in three students participating in the first interview, two students in the second interview, and one student in the third interview. A semi-structured interview guide was developed consisting of two segments: the first segment aimed to better understand the impact of the reflection activity on the students’ exploration as scientists or researchers. Students were asked to comment on what it was like for them to reflect on their identities, whether they had ever thought about their identities in this way, how the “reflexive” (reflecting on reflections) aspect of the activity informed their identity as a scientist or researcher, and whether the reflections on their identity influenced their career goals or future plans. The second segment of the interview guide focused on the students’ experience of the activity itself. Students were asked to comment on what it was like to repeat this activity over the two-year period, what it was like for them to talk about their identity in this way with their peers, whether and how it was different to do the peer sharing virtually and in person, and if there were other activities or experiences in the program that might have helped them think about their identities as well. The interviews took place virtually on Zoom and were recorded with participants’ permission. Interviews ranged from about 40 to 60 minutes and were moderated by one to two members of the research team, consisting of faculty members and a postdoctoral fellow involved in the reflection activity development. The study was approved by the institution’s internal review board.
Data Analysis
The digital interview recordings were first transcribed with an AI transcription program and the files were further cleaned up by a research team member. All research members conducted a close line-by-line reading of each transcript individually, taking an open coding approach (Saldaña 2021) and making notes and observations across the three interview transcripts. Inductive and deductive coding were applied to new student impressions or experiences that emerged, based on the original aims of the reflection activity regarding identity and science or researcher identity. The open coding was transferred to a shared document, on which codes were further segmented and categories were refined into themes (see Table 2). To ensure trustworthiness, one transcript was initially reviewed together by the research team, discussing the similarities and differences and addressing intercoder reliability. Intercoder reliability was ensured by adhering to specific recommendations, including involving a minimum of two coders, ensuring that at least one coder was not involved in data collection, requiring prior experience with coding, using a consistent analytical lens (both inductive and deductive), establishing a shared understanding of codes through dialogue and consensus, and developing a codebook to maintain consistency in the coding process (Cofie, Braund, and Dalgamo 2022). The team also met weekly during the month-long data coding phase to discuss how the coded segments illuminated the experiences of the participants and reconcile any differences in coding and interpretation by data analysis.

Results
Theme 1
Students may not readily reflect on personal identities in academic settings. Participants reported feeling initially skeptical of the activity because reflecting on their personal identities was not traditionally valued or related to their academic experiences. This was evident in Esther’s response, who initially questioned why she was being asked to write about her identities, “It was just a little foreign to me, . . . being asked that question. No one had ever asked me that question before. I hadn’t really considered it myself beforehand. So, I think a lot of it was just . . . [the] raw emotion of ‘Why are they asking me, this?’ . . . ‘Why do they want to know?’ ‘Why is it important, even?’” Esther provided insight into how foreign of a concept it was for her to write about personal identities in an academic setting.
Similarly, Noah remarked on the lack of opportunities in undergraduate institutions to engage in reflection, “But there’s never really a time to look at yourself in a purely identity and kind of individual way.” Alyssa also had a similar response, sharing, “Honestly it wasn’t until I got into the program where I started . . . even thinking of myself as a scientist.” The fact that Esther and Alyssa are in different fields than Noah (chemical engineering, biochemical engineering, and psychology, respectively) and yet they had similar responses seems to reflect the broader academic environment, one which may not always promote or encourage such reflections or discussions.
Theme 2
Writing is both a reflection and a cognitive tool that supports learning about oneself and challenges existing beliefs. The written part of the reflection activity allowed participants to pause and think about themselves as they thought about what to write. Robin, for example, talked about reflecting on her LGBTQ+ identity, being of Mexican descent and having been raised by white parents, which were identities she seldom claimed aloud. She explained, “I just didn’t know what to write about so I . . . feel like I could have gone with a couple of different directions and so it was . . . a process to think about it.” She recognized she could have written on various topics to fulfill the activity expectations and had to try to determine what she would write.
Additionally, having the space for students to consider several ideas and decide on what to commit to paper encouraged participants to utilize this activity to challenge their previously held ideas about being a researcher or scientist. Esther explained: In order to be successful in my identity as a researcher, I had to kind of hide my identity as a Mexican American, first generation, female . . . scientist engineer… I was always aware that I was brown, that I was a woman, that it wasn’t the norm in engineering or STEM . . . so I never really thought about it. But I was aware of that. It wasn’t until [the training program] and the assignment that I was really kind of pushed to confront that aspect of my life.
Before this writing activity, Esther confessed she had not questioned why she could not identify as Mexican American or first-generation or a woman while being a scientist engineer; her response suggests that she had accepted that these two identities were mutually exclusive. The reflection activity challenged participants to question these beliefs. Robin summed it up by sharing, “Doing the assignment . . . you . . . see all parts of you, and how all those things can kind of exist together in your mind or in your own reality, and I think it’s . . . really important.”
Those wholistic understandings of themselves seemed to provide confidence for future pursuits. For Esther, the reflection activity built confidence about applying for graduate schools she initially believed were out of reach: Before the assignment I would have never considered applying to schools like the UCs for graduate school. I thought that was crazy. I thought, OK, maybe I can do research and look for a master’s then, and maybe even a PhD. But I wouldn’t apply to any of the UCs right away because I thought it was too difficult . . . and they required the best of students, the most capable, the most worthy. And so, after the assignment I realized that I was competitive. I was competitive because of my different identities I brought to the table. [I have] diversity . . . a different perspective, a different way of solving a problem, a different way of overcoming challenges. And so, after the assignment, I was more confident in applying to these schools. And I applied to . . . UCLA, and I got accepted.
The experience of seeing themselves wholistically and writing down experiences and milestones functioned as a mirror for students to see that they were, indeed, capable and worthy of pursuing research and science.
Theme 3
Writing was a place for reflection and reflexivity of identities and future pursuits. Having students revisit their written prompts and repeating the writing activity allowed for reflection and reflexivity. Reflexivity, different from reflection, requires a close examination of one’s self-reflection and positionality in relation to one’s social world (Pillow 2003). Students had opportunities to reflect upon their reflections, which gave them a window into what they were contemplating at a given moment in time and how their perceptions of their identities in the context of their research and science pursuits had changed. Robin recalled rereading her first written response as if she were reading another person’s entry, “So that was . . . a really weird experience, because when I was reading the first one that I wrote, I was . . . that doesn’t even sound like me. . . . I was so scared, and I was so insecure or nervous or worried about all these different things.” By revisiting what she had previously written, Robin observed how much she had hesitated writing about her multiple identities, to the point she did not even recognize an earlier version of her writing. Alyssa chimed in with a similar reaction, “I feel pretty similar to Robin, in the way that I also am part of the LGBTQ+ community but I didn’t really know that [at the time of writing] . . . so I was . . . ‘Do I say this? I don’t even know if this is real or not,’ so it was very soul searching.” Alyssa added that she did not have a very close connection with her research mentor, “strictly classes and research,” so, as for Robin, it took courage to write about her identities and commit those identities to paper.
Jackie, a Latina majoring in chemistry, also described how the activity differed from her regular practice of personal journal writing, “because previously the journaling would be about my role as a sister or a daughter or whatever other role I have in my personal life . . . but the identity writing was more about the science side and what my career would be in.” Jackie continued describing her experience of having to revisit what she had previously written as part of the activity; looking back at her writing allowed Jackie to “think forward,” spurring thoughts about her intended career pursuit as an undergraduate instructor because it was “really, really helpful to . . . put my thoughts together in terms of my identity and my . . . position as a student now and then the future . . . as a professor.”
Other students’ reflexive process helped them to see their identities as sources of strength and pride. Esther reflected, I ended up concluding, just this semester, a couple weeks ago . . . that my identities, they do blend well together. They actually helped strengthen my identity as a researcher and as an engineer. I think without my identities as a first-generation college student, Mexican American women in STEM, I don’t think I would have had such a, how can I say it, such a strong drive to push forward past my obstacles and challenges.
As she described above, these identities gave Esther the strength and confidence to pursue a career in chemical engineering, and through time and reflection she began to think about them in tandem. Broadly, revisiting their written prompts gave students the space to experience reflexivity as they looked back at their previous written responses, and for some, a previous version of themselves. Revisiting their prompts allowed them to confront previously held perceptions and observe how their identities changed over time.
Theme 4
The role of multiple reaffirming spaces promoted through the training program. The final theme is twofold: the value of a peer-sharing component and the broader role of the training program in creating safe and reaffirming spaces for students. The peer sharing took place during the LC class after students responded to the writing prompts. Participants described how the peer sharing helped strengthen a sense of community in the training program, as they learned they were not alone and that others faced similar challenges. This type of sharing was especially important for students like Diana who “struggled a lot with . . . calling myself a researcher and being confident in my research at first, especially because I felt like my identities clashed.” Diana later expanded, “To hear other people, that they feel the same . . . it’s kind of like everyone’s going through the same thing . . . I’m not the only one that feels this way.”
Discovering they were not alone in their struggles as they navigated the feelings of their “clashing” identities was a validating experience, which enabled students to give and receive emotional support to one another. Further, the peer-sharing component helped students to practice reflexivity verbally. Having the opportunity to examine and then share aloud in a communal setting in a safe and affirming space seemed to encourage students to be confident in acknowledging and often reconciling the multiple identities they held, at the same time as they were becoming a researcher or scientist.
The sense of affirmation students experienced through the activity also seemed to have a ripple effect across students’ sense of self and their interactions with faculty mentors. Some students spoke of how they were better able to have conversations with their faculty mentors because of the language and affirmations they received in the training program. Noah shared, “Being in [the faculty mentor’s] lab while also being in [the training program] I learned how to apply to graduate schools, simultaneously . . . also learning about my identity and myself.” Similarly, Robin, who was the only student who identified as part of the LGBTQ+ community in her lab, shared, “Having that assignment and being able to do it in [the training program] first helped me later on to have that conversation with [my faculty research mentor] and with my lab mates and then it didn’t feel as scary to do it.”
The reflection activity helped some students have more open communication with their mentors and lab mates, which led them to feel less alone and more able to be their authentic selves. Participant responses provided insight into how the reflection activity and the broader training program’s curriculum mutually reinforced identity exploration. Further, the reflection activity helped to meet the program’s goal of fostering the support and development of diverse scientists and researchers.
Discussion
This article highlights findings that emerged from students’ feedback regarding their experiences of an iterative reflection activity on identities that was part of a URE program. Further, the findings emphasized the important role URE programs have in creating opportunities in academic environments that have not previously done so. Students revealed deeply embedded beliefs about STEM disciplinary environments that posed barriers, particularly for minoritized students persisting in their majors, which is in line with existing scholarship (see Carter et al. 2019 and Hurtado et al. 2009). Through written and verbal reflections, students reported having the chance to process and challenge these beliefs. These reflection opportunities allowed students to reconcile tensions they often felt when it came to connecting their multiple personal identities with their science and research identities. Further, writing and reflecting on their intended careers and sharing these ideas with others helped facilitate deeper shared meaning-making experiences (Rodgers 2002). In this way, participants were committing and recommitting to their intended academic goals.
The combination of engaging in written and verbal reflections over several occasions during the two years in the program was important for facilitating not only in-the-moment reflections but also reflexivity on topics and interpersonal interactions not readily encouraged or considered in university courses or even undergraduate research settings alone. URE programs can facilitate interactions and relationships for students engaged in research, which can in turn enhance academic experiences (Eagan et al. 2013). This has particularly important consequences for STEM students, as some highlighted that writing and discussing topics around identity initially seemed “foreign,” and previous research has noted that such discussions do not typically take place in the classroom, particularly in science fields (Cech 2013; Seymour 1999). Last, fostering a safe environment that provided support for exploration and reaffirmation of student identity as a researcher or scientist was equally important. Developmentally, undergraduate education is a time of gender and sexual identity exploration for many young people. How these explorations are nurtured by their environment can impact the way students interact with their faculty mentors and perceive the STEM environment.
Implications
Based on these findings, recommendations are provided for scholar practitioners interested in implementing reflection activities. First, it is important to set clear expectations by explaining that self-reflection can foster personal growth and change. This can help mitigate any unease or uncertainty associated with the process. Approaching these activities with intention and sensitivity, while acknowledging how academic disciplines can sometimes compartmentalize or suppress students’ identities, can help normalize these discussions.
Second, because reflective thinking often involves confronting doubts (Spalding and Wilson 2002), it is important to address the potential discomfort that may arise when exploring previously unquestioned beliefs about identity. Educators should be prepared to facilitate discussions that allow students to express and process their feelings. Also, situating these beliefs in broader societal contexts and recognizing that identity exploration in academic settings is not common can help students avoid feeling at fault for not having engaged in such reflection before. Finally, creating a safe environment in a program, classroom, or research lab is essential, because it can be a space for students to reflect on their higher education experiences. This can be fostered by framing conversations and activities; explicitly acknowledging structural inequalities in society and valuing the diversity, equity, and inclusion of minoritized communities can help create safe spaces for students to explore identities and experiences in ways they might not have considered previously in traditional academic spaces. Cross-campus communication with faculty mentors and associated programs may help to open dialogue and opportunities in other spaces, and challenge disciplinary cultures that so often compartmentalize who one is and what one does in a classroom or lab space. Considering programmatic and institutional contexts, such as program curriculum and campus resources, will be critical.
Limitations
Because students participated in the training program during the shelter-in-place period of the COVID-19 pandemic, student experiences in the activity or their future career outlooks may have differed from normal circumstances. This means that findings may not be generalizable to all students currently in a similar program. Another limitation was the self-selection bias of the participants. Students volunteered to share their experiences in the reflection activity, and it is possible that only those who had positive experiences agreed to be interviewed. Given the exhaustion felt by everyone during the pandemic, the participants also may have been students who felt they could tolerate spending more time on Zoom with the interviewers. Still, the student responses helped the authors gain a deeper understanding of the reflection components of an undergraduate research training program and how it was particularly effective for minoritized students.
Another limitation was the lack of information about the trainees’ sexual orientation and gender identification. For students from the LGBT+ community, this presented an additional layer to identities and a unique dilemma of intentional disclosure, which comes with risks of stigma, rejection, and alienation. Their struggles with revealing their sexual identity to others in their lab and the training program was highly salient and required courage and risk-taking. Unfortunately, the training program did not collect information on its trainees’ sexual identity, and the information was only made available to the researchers when participants themselves disclosed it during the interview. Last, the small sample size of the study limits the generalizability of the data to a broader student population. Nevertheless, students’ candid responses provided valuable insights into the potential value of structuring opportunities for reflexivity and reflection through writing.
Conclusion
Undergraduate research programs are commonly highlighted as high-impact practices that support the development of a science identity (Hunter, Laursen, and Seymour 2007; Palmer et al. 2018). As demonstrated in this article, reflection activities, when situated within broader efforts to support minoritized students in the biomedical and social science fields, are impactful because they create a space to reflect and help students reimagine the possibilities of pursuing STEM degrees and careers. URE programs may not always explicitly and intentionally include reflection opportunities. Therefore, reflection should be considered a necessary component of URE programs. Finally, considering the depth of the themes reported in this study, each holds promise as a prospective avenue for further research exploration and inquiry.
Data Availability
The data included in this article are not publicly available because of student participant confidentiality.
Institutional Review Board
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, IRB approval no. 21-198.
Conflict of Interest
No known conflict of interest to disclose.
Acknowledgments
We would like to first thank the CSULB BUILD student trainees, graduate mentors, staff, and faculty training directors who have participated in the various phases of this activity development and implementation and given us their invaluable feedback. We also thank Dr. Bradley Pan-Weisz for the initial development work on the writing intervention and Drs. Que-Lam Hguyen and Angela-MinhTu Nguyen for their contribution to framing the intervention as a narrative inquiry and the share-out activity part of the intervention. And finally, we thank Ashley Colburn for the numerous data preparation efforts.
The published work was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers UL1GM118979, TL4GM118980, and RL5GM118978. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
References
California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity. n.d. “Professional Development Online Modules: Science/Research Identity Activities.” CSULB. Accessed January 14, 2025. https://www.csulb.edu/building-infrastructure-leading-to-diversity/professional-development-online-modules
Carlone, Heidi B., and Angela Johnson. 2007. “Understanding the Science Experiences of Successful Women of Color: Science Identity As an Analytic Lens.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44: 1187–1218. doi: 10.1002/tea.20237
Carter, Deborah Faye, Juanita E. Razo Dueñas, and Rocío Mendoza. 2019. “Critical Examination of the Role of Stem in Propagating and Maintaining Race and Gender Disparities.” Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research 34: 39–97. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-03457-3_2
Cech, Erin A. 2013. “The (Mis) Framing of Social Justice: Why Ideologies of Depoliticization and Meritocracy Hinder Engineers’ Ability to Think about Social Injustices.” In Engineering Education for Social Justice: Critical Explorations and Opportunities, ed. Juan C. Lucena, 67–84. Springer.
Chang, Mitchell J., Oscar Cerna, June Han, and Victor Saenz. 2008. “The Contradictory Roles of Institutional Status in Retaining Underrepresented Minorities in Biomedical and Behavioral Science Majors.” Review of Higher Education 31: 433–464. doi: 10.1353/rhe.0.0011
Cofie, Nicholas, Heather Braund, and Nancy Dalgarno. 2022. “Eight Ways to Get a Grip on Intercoder Reliability Using Qualitative-Based Measures.” Canadian Medical Education Journal 13(2): 73–76. doi: 10.36834/cmej.72504
Cohen, Geoffrey L., Julio Garcia, Valerie Purdie-Vaughns, Nancy Apfel, and Patricia Brzustoski. 2009. “Recursive Processes in Self-Affirmation: Intervening to Close the Minority Achievement Gap.” Science 324: 400–403. doi: 10.1126/science.1170769
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The Later Works of John Dewey, Volume 8, 1925-1953: 1933, Essays and How We Think. Revised Edition (pp. 105-352). Southern Illinois University Press.
Eagan, M. Kevin Jr, Sylvia Hurtado, Mitchell J. Chang, Gina A. Garcia, Felisha A. Herrera, and Juan C. Garibay. 2013. “Making a Difference in Science Education: The Impact of Undergraduate Research Programs.” American Educational Research Journal 50: 683–713. doi: 10.3102/000283121348203
Estrada, Mica, Anna Woodcock, Paul R. Hernandez, and P. W. Schultz. 2011. “Toward a Model of Social Influence That Explains Minority Student Integration into the Scientific Community.” Journal of Educational Psychology 103: 206. doi: 10.1037/a0020743
Hughes, Bryce E. 2018. “Coming Out in STEM: Factors Affecting Retention of Sexual Minority STEM Students.” Science Advances 4(3): eaao6373. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aao6373
Hunter, Anne-Barrie, Sandra L. Laursen, and Elaine Seymour. 2007. “Becoming a Scientist: The Role of Undergraduate Research in Students’ Cognitive, Personal, and Professional Development.” Science Education 91: 36–74. doi: 10.1002/sce.20173
Hurtado, Sylvia, Nolan L. Cabrera, Monica H. Lin, Lucy Arellano, and Lorelle L. Espinosa. 2009. “Diversifying Science: Underrepresented Student Experiences in Structured Research Programs.” Research in Higher Education 50: 189–214. doi: 10.1007/s11162-008-9114-7
Jackson, Matthew C., Gino Galvez, Isidro Landa, Paul Buonora, and Dustin B. Thoman. 2016. “Science That Matters: The Importance of a Cultural Connection in Underrepresented Students’ Science Pursuit.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 15(3): ar42. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-01-0067
Jehangir, Rashné. 2010. “Stories As Knowledge: Bringing the Lived Experience of First-Generation College Students into the Academy.” Urban Education 45: 533–553. doi: 10.1177/0042085910372352
Ong, Maria, Carol Wright, Lorelle Espinosa, and Gary Orfield. 2011. “Inside the Double Bind: A Synthesis of Empirical Research on Undergraduate and Graduate Women of Color in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Harvard Educational Review 81: 172–209. doi: 10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2
Palmer, Ruth J., Andrea N. Hunt, Michael R. Neal, and Brad Wuetherick. 2018. “The Influence of Mentored Undergraduate Research on Students’ Identity Development.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 2(2): 4–14. doi: 10.18833/spur/2/2/1
Patton, Lori D., Kristen A. Renn, Florence M. Guido, and Stephen J. Quaye. 2016. Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Pennebaker, James W. 1997. “Writing about Emotional Experiences As a Therapeutic Process.” Psychological Science 8: 162–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00403.x
Pillow, Wanda. 2003. “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity As Methodological Power in Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16: 175–196. doi: 10.1080/0951839032000060635
Robinson, Kristy A., Tony Perez, Amy K. Nuttall, Cary J. Roseth, and Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia. 2018. “From Science Student to Scientist: Predictors and Outcomes of Heterogeneous Science Identity Trajectories in College.” Developmental Psychology 54(10): 1977. doi: 10.1037/dev0000567
Rodgers, Carol. 2002. “Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking.” Teachers College Record 104: 842–866. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00181
Saldaña, Johnny. 2021. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE.
Schwartz, Seth J., Larry F. Forthun, Russell D. Ravert, Byron L. Zamboanga, Adriana J. Umaña-Taylor, Beryl J. Filton, Su Yeong Kim, et al. 2010. “Identity Consolidation and Health Risk Behaviors in College Students.” American Journal of Health Behavior 34: 214–224. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.34.2.9
Seymour, Elaine. 1999. “The Role of Socialization in Shaping the Career-Related Choices of Undergraduate Women in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Majors.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 869(1): 118–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08366.x
Seymour, Elaine, and Nancy M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about Leaving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sherman, David K., Kimberly A. Hartson, Kevin R. Binning, Valerie Purdie-Vaughns, Julio Garcia, Suzanne Taborsky-Barba, Sara Tomassetti, David A. Nussbaum, and Goffery L. Cohen. 2013. “Deflecting the Trajectory and Changing the Narrative: How Self-Affirmation Affects Academic Performance and Motivation Under Identity Threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104: 591. doi: 10.1037/a0031495
Spalding, Elizabeth, and Angene Wilson. 2002. “Demystifying Reflection: A Study of Pedagogical Strategies That Encourage Reflective Journal Writing.” Teachers College Record 104: 1393–1421. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00208
Urizar, Guido G., Laura Henriques, Chi-Ah Chun, Paul Buonora, Kim-Phuong L. Vu, Gino Galvez, and Laura Kingsford. 2017. “Advancing Research Opportunities and Promoting Pathways in Graduate Education: A Systemic Approach to BUILD Training at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).” BMC Proceedings 11(12): 27–40. doi: 10.1186/s12919-017-0088-3
Walton, Gregory M., and Geoffrey L. Cohen. 2007. “A Question of Belonging: Race, Social Fit, and Achievement.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92: 82–96. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
Walton, Gregory M., and Geoffrey L. Cohen. 2011. “A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes of Minority Students.” Science 331: 1447–1451. doi: 10.1126/science.1198364
Walton, Gregory M., Christine Logel, Jennifer M. Peach, Steven J. Spencer, and Mark P. Zanna. 2015. “Two Brief Interventions to Mitigate a ‘Chilly Climate’ Transform Women’s Experience, Relationships, and Achievement in Engineering.” Journal of Educational Psychology 107: 468. doi: 10.1037/a0037461
Rocío Mendoza
University of Redlands, rocio_mendoza@redlands.edu
Rocío Mendoza is an assistant professor in the Department of Leadership and Higher Education at the University of Redlands. Prior to this, she was the postdoctoral dissemination research fellow for the California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) BUILD Program and a lecturer in the Student Development in Higher Education Program at CSULB. Mendoza teaches and writes about race and ethnicity, student identity, and institutional contexts in higher education.
Ann Y. Kim is an associate professor in the Department of Human Development at CSULB. Kim’s research focuses on understanding and supporting student persistence and retention in STEM using an identity lens. She utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in research. She primarily teaches courses on quantitative research methods in social science and adolescent development.
Gino Galvez is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology and the director of the Center for Evaluation and Educational Effectiveness at CSULB. Galvez has played key roles as an investigator and lead evaluator on grant-funded projects. Broadly, his research has focused on interventions that broaden participation in STEM, underrepresented student success, undergraduate research training, and the development of science identity.
Chi-Ah Chun is a professor, department chair of psychology, and lead principal investigator of the CSULB BUILD Initiative Phase II. Her research has focused on mental health disparities in Asian immigrant and refugee populations. Chu also has led federally funded grants that provide rigorous research training in mental health and health disparities to underrepresented students and faculty over the last two decades.
Undergraduate Research Programs for STEM Transfer Success: A Multi-Institutional Approach
Recommended Citation: Schneider, Kimberly R., Michael Aldarondo Jeffries, Colleen M. Smith, Donna Chamely-Wiik, William R. Kwochka, Daniel Meeroff. 2024. Undergraduate Research Programs for STEM Transfer Success: A Multi-Institutional Approach. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (1): 54-63. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/1/5
Students from Marginalized Communities in Research: A Randomized Control Trial
Recommended Citation: Kahn, B. L. 2024. Students from Marginalized Communities in Research: A Randomized Control Trial. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (1): 43-53. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/1/4
Measuring Student Success and Outcomes in Undergraduate Research Programs
Recommended Citation: Weidman, Andrea, Abigayle Parham, Molly H. Fisher, Jennifer Wilhelm. 2024. Measuring Student Success and Outcomes in Undergraduate Research Programs. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (1): 33-42. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/1/6
Enhancing the Writing Competencies of Undergraduate Researchers
Recommended Citation: Polk, Thomas. 2024. Enhancing the Writing Competencies of Undergraduate Researchers. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (1): 26-32. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/1/3
Undergraduate Research Experiences Grow Career-Ready Transferable Skills
Recommended Citation: Gunnels, Charles W., Jaclyn Chastain, Shawn Brunelle, Anna Carlin, Thomas M. Cimarusti, Mary Crone-Romanovski, Richard W. Coughlin, Carolyn Culbertson, Jason Elek, April Felton, Shawn Felton, Debra A. Giambo, Katie Johnson, Shawn Keller, Dawn Kirby, Santiago Luaces, Derek Lura, Peter Reuter, Tunde Szecsi, Rachel Tait-Ripperdan, Scott Vanselow, Judy Wynekoop, Hulya Julie Yazici, Melodie H. Eichbauer . 2024. Undergraduate Research Experiences Grow Career-Ready Transferable Skills. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (1): 15-25. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/1/1
Transferable skills, namely critical thinking, communication, problem solving, and adaptability, serve as the bedrock of a successful and fulfilling career. Employers increasingly demand candidates with career-ready skills in addition to technical competencies. Therefore, institutions of higher education have increasingly fostered academic environments that couple holistic learning with career preparation (National Association of Colleges and Employers 2022). However, the ability of higher education institutions to provide students with material value has been met with increasing skepticism by graduates, employers, and society. For example, a recent report in the Chronicle of Higher Education found that only 24 percent of graduates felt that their undergraduate experience provided significant value (Kelderman 2023). In addition, perceptions about the value of higher education have become increasingly politicized in the United States (Parker 2019). In a time of public scrutiny regarding student loans, tuition, and job prospects, universities must be accountable if they wish to serve the best interests of students and society.
Undergraduate research experiences may be expected to develop career-ready transferable skills as well as, if not better than, other high-impact practices (Ashcroft, Blatti, and Jaramillo 2020; Chadha and Nicholls 2006; Hernandez et al. 2018). To promote the development of transferable skills, Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) implemented an institution-wide quality enhancement plan (QEP) called FGCUScholars: Think, Discover, Write in 2015 that worked with departments to integrate undergraduate research and scholarship across the university to improve students’ critical thinking, information literacy, and written communication (Gunnels et al. 2020). Although some course-embedded undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) and extensive opportunities for individual faculty-mentored research were in place before 2015, implementation of FGCUScholars started the coordinated effort to integrate research skills across the four-year curriculum and diverse majors. The transferable skills associated with FGCUScholars were identified based on an internal assessment and feedback from employers and graduate programs. Although FGCU graduates were seen as proficient in disciplinary and content knowledge, stakeholders indicated that students needed to improve their ability to (a) engage in critical thinking and complex problem solving; (b) conduct research and use evidence-based analysis; and (c) express themselves professionally through high-level writing. To enhance these skills, academic departments were required to scaffold learning competencies, from general education through capstone courses. Although academic majors were encouraged to develop research skills throughout the curriculum and students to engage in research-oriented capstones, some departments used case studies, internship and service-learning experiences, or academic reflections (in which fourth-year students gave thought to their experiences and learning over the previous four years) for their capstones. The variety of capstone formats allowed comparisons of skill levels across types.
To learn how undergraduate research experiences affected the expression of transferable skills over time and relative to other learning experiences, the critical thinking, information literacy, and written communication skills of fourth-year undergraduates who participated in a research-oriented capstone were first compared with those of first-year students and then with fourth-year students who undertook different capstone experiences. If undergraduate research experiences enhanced transferable skills positively, fourth-year students who engaged in research would be expected to demonstrate higher skill levels than first-year students and fourth-year undergraduates who completed alternative capstone experiences.
Methods
FGCU, established in 1997, is a public, regional, comprehensive university serving the academic, research, and workforce needs of Southwest Florida. By 2020, the institution enrolled over 15,000 students, 85 percent of whom were undergraduates (Florida Gulf Coast University 2023). During the FGCUScholars initiative, FGCU employed about 500 full-time faculty members and offered 52 undergraduate majors, with additional graduate degrees.
To understand how undergraduate research experiences affected career-ready transferable skills, the university conducted an annual university-wide assessment of students’ written artifacts based on seven proficiencies modified from the AACU VALUE (Validated Assessment of Undergraduate Education) rubrics (Association of American Colleges and Universities 2009). Critical thinking was assessed based on content development, analysis, and synthesis; information literacy according to students’ proper identification and effective use of evidence; and written communication by audience, disciplinary conventions, and syntax and mechanics (Table 1).

University-wide assessments took place at the end of each academic year between 2015 and 2020 (Szecsi et al. 2019). To ensure broad representation across the university, majors were organized into eight academic units that reflected disciplinary differences among the five colleges (business, education, engineering, health and human services, humanities, natural sciences and mathematics, social science, and visual and performing arts). During the spring semester, all majors were solicited to participate in the annual assessment with the goal of including at least one representative major from each academic unit (Table 2). All artifacts were assessed for majors with less than eight graduating four-year students, excluding student submissions that were set aside for norming. For larger majors, a random sample of artifacts were assessed relative to the size of the major, with a greater number of artifacts assessed from large-size majors than medium-size majors. In addition, approximately 6 percent of the final essays produced by first-year students in a second semester writing class (approximately 115 artifacts per year) were selected at random for assessment.


Faculty participation in the annual assessments was inclusive and voluntary; every assessment included multiple representatives from each of the eight academic units and the university library. The assessment began with a norming session, at which faculty agreed on the language described in the assessment rubric, learned about format differences among artifacts, gained understanding of disciplinary-specific distinctions, and worked toward conformity so that individual assessments reflected standards established by the group. Artifacts for norming were selected randomly and not assessed. Faculty then read, evaluated, and scored artifacts for each of the seven assessed criteria on a four-point scale (Table 1), with each artifact being read and evaluated by at least two assessors. A third and potentially fourth assessor were required if disagreement (< 85 percent agreement) among the first pair of assessors occurred. For each artifact, the average score was calculated for the seven assessed criteria and then a total average was computed to measure overall learning gains.
All statistical analyses were conducted with R (R Core Team 2023). Permutated analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to compare assessment results across academic levels (first-year vs. fourth-year students), capstone experiences (research, internship, case study, or academic reflection) and assessment years (years 1 to 5 of the QEP). Because permutated tests evaluate measured patterns relative to N iterations of random redistributions of the same data set, only the p value, degrees of freedom, and number of iterations that were required to resolve the p values were reported. ANOVA permutation tests with a maximum of 10,000 iterations were executed with the lmPerm package in R (Wheeler and Torchiano 2016). Significance levels were set at an alpha of .05. Visualizations of assessment results were created with the ggplot2 package (Wickham 2016).
Results
Demographics
Thirty-three of the 52 undergraduate majors submitted artifacts from their capstone during the five-year QEP (Table 2); the first-year writing program submitted assessment artifacts every year. By the final year of the QEP, artifacts from 576 first-year students and 702 graduating fourth-year students were assessed. Although the QEP focused on using undergraduate research experiences to improve transferable skills, students completed different capstone experiences depending on their major (undergraduate research, 69.1 percent, N = 485; case studies, 20.1 percent, N = 144; internship/service learning, 5.1 percent, N = 36; and academic reflection: 5.3 percent, N = 37).
Fourth-Year Students
Throughout the FGCUScholars initiative, fourth-year students who participated in undergraduate research capstone experiences showed higher-quality transferable skills in their critical thinking, information literacy, and written communication than first-year students and fourth-year students who completed alternative capstones. Fourth-year students who participated in undergraduate research showed 40.7 percent higher overall learning gains than comparable first-year students (Figure 1A, df = 1, 989; iterations = 10,000; p < .001). Moreover, fourth-year students who completed undergraduate research capstones displayed greater skill levels than fourth-year students who participated in alternative capstones (Figure 1B, df = 1, 711; iterations = 10,000; p < .001), showing on average 15.1 percent higher scores. Undergraduate research students showed the highest scores (22.6 percent) relative to students who completed case study capstones; 8.6 percent higher than students who completed academic reflections; and 2.2 percent higher than internship and service learning students. Among the assessed criteria, research students showed the highest relative scores in critical thinking (content development 14.7 percent; conclusion 11.4 percent) and information literacy (identification, 19.6 percent; effective use, 14.2 percent) compared to fourth-year students who completed alternative capstone experiences (Figure 1C).
Undergraduate Research Students
Repeated exposure to classes that integrated research skills appeared to cultivate students’ critical thinking, information literacy, and written communication. For example, research students in the fifth year of the study showed the highest overall scores (Figure 1D, df = 4, 493; iterations = 10,000; p < 0.001), scoring 21.2 percent higher than fourth-year research students in the first year of the QEP. Students in year 1 of the QEP only experienced the research-based capstone. As FGCUScholars progressed, students in the fourth and fifth years of the QEP received research skill training in their first-year writing course and in at least two additional classes within their major before the capstone. By the fifth year of FGCUScholars, graduating research students showed the highest levels in information literacy skills (identification, 27.8 percent; effective use, 30.8 percent), followed by critical thinking (content development, 24.5 percent; conclusion, 19.3 percent) and written communication skills (context; 15.6 percent; disciplinary conventions, 18.9 percent; syntax and mechanics, 12.7 percent) relative to research students who participated in only a research capstone in year 1 of the QEP (Figure 1E).

Special Cases
During the initiative, several cases shed light on why undergraduate research students may have shown higher career-ready transferable skills. When students completing a particular major had the choice of pursuing a research-based or internship-based capstone, research students showed higher overall skill levels than the internship students (Figure 2A, df = 1, 14; iterations = 2458; p = .039), displaying 28.1 percent higher skills. Of note, research students were required to use primary and secondary sources, which was optional for internship students. The role of information literacy was highlighted by differences among students who completed academic reflections for their capstone. In one group, the use of primary and secondary academic sources was optional (i.e., optional resource), whereas it was required for the other group. Students who completed academic reflections that required sources scored 78.2 percent higher levels than optional resource reflections (Figure 2B, df = 1, 35; iterations = 10,000; p < 0.001). Students who completed required academic reflections with sources demonstrated higher critical thinking (content development 154.2 percent; conclusion 90.6 percent) and written communication skills (context 62.9 percent; disciplinary conventions 69.8 percent; syntax and mechanics 38 percent), in addition to information literacy (identification 164.2 percent; effective use 142.3 percent) than students who produced optional resource reflections.

Discussion
FGCUScholars serves as a reminder that higher education enhances students’ overall learning and growth in ways that also support career and job readiness, with undergraduate research having a significant impact on the ability of students to utilize high-level transferable skills. These skills are vital to reflective thinking, that is, the ability to identify background assumptions and presuppositions that may influence and distort conceptions of truth and knowledge (Laursen et al. 2010; Moore and Parker 2021). Engaging in research requires students to continuously refine their hypotheses, processes, and conclusions. According to the often-cited Delphi Report, “The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and circumstances of inquiry permit” (Facione 1990). The results of FGCUScholars demonstrate how undergraduate research contributes to shaping critical thinkers and thoughtful communicators.
As shown in this study, pedagogies that include undergraduate research experiences build fundamental cognitive and transferable skills that students can use in their professional and personal lives. Findings of the study also showed that research-oriented transferable skills are not only associated with science and engineering, but also with social sciences, humanities, and business. For example, dialogs in these disciplines have centered on the importance of developing career-ready transferable skills in response to workforce needs (Brodhead and Rowe 2013). Beginning with first-year writing courses and continuing through capstone projects, humanities and social sciences FGCUScholars develop and reinforce skills most desired by employers throughout the curriculum (Figure 1D). Students learn to, and continually practice, thinking about problems, evaluating primary and secondary texts, and communicating findings (Figure 2B and 2C). When this was implemented across disciplines, students benefited tremendously. As shown in this study, engaging undergraduates in research is more than an apprenticeship for future scholars: it prepares the next generation of public and private sector employees to delve deeper, find new connections, and help construct a better world.
More research is required to establish long-term benefits associated with these findings. Future research should include external validation of these results, such as annual income and career advancement after graduation, as well as longitudinal assessments of individual students to confirm how these skills develop over time. Nonetheless, these results inform current debates regarding the value of an undergraduate education within the United States. Although concerns about the future of higher education persist, pronouncements of its demise and death are “greatly exaggerated.” Return on investment for education following graduation has increased (Webber 2022), and employer attitudes about higher education have improved (Flaherty and Rogowski 2021). Paying closer attention to the benefits associated with traditional higher education practices, including research-oriented undergraduate learning, can help inform national conversations about higher education that have, in recent times, relied on untested rhetoric. Supporting institutional and societal goals, undergraduate research experiences are a valuable form of experiential learning that benefit students professionally and academically, and merit further administrative support.
Data Availability
Raw data are not publicly available. Results come from annual campus-wide assessments and adhere to FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) guidelines. Prior to analysis, the examined data were anonymized. Anonymous data can be provided by the corresponding author upon request.
Institutional Review Board
S2021-51 was deemed exempt, category C.F.R. 45 Part 46.104(d)(3)(i)(A).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the faculty, staff, administrators, and students at Florida Gulf Coast University who helped them make FGCUScholars such a resounding success. The authors could not have accomplished this work without their sustained support and dedication. They also wish to thank the SPUR editors and three anonymous reviewers. Their insights and suggestions made this a stronger article.
References
Ashcroft, Jared, Jillian Blatti, and Veronica Jaramillo. 2020. “Early Career Undergraduate Research As a Meaningful Academic Experience in Which Students Develop Professional Workforce Skills: A Community College Perspective.” In Integrating Professional Skills into Undergraduate Chemistry Curricula, edited by Kelly Y. Neiles, Pamela S. Mertz, and Justin Fair, 281–299. American Chemical Society. doi: 10.1021/bk-2020-1365.ch016
Association of American Colleges and Universities. 2009. “Inquiry and Analysis VALUE Rubric.” https://www.aacu.org/initiatives/value-initiative/value-rubrics/value-rubrics-inquiryand-analysis
Brodhead, Richard H., and John W. Rowe. 2013. The Heart of the Matter: The Humanities and Social Sciences for a Vibrant, Competitive, and Secure Nation. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Chadha, Deesha, and Gill Nicholls. 2006. “Teaching Transferable Skills to Undergraduate Engineering Students: Recognizing the Value of Embedded and Bolt-on Approaches.” International Journal of Engineering Education 22: 116–122.
Facione, Peter. 1990. “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction.” Delphi Report. California Academic Press. https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/CT-Expert-Report.pdf
Flaherty, Thomas M., and Ronald Rogowski. 2021. “Rising Inequality as a Threat to the Liberal International Order.” International Organization 75: 495–523. doi: 10.1017/S0020818321000163
Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU). 2023. “Headcount Enrollment, Fall 2023.” https://public.tableau.com/views/FGCU_IR_Facts_0/HeadcountEnrollment?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no&:display_count=yes
Gunnels, Charles W., Anna Carlin, Derek Lura, Judy Wynekoop, Jaclyn Chastain, Jason Elek, Katie Johnson, et al. 2020. “QEP Impact Report: FGCUScholars: Think, Discover, Write; Enhancing the Culture of Inquiry from Composition to Capstone at Florida Gulf Coast University.” Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32592.69127
Hernandez, Paul R., Anna Woodcock, Mica Estrada, and Paul W. Schultz. 2018. “Undergraduate Research Experiences Broaden Diversity in the Scientific Workforce.” BioScience 68: 204–211.
Kelderman, Eric. 2023. “What the Public Really Thinks about Higher Education.” Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-the-public-really-thinks-abouthigher-education
Laursen, Sandra, Anne-Barrie B. Hunter, Elaine Seymour, Heather Thiry, and Ginger Melton. 2010. Undergraduate Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, Brooke N., and Richard Parker. 2021. Critical Thinking. 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). 2022. Development and Validation of the NACE Career Readiness Competencies. https://www.naceweb.org/uploadedFiles/files/2022/resources/2022-nace-career-readiness-developmentand-validation.pdf
Parker, Kim. 2019. “The Growing Partisan Divide in Views of Higher Education.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisandivide-in-views-of-higher-education-2
R Core Team. 2023. “The R Project for Statistical Computing.” The R Foundation. https://www.R-project.org
Szecsi, Tunde, Charles Gunnels, Jackie Greene, Vickie Johnston, and Elia Vazquez-Montilla. 2019. “Teaching and Evaluating Skills for Undergraduate Research in the Teacher Education Program.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 3(1): 20–29. doi: 10.18833/spur/3/1/5
Webber, Douglas. 2022. “Decomposing Changes in Higher Education: Return on Investment Over Time. FEDS Notes. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. doi: 10.17016/2380-7172.3155
Wheeler, Robert, and Marco Torchiano. 2016. “lmPerm: Permutation Tests for Linear Models.” R package version 2.1.0. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.lmPerm
Wickham, Hadley. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Charles W. Gunnels IV
Florida Gulf Coast University, cgunnels@fgcu.edu
Charles Gunnels is a professor and chair of biology at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU). He teaches animal behavior and biological statistics in R and leads study abroad trips to Caribbean and South America countries. His scientific research focuses on human-animal interactions in urban habitats. In his scholarship of teaching and learning work, he examines how undergraduate research affects student learning gains.
Jaclyn Chastain is a coordinator for academic curriculum and support at FGCU. Chastain has a psychology BA with a management minor and an MA in educational leadership with a concentration in higher education from FGCU. She has been working in higher education for the past seven years, with most of her experience relating to quality enhancement planning, student research, special student populations, and curriculum development. Chastain is currently working on her doctorate degree in education.
Shawn Brunelle is a biology masters student at FGCU. He has been with FGCU since 2013, completing his undergraduate degree in 2018. Brunelle conducts research investigating the flowering genetics of Melaleuca, while also working as an educator, teaching several biology lab courses.
Anna Carlin is an associate librarian at FGCU. At the university library, Carlin has been a subject librarian, designer of instructional materials and tutorials, and manager of media production studios. Carlin served as the information literacy leader on the development and implementation teams that steered FGCUScholars.
Thomas M. Cimarusti is a professor of music history and program coordinator for the BA degree in music at FGCU. As a recipient of numerous grants and teaching awards, Cimarusti works with undergraduate students on various research topics concerning the musical activities of the nineteenth-century religious cult, the Koreshan Unity. His students have presented papers at the National Conference of Undergraduate Research and regional meetings of the American Musicological Society.
Richard W. Coughlin is an associate professor of political science at FGCU, where he teaches courses in political theory, international relations, and comparative politics. His research focuses on Mexican and US political development.
Mary Crone-Romanovski is an associate professor in the Department of Language and Literature at FGCU, where she teaches courses in British literature and culture (1660–1830). Her current research examines representations of the material world in eighteenth-century novels by women. Her publications include articles in Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture and XVIII: New Perspectives on the Eighteenth Century as well as a book chapter in Gender and Space in Britain, 1660–1820.
Carolyn Culbertson is a professor of philosophy at FGCU. She specializes in the philosophy of language and philosophical hermeneutics. She is the author of Words Underway: Continental Philosophy of Language (Rowman and Littlefield International, 2019) and Gadamer and the Social Turn in Epistemology (SUNY Press, forthcoming).
Jason Elek teaches writing at FGCU, writes and records music, plays soccer, and kayaks through the mangrove tunnels of Southwest Florida. The rest of his time is spent chasing around his three young children.
April Felton is an assistant professor in the School of Nursing. Before entering the academy in 2019, she was a neonatal nurse practitioner. Felton teaches in the undergraduate nursing program, including child health nursing and introduction to professional nursing. Her scholarly interests include acquisition of skills by nursing students and innovative teaching practices utilizing simulation.
Shawn D. Felton is the dean in the Marieb College of Health and Human Services at FGCU. Felton returned to FGCU in August 2019 and served as the department chair of health sciences. Felton is engaged in research activities regarding musculoskeletal diagnostic ultrasound, lower extremity biomechanics and EMG activity, simulation in allied health care education, and implementation of micro-badges and digital credentials.
Debra A. Giambo is a professor of English for speakers of other languages in the College of Education. She also is an Honors Faculty Fellow, a member of the Honors Executive Board, and a Global Engagement Fellow at FGCU. Research interests include effective instructional practices for English learners, culturally responsive teacher preparation, English learner literacy, advocacy for English learners, field experience–based research, service learning and study-away experiences, and engaging undergraduate students in research.
Katie Johnson has enjoyed teaching math to others since middle school and is interested in anything that encourages more people (especially underrepresented groups) to study mathematics. She is a professor of mathematics and also coordinates the learning assistant program at FGCU. When not working, Johnson enjoys traveling, reading, cooking, yoga, and playing with her two young children.
Shawn Keller is an assistant professor in the Department of Justice Studies at FGCU. His research is in criminal justice from a biosocial perspective, examining the role epigenetics has on criminal and deviant behavior. He also pursues an interest in the use of future technologies to protect the public: facial recognition, 3D evidence presentation, 3D printing and gun control laws, body cameras with AI assistance, and use of personal and surveillance drones.
Dawn Kirby is associate provost for academic programs and curriculum development. An educator with extensive experience in teaching and administration in public and private universities, she has directed graduate dissertations, written curriculum, directed a National Writing Project site, and served in numerous administrative roles. She is a strong advocate for the value of a liberal arts education and for developing and mentoring students as leaders. Kirby has been a tenured professor since 2003.
Santiago Luaces studies wildlife biology and has a BS in biology and an MS in environmental science. His research has focused on the population ecology of the Florida burrowing owl and the effects of urbanization on their distribution. Luaces is currently working on his EDD, focusing on issues of equity in undergraduate research. He hopes to continue helping students engage in research throughout his career.
Derek Lura is dedicated to student success, which he facilitates though a combination of didactic, dialectic, hands-on, and project-based experiences. He believes that a diversity of techniques are required to teach students with different skills, mindsets, and foundational knowledge. Lura’s research focuses on prosthetic and rehabilitation devices and techniques. He also is engaged in a variety of other projects and uses research a means to facilitate engagement and learning with students outside the classroom.
Peter Reuter, retired, was an associate professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences. He loved teaching undergraduate and graduate courses and inspired students to push themselves to success when challenged. Over the last ten years, Reuter has worked with 30 undergraduate and graduate students on research projects. Students have presented posters at regional, national, and international conferences and have been coauthors of peer-reviewed articles.
Rachel Tait-Ripperdan holds master’s degrees in library and information science and in history. She is an associate liaison librarian at FGCU, specializing in teaching information literacy skills to history, language and literature, communication, and philosophy students.
Tunde Szecsi is professor and program coordinator for the elementary education program at FGCU. She holds master’s degrees in Hungarian, Russian, and English language and literature from Hungary and a PhD in early childhood education from University at Buffalo. She teaches courses in elementary and early education and English for speakers of other languages. Szecsi’s research interests include multicultural education, culturally responsive teacher preparation, humane education, and heritage language maintenance.
Scott Vanselow is an instructor in the School of Entrepreneurship at FGCU, where he teaches entrepreneurship, innovation, and computer science. He also helps to lead and train student participants in the learning assistant program at FGCU. Vanselow earned his MS in computer information systems at FGCU.
Judy Wynekoop is a professor of information systems at FGCU. Before entering academia, she worked as an internal auditor in the retail sector and as a criminal investigator for the federal government. Her research has encompassed individual and team performance in systems development and use, as well as pedagogy in information systems.
Hulya Julie Yazici is currently a full professor of analytics and supply chain management at FGCU. She received her MSc and PhD in engineering management from Missouri University of Science and Technology. She worked with the manufacturing and mining industry in North America and Europe for a decade. She has been in academia for over 30 years, with a dedicated focus on critical thinking, multidisciplinary learning, and scholarship.
Melodie Eichbauer is interim director of the Office of Scholarly Innovation and Student Research and a professor of medieval history, specializing in legal and ecclesiastical history from c. 1000 to c. 1500 CE. She works to ensure that all students have easy access to undergraduate scholarship. Eichbauer believes that research enables student scholars to shape their version of an impactful life, a life in which their scholarly experiences will make a difference in the world around them.
A Scoping Review: Literature on Undergraduate Research and Career Readiness
Recommended Citation: MacDonald, Amanda B., Jeanne Mekolichick, Eric E. Hall, Kristin Picardo, Rosalie Richards 2024. Scoping Review: Literature on Undergraduate Research and Career Readiness. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (1): 3-14. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/1/2
In recent years, the national narrative on the value of higher education has shifted. Americans are losing faith in an undergraduate degree and its worth as a vehicle for social mobility and a public good. Gallup poll data from 2015 shows that 57 percent of respondents indicated they had a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, compared to 48 percent in 2018 and 36 percent in 2023 (Jones 2024). Employers in the United States also are losing confidence in the value of a undergraduate degree. The 2021 report, “How College Contributes to Workforce Success,ˮ commissioned by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), shows a decrease in employer confidence in higher education dropping from 49 percent in 2018 to 41 percent in 2020 (Finley 2021). Given these data points, the value of higher education is unclear to a growing group of the public and employers.
With an eye on these trends, in 2019 the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) released a white paper, “Undergraduate Research: A Road Map for Meeting Future National Needs and Competing in a World of Change” (Altman et al. 2019) that argued for undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative inquiry (URSCI) experiences as a powerful tool for achieving workforce needs. The authors here use both the more inclusive phrase “undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative inquiry” reflective of the breadth of scholarly and creative activities across disciplines, as well as the more truncated “undergraduate research” more commonly found in the literature. The concise phrase, undergraduate research, is meant to be inclusive of scholarly and creative endeavors as well.
Supporting this position, another data point from the 2021 AAC&U’s How College Contributes to Workforce Success report (Finley 2021) shares that 85 percent of employers surveyed were more likely or somewhat more likely to consider hiring a candidate who had a mentored research experience. Considering these documents together begs the question: What elements of the URSCI experience contribute to workplace readiness and are recognized by prospective employers?
The National Association of Colleges and Employers’ (NACE) annual job outlook survey collects information on the skills employers seek in new undergraduates. Using these data, in 2021 NACE updated their list of career readiness competencies that students need to enter and thrive in today’s work environment. Eight competencies emerged: critical thinking, teamwork, communication, professionalism, career and self-development, leadership, technology, and equity and inclusion (NACE 2024). These competencies represent demonstrated outcomes of student participation in URSCI experiences. Mekolichick (2021) articulates the alignment in a NACE Journal article to assist career center professionals in highlighting the value of undergraduate research (UR) experiences for the workplace. Mekolichick (2023) later elucidates this in the 2023 CUR position paper, “Recognizing Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Inquiry as a Career-Readiness Tool,” aimed at helping faculty intentionally identify these competencies for themselves and their students.
Specifically, URSCI experiences are found to enhance student learning, including growth in communication skills, critical thinking and teamwork, a greater understanding of the research process, technical skills, and data analysis competencies (see, for example, Brownell and Swaner 2010; Lopatto 2004; Osborn and Karukstis 2009). In addition, the literature consistently reports student improvement in related dispositions and social psychological constructs, including confidence, ability to work independently and overcome obstacles, increases in self-efficacy, cultivation of a professional identity, clarification of career path, leadership, and professionalism (see, for example, Hunter, Laursen, and Seymour 2007; Osborn and Karukstis 2009; Seymour et al. 2004). In sum, research clearly demonstrates the overlap between the benefits of URSCI and the career readiness competencies identified by employers. However, given public sentiment on the ability of higher education to achieve workforce needs, there is a disconnect between the documented career readiness skills gained in URSCI experiences and the translation of these experiences to the world of work.
CUR recognized this gap and charged a board working group (2021–2023) to advance this work. At the conclusion of their work in 2023, an implementation work group on undergraduate research and career readiness was established. As work began, the group recognized a need to learn more about the state of the literature. To date, there has not been a thorough review of the extent to which URSCI experiences have intentionally included career preparation in the United States. Taking into account the value shift regarding higher education and the foundational skills desired by employers described above, a scoping review was conducted to systematically map what the literature reveals about what faculty, programs, and institutions are intentionally providing to successfully bridge this articulation gap. This scoping review aimed to answer the question: What intentional career readiness competency programming are faculty, programs, and higher education institutions delivering and assessing in undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative inquiry experiences to help students become career ready?
Methods
The protocol was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P; Moher et al. 2015) and was published retrospectively at VTechWorks. The research methodology in this review was based on the JBI methodologies for scoping reviews as described in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Aromataris and Munn 2020). This article follows the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al. 2018).
Eligibility
For inclusion in this review, studies needed to contain at least one NACE competency and an associated assessment of the competency. Publication types included peer-reviewed journal articles, books, book chapters, news articles, white papers, and reports that were housed in the databases or Google Scholar. It is important to note that additional inclusion and exclusion criteria were added at the full-text screening stage. See criteria that begin with “During the full-text screening.” Additionally, there were studies excluded during the full-text screening process that conducted assessments of undergraduate research experiences after a program concluded and included a career readiness evaluation but lacked either an intentional career readiness objective or an associated assessment. The aim of this review was not to prove that undergraduate research experiences prepare students to be career ready, but rather to map researched approaches that faculty, programs, and institutions have successfully piloted to bridge the noted articulation gap.
Inclusion criteria included:
- Any undergraduate research program in a higher education context; all two- to four-year accredited institutions, including community colleges and public and private schools
- Undergraduate research, industry-based research, research internships, scholarship, or creative inquiry OR
- Mention of UR as defined by CUR (“a mentored investigation or creative inquiry conducted by undergraduates that seeks to make a scholarly or artistic contribution to knowledge”; CUR 2024) OR
- Formal UR experience that is mentored, describing student researchers as receiving one-on-one training, research experience, or co-creation of knowledge, scholarship, or creative works
- CUREs (course-based undergraduate research experiences) or capstone courses that align with CUR definition of UR
- Career readiness as defined by NACE (“a foundation from which to demonstrate requisite core competencies that broadly prepare the college educated for success in the workplace and lifelong career management”; NACE 2024) OR
- NACE competencies (“career and self-development, communication, critical thinking, equity and inclusion, leadership, professionalism, teamwork, technology”; NACE 2024) OR
- Industry-based research experience, industry internships with research, employment, professional skills, workplace skills, workplace preparation
- UR, scholarship, or creative inquiry in any discipline, conducted within the United States. Publications can be published by an outlet (e.g., journal).
- No date limits.
- During the full-text screening, the primary goal of the study must include a career readiness intervention regarding one or more NACE competencies (whether explicitly named as NACE or not) with an associated assessment or outcome that is described and designed to measure student mastery of the competency or competencies. Language should state the goal of preparing students for the world of work with a NACE competency—whether explicitly named as NACE or not—that includes an intervention and associated assessment designed to measure student mastery of the NACE competency.
Exclusion criteria included:
- Graduate students of graduate school programs. Middle school or high school students. Except if undergraduate research (etc.) programs or initiatives (as defined in Inclusion) also are included and data or descriptions of interest are (or can be) disaggregated.
- Undergraduate courses with research components only (CUREs or capstone courses that align with CUR definition of UR meet inclusion criteria).
- UR programs hosted by companies outside of higher education institutions (e.g., NASA).
- Outside of the 50 United States; territories of the United States are excluded.
- Publication types excluded are conference proceedings, conference abstracts, opinion pieces, editorials, and reports that can only be purchased from associations.
- During the full-text screening, the primary goal of the study does not include a career readiness intervention regarding one or more NACE competencies (whether explicitly named as NACE or not) with an associated assessment or outcome that is described OR the associated assessment or outcome is mentioned but not described. Studies that include surveys or assessments gathering student feedback on how a UR experience prepared them for their career without a career readiness intervention regarding one or more NACE competencies will be excluded.
Sources
A total of 5 databases were searched in December 2023, and Google Scholar was searched in January 2024. Bibliographic databases were selected to be either non–discipline specific or discipline-specific as related to the research question. An education database was selected to account for interventions taking place in higher education institutions, and a business database was included given the relationship of the outcome with career readiness and the world of work. The following databases were searched:
- Academic Search Complete (1980s–)
- Business Search Complete (1980s–)
- Education Research Complete (1865–)
- Scopus (1800s–)
- Web of Science (1900–)
- Google Scholar (first 204 results)
Search
The search strategy was developed by a librarian on the team, with testing and revisions developed from team discussions. The final search strategy was peer reviewed following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) 2015 Guideline Statement (McGowan et al. 2016) by two librarians outside of this study, both of whom had experience as systematic review coauthors or with evidence synthesis methods. Revisions were made based on their recommendations. The final search strategy used for Scopus was as follows:
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( ( undergrad* ) W/3 ( scholarship OR creativ* OR research* ) ) AND ( nace OR “national association of colleges and employers” OR (( career* OR job OR jobs OR profession* OR work* OR employ* OR occupation* ) W/3 ( readiness OR ready OR development* OR competen* OR skill* OR prepar* ) ) ) )
All searches were conducted utilizing the title, abstract, and author keywords fields within each database. Filters such as language, publication date, or publication type were not used during the search.
Selection
Covidence was the software tool used for the project (Covidence 2023). To initiate the study, pilot assessments were conducted at the start of each stage of the review process (i.e., title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction). During the title and abstract screening, 50 studies were reviewed for the pilot by the team, and conflicts were discussed and resolved before completing the screening for this stage. During the full-text screening pilot, 25 articles were reviewed. The team noted a high rate of conflicts during the full-text screening pilot, discussed the conflicts, and decided to add additional inclusion and exclusion criteria specifically for this round. To resolve the conflicts, the team repeated the full-text screening stage of the pilot with the revised criteria. During the data extraction stage, key characteristics or pieces of information from the studies were extracted in a structured way. Five studies were screened during the pilot by the team, and conflicts were discussed and resolved before completing the extraction phase. For all stages of the review process, two team members screened each study. All conflicts were discussed and resolved by consensus.
Data
Data were extracted on publication characteristics (reference identification number, journal title, study title, lead author, and year of publication), study characteristics (type of institution, aims/purpose, sample size, and discipline of students), career readiness aspect (NACE competency or skill and associated career readiness intervention), and career readiness assessment (how was it assessed, outcomes of the assessment, and any practices or recommendations the authors wished to share).
Synthesis
During the extraction phase, the team chose the method of copying and pasting relevant information into the form directly from the studies. As a result, there were lengthy responses on the form. Some responses were significantly trimmed during the data cleaning and visualization process to make Table 1 easier to read.


Results
Selection
A total of 2518 studies were imported into Covidence. In all, 888 duplicate items were identified by Covidence prior to study selection. Twelve duplicate items were identified and removed manually during the screening processes of the review. The title and abstract screening included 1618 studies, and 1328 studies were excluded. In total, 290 studies were assessed during the full-text screening. The full-text screening excluded 264 studies for the following reasons: 184 did not include a career-readiness intervention with an associated assessment or outcome; 39 were conference proceedings or abstracts, opinion pieces, editorials, or costly reports; 20 took place outside of the United States; 12 were courses with a research paper or project but not a CURE; 6 were research programs for graduate, middle school, or high school students or may have included undergraduate students but data did not differentiate status, and 3 were undergraduate research programs hosted by companies. There were 26 studies remaining that were deemed eligible for this review (see Figure 1).

Characteristics
The data extracted and charted for this review are showcased in Table 1. Each study’s lead author, year of publication, journal title, discipline(s) of students, type of institution, NACE competency or skill, career readiness intervention(s), and assessment strategy are displayed. The table has been sorted first by year, newest to oldest, then alphabetically by lead author’s last name, and finally by discipline.
Results
For this scoping review 26 articles were identified that met all the inclusion criteria (see Table 1). Figure 2 displays the relevant data charted for each part of the review question and objectives. For example, regarding the “intentional career readiness competency” portion of the research question, the career readiness interview was extracted from each study for data charting (see Figure 2).

Description
Eighteen of the 26 articles identified were published since 2020, suggesting that the focus on career readiness is a recent phenomenon. The primary journals that have published this work are the Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research (n = 5) and the Journal of STEM Education (n = 2). The remaining publications were single articles from a variety of journals. Approximately 81 percent of articles focused on traditional STEM disciplines. Nineteen of the studies occurred primarily at four-year public institutions.
Of the 26 studies evaluated, 21 focused on career and self-development, and 13 targeted communication. Professionalism (n = 6), teamwork (n = 5), and critical thinking (n = 4) comprised the next frequency level of competencies addressed. The competencies least addressed were leadership (n = 1), technology (n = 0), and equity and inclusion (n = 0). Interventions implemented for the purpose of developing career competencies were primarily professional or career development workshops and activities (n = 16), followed by mentorship (n = 10) and skills development (n = 8). Unique interventions included conference participation (n = 4) and team-based research (n = 3). One study used an identity development intervention. When examining assessment methods, surveys (n = 24) were the primary mechanism for gathering data. However, a few studies employed focus groups (n = 4) and reflective assignments (n = 3), with single studies using interviews, assignments, or rubrics.
Discussion
Summary
Of the 26 studies examined, the majority described competency outcomes at large four-year public institutions. Only five represented private institutions with a few (three) partnering with public universities. Only 8 percent of the studies identified minority-serving institutions as partners (Marsh et al. 2016; Roberts et al. 2023). Not surprisingly, approximately 85 percent of the studies reported engagement in recognized STEM disciplines, offering large scope for non-STEM disciplines to assess career readiness resulting from research and creative inquiry.
Evidence clearly demonstrates that among the commonly addressed NACE competencies, research programs have focused primarily on developing career and self-development competency (n = 21) to help students consider how their research experiences can support their future goals. However, critical competencies such as communication skills (n = 13), professionalism (n = 6), teamwork (n = 5), and critical thinking (n = 4) lag significantly.
Although there has been almost no intentional focus on leadership (n = 1), technology (n = 0), or equity and inclusion (n = 0), most of the examined studies measured growth of only one or possibly two competencies. Since development of different competencies may not be mutually exclusive, a more holistic approach may be warranted. It will be important for future studies and interventions to carefully consider how to specifically integrate, build, and evaluate growth of multiple career readiness skills, such as those reported by McClure-Brenchley, Picardo, and Overton-Healy (2020) and Mackiewicz et al. (2023).
The most common interventions involved professional or career development workshops, seminars, and related activities as supplementary components to the undergraduate research experience. These often took the form of consultations on how to prepare for graduate school or other forms of career exploration (e.g., Magana et al. 2023) and opportunities for students to build their professional networks (e.g., Adedokun et al. 2012). Intentional mentoring for career clarification was ranked as the second-most frequent intervention. The finding regarding mentoring for career development was not surprising, as research indicates that high-quality mentoring results in the greatest gains for both student and mentor (Shanahan et al. 2015; Vandermaas-Peeler, Miller, and Moore 2018). Mekolichick (2023) noted how “mentors can infuse the associated sample behaviors within their undergraduate research, scholarship and creative inquiry projects in visible, transparent, and consumable ways for our students to recognize the relevancy, value and leave with the language and ability to tell their URSCI stories” (1). In addition, the salient practices framework of undergraduate research mentoring (Shanahan et al. 2015) provides a useful scaffolding for mentors as they help build students’ career competencies. This framework identifies practices that align well with NACE competencies. For example, dissemination of research results aligns with communication, and building a community of scholars aligns with teamwork. The third most common interventions targeted skill development, which often focused on building communication skills (e.g., Charlevoix et al. 2022). A unique intervention approach was improvisation workshops (Phelps et al. 2021). Whatever the type of intervention or skill, what was clear from these studies was the need for research programs to collaborate with faculty and staff who have the expertise to build career readiness competencies.
An overwhelming majority of the studies used a self-reporting survey to assess gains in competencies. Often surveys were created for the study or were a modified version of other surveys, including EvaluateUR (Grinberg and Singer 2021), the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA; Ethnography and Evaluation Research 2009; Weston and Laursen 2015), and the Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (Lopatto 2004, 2009). As noted, a distinct limitation was that these surveys were not designed to assess gains in several NACE competencies. Rather, most focused on research skills that were linked to competencies such as communication, critical thinking, and career and self-development. Two studies used a mixed-methods approach to assessment, and others employed focus groups, interviews, or other reflections or assignments to demonstrate different competencies. The gap in holistic assessment of student career readiness creates a unique opportunity for the design of specific methodologies to assess the roles of UR experiences in advancing the NACE competencies.
Limitations
This scoping review was conducted as part of a Council on Undergraduate Research working group focused on undergraduate research and career readiness. The group concluded that a scoping review would help members better understand the status of career readiness work in UR programs, and where opportunities lie. The research question, objectives, and decisions made aligned with the timeline required by the group. Some forms of gray literature were excluded by eligibility criteria for types of evidence. These included reports that were not included in databases searched but available for purchase at a high cost on association websites; white papers not indexed in the searched databases or Google Scholar; and all conference proceedings, as some proceedings were only published abstracts and the timeline did not allow for contacting authors for the full-text articles. Reference lists of key studies were not scanned for additional items. Hand searching of websites such as NACE and CUR was not conducted. The data charting form was developed to extract information directly related to the research question and also to inform the group’s work in aspects beyond the scope of the research question and objectives. In a future systematic literature review on this topic, researchers should consider crafting broader eligibility criteria and creating a more detailed extraction form to uncover evidence of career readiness competencies that are discussed but not associated with assessments. Use of the NACE competencies and associated assessments is not currently standard in undergraduate research assessment and evaluation practices. Therefore, data charting this type of information was a challenge. At times decisions were made by consensus to exclude articles that appeared to align with the eligibility criteria and potentially valuable to answering the research question, but lacked specificity.
Conclusions
This scoping review demonstrates that there is room to assess and promote the utilization of UR as a tool for career readiness. The recent release of the Mekolichick (2023) position paper should be the impetus for research projects and associated assessments to employ the NACE competencies to measure growth in the career readiness of undergraduate research students. The 2023 call and findings from this study identify the need for urgent action. More intentional, inclusive pedagogies are required to make more transparent the diverse career readiness competencies derived from UR experiences.
Overall, the findings indicate that there is a strong dependence on the URSCI experience itself as a mechanism to develop and sharpen career readiness competencies, without intentionally identifying and assessing specific elements of the URSCI experience that cultivate career readiness competencies in undergraduate students. The current reliance on the URSCI experience without intentional identification and assessment of workplace competencies in an objective way that documents learning is no longer a sufficient approach to best support student success, particularly given the increasing focus on workforce readiness within and beyond the academy. Design and implementation must entail purposeful alignment of the UR experience with desired competency, performance, and behavior outcomes. To the extent that one measures what one values, this gap in assessment of career readiness competencies gained through the URSCI experience calls attention to the lack of focus on their importance. UR leadership is falling short of demonstrating how the URSCI experience contributes to career readiness.
To better serve undergraduate students, more clearly articulate the value of URSCI, and more visibly support community workforce needs, action is called for. Four steps are presented to get started. First, familiarization with the NACE career readiness competencies; choose one competency as a focus for growth in the next URSCI project. Second, identify one learning outcome associated with a UR experience that aligns with the selected competency and review the sample behaviors. Third, make one change to existing project documents, syllabi, student manuals, assignments, etc., that explicitly names the career readiness competency developed. Refer to articles referenced here or the CUR position paper (Mekolichick 2023) for ideas. Finally, using the NACE sample behaviors as a guide, consider developing student and faculty assessments to identify proficiency (NACE 2024). If one competency is already identified and assessed, consider adding additional competencies and sharing the results publicly. The CUR UR as a Career Readiness Tool work group continues, exploring resources and materials needed to support faculty and institutions. Mentors and higher education leaders advancing URSCI are called on to meet this challenge in service to undergraduate students, higher education institutions, and their communities.
Funding
No funding supported this scoping review.
Data Availability
The protocol and associated data, including search strategies, data extraction form, and data exported following the extraction, are available at VTechWorks (https://hdl.handle.net/10919/118669).
Institutional Review Board
IRB was not required for this research.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to C. Cozette Comer and Virginia Pannabecker for providing methodological guidance and feedback throughout this review, peer review of the search strategy, and software training.
References
Adedokun, Omolola A., Dake Zhang, Loran Carleton Parker, Ann Bessenbacher, Amy Childress, and Wilella Daniels Burgess. 2012. “Understanding How Undergraduate Research Experiences Influence Student Aspirations for Research Careers and Graduate Education.” Journal of College Science Teaching 42(1): 82.
Alm, Cecilia O., and Reynold Bailey. 2022. “Scientific Skills, Identity, and Career Aspiration Development from Early Research Experiences in Computer Science.” Journal of Computational Science Education 13(1): 2–16. doi: 10.22369/issn.2153-4136/13/1/1
Altman, Joanne D., Tsu-Ming Chiang, Christian S. Hamann, Huda Makhluf, Virginia Peterson, and Sara E. Orel. 2019. “Undergraduate Research: A Road Map for Meeting Future National Needs and Competing in a World of Change.” CUR White Paper no. 1. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Aromataris, Edoardo, and Zachary Munn (Eds.). 2020. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI Collaboration. doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
Brownell, Jayne E., and Lynn E. Swaner. 2010. Five High-Impact Practices: Research on Learning Outcomes, Completion, and Quality. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Charlevoix, Donna J., Aisha R. Morris, Kelsey Russo-Nixon, and Heather Thiry. 2022. “Engaging Two-Year College Students in Geoscience: Summer Pre-REU Internships and Professional Development to Prepare Students for Participation in Research.” Journal of Geoscience Education 70: 323–338. doi: 10.1080/10899995.2021.1977770
Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR). 2024. “What Is CUR’s Definition of Undergraduate Research?” https://www.cur.org/about/what-is-undergraduate-research
Covidence. 2023. “The World’s #1 Systematic Review Tool.” Accessed October 17, 2024. www.covidence.org
Dillon, Heather E. 2020. “Development of a Mentoring Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (M-CURE).” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 3(4): 26–34. doi: 10.18833/spur/3/4/7
Ethnography and Evaluation Research, Research and Innovation Office. 2009. “Evaluation Tools: Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA).” University of Colorado at Boulder. https://www.colorado.edu/eer/research-areas/undergraduateresearch/evaluation-tools-undergraduate-research-student-self
Finley, Ashley. 2021. How College Contributes to Workforce Success: Employer Views on What Matters Most. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Fuchs, Jonathan, Aminta Kouyate, Liz Kroboth, and Willi McFarland. 2016. “Growing the Pipeline of Diverse HIV Investigators: The Impact of Mentored Research Experiences to Engage Underrepresented Minority Students.” AIDS and Behavior 20: 249–257. doi: 10.1007/s10461-016-1392-z
Grinberg, Ilya, and Jill Singer. 2021. “ETAC-ABET and EvaluateUR-CURE: Findings from Combining Two Assessment Approaches as Indicators of Student-Learning Outcomes.” In 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings, 37098. ASEE Virtual Annual Conference. doi: 10.18260/1-2–37098
Gueorguieva, Petia, Sayantani Ghosh, Ashlie Martini, and Jennifer Lu. 2020. “MACES Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program: Integrating Research and Education.” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 21(2): 42–48.
Hirsch, Penny L., Joan A. W. Linsenmeier, H. David Smith, and Joan M. T. Walker. 2005. “Enhancing Core Competency Learning in an Integrated Summer Research Experience for Bioengineers.” Journal of Engineering Education 94: 391–401. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00867.x
Hunter, Anne-Barrie, Sandra L. Laursen, and Elaine Seymour. 2007. “Becoming a Scientist: The Role of Undergraduate Research in Students’ Cognitive, Personal, and Professional Development.” Science Education 91: 36–74. doi: 10.1002/sce.20173
Hwang, Jihee, and Corbin Franklin. 2023. “Course-Based Undergraduate Research in Human Resource Development: A Case Study.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 25: 45–56. doi: 10.1177/15234223221138567
Jones, Jeffrey M. 2024. “U.S. Confidence in Higher Education Now Closely Divided,” Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/646880/confidence-higher-education-closely-divided.aspx.
Kistner, Kelly, Erin M. Sparck, Amy Liu, Hannah Whang Sayson, Marc Levis-Fitzgerald, and Whitney Arnold. 2021. “Academic and Professional Preparedness: Outcomes of Undergraduate Research in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 4(4): 3–9. doi: 10.18833/spur/4/4/1
Larasatie, Pipiet, Kathy Young, Arijit Sinha, and Eric Hansen. 2021. “‘A Taste of Graduate School without Really Fully Committing to It’: The Undergraduate Experiential Learning Project at Oregon State University.” Wood and Fiber Science 53: 281–293.
Lindsay, Ana Cristina. 2022. “Avancemos! Building Partnerships between Academia and Underserved Latinx Communities to Address Health Disparities through a Faculty-Mentored Undergraduate Research Program.” Health Promotion Practice 23: 569–576. doi: 10.1177/152483992095
Lopatto, David. 2004. “Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings.” Cell Biology Education 3: 270–277. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045
Lopatto, David. 2007. “Undergraduate Research Experiences Support Science Career Decisions and Active Learning.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 6: 297–306. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039
Mackiewicz, Marilyn Rampersad, Kathryn N. Hosbein, Dawn Mason, and Ramya Ajjarapu. 2022. “Integrating Scientific Growth and Professional Development Skills in Research Environments to Aid in the Persistence of Marginalized Students.” Journal of Chemical Education 100: 199–208. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00633
Magana, Alejandra J., Aparajita Jaiswal, Aasakiran Madamanchi, Loran C. Parker, Ellen Gundlach, and Mark D. Ward. 2021. “Characterizing the Psychosocial Effects of Participating in a Year-Long Residential Research-Oriented Learning Community.” Current Psychology 42: 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01612-y
Marsh, L. E., F. M. Hashem, C. P. Cotton, A. L. Allen, B. Min, M. Clarke, and F. Eivazi. 2016. “Research Internships: A Useful Experience for Honing Soft and Disciplinary Skills of Agricultural Majors.” NACTA Journal 60: 379–384.
Mastronardi, Marialice, Maura Borrego, Nathan Choe, and Risa Hartman. 2021. “The Impact of Undergraduate Research Experiences on Participants’ Career Decisions.” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 22(2): 75–82.
McClure-Brenchley, Kimberly J., Kristin Picardo, and Julia Overton-Healy. 2020. “Beyond Learning: Leveraging Undergraduate Research into Marketable Workforce Skills.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 3(3): 28–35. doi: 10.18833/spur/3/3/10
McGowan, Jessie, Margaret Sampson, Douglas M. Salzwedel, Elise Cogo, Vicki Foerster, and Carol Lefebvre. 2016. “PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 75: 40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
McMahon, Tracey R., Emily R. Griese, and DenYelle Baete Kenyon. 2019. “Cultivating Native American Scientists: An Application of an Indigenous Model to an Undergraduate Research Experience.” Cultural Studies of Science Education 14: 77–110. doi: 10.1007/s11422-017-9850-0
Mekolichick, Jeanne. 2021. “Mapping the Impacts of Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Inquiry Experiences to the NACE Career Readiness Competencies.” NACE Journal. https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/mapping-the-impacts-of-undergraduate-research-scholarshipand-creative-inquiry-experiences-to-the-nace-career-readinesscompetencies
Mekolichick, Jeanne. 2023. “Recognizing Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Inquiry as a Career-Readiness Tool.” Position paper. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Moher, David, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, Alessandro Liberati, Mark Petticrew, Paul Shekelle, Lesley A. Stewart, and Prisma-P Group. 2015. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMAP) 2015 Statement.” Systematic Reviews 4: 1–9. https://rdcu.be/dFLtd
National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). 2024. “What Is Career Readiness?” NACE. https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined
Osborn, Jeffery M., and Kerry K. Karukstis. 2009. “The Benefits of Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity.” In Broadening Participation in Undergraduate Research: Fostering Excellence and Enhancing the Impact, ed. M. Boyd and J. Wesemann, 41–53. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Overbay, Amy, Owen Duckworth, and Joshua L. Heitman. 2023. “The BESST REU: Promoting Soil Science Learning and Shifts in Attitudes toward Science.” Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 52: 1–12. doi: 10.1002/nse2.20100
Phelps, Marianne, Catrina White, Lin Xiang, and Hollie I. Swanson. 2021. “Improvisation As a Teaching Tool for Improving Oral Communication Skills in Premedical and Pre-Biomedical Graduate Students.” Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development 8: 1–7. doi: 10.1177/23821205211006411
Posillico, Caitlin, Sarah Stilwell, Jacqueline Quigley, Crystal Carr, Sara Chadwick, Cindy Lustig, and Priti Shah. 2023. “Extending the Reach of the STARs (Students Tackling Advanced Research).” Teaching of Psychology 50: 433–440. doi: 10.1177/0098628321105602
Richard, Jacques C., and So Yoon Yoon. 2021. “Three-Year Study of the Impact of a Research Experience Program in Aerospace Engineering on Undergraduate Students.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 4(4): 23–32. doi: 10.18833/spur/4/4/5
Richard, Jacques C., and So Yoon Yoon. 2023. “Impact of Engineering Research Experience Programs on Domestic and International Undergraduate Students.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 6(3): 29–47. doi: 10.18833/spur/6/3/6
Roberts, Lindsay R., Criss J. Ririe, Marcella J. Myers, Joshua D. Guggenheimer, and Katherine A. Campbell. 2023. “For Aging Research and Equity: Lessons Learned in Undergraduate Research Education.” International Journal of Aging and Human Development 96: 91–105. doi: 10.1177/00914150221109918
Salto, Lorena M., Matt L. Riggs, Daisy Delgado De Leon, Carlos A. Casiano, and Marino De Leon. 2014. “Underrepresented Minority High School and College Students Report STEM-Pipeline Sustaining Gains after Participating in the Loma Linda University Summer Health Disparities Research Program.” PLOS ONE 9(9): 1–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108497
Seymour, Elaine, Anne-Barrie Hunter, Sandra L. Laursen, and Tracee DeAntoni. 2004. “Establishing the Benefits of Research Experiences for Undergraduates: First Findings from a Three-Year Study.” Science Education 88: 493–534. doi: 10.1002/sce.10131
Shanahan, Jenny Olin, Elizabeth Ackley-Holbrook, Eric Hall, Kearsley Stewart, and Helen Walkington. 2015. “Ten Salient Practices of Undergraduate Research Mentors: A Review of the Literature.” Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 23: 359–376. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1126162
Sturner, Kelly K., Pamela Bishop, and Suzanne M. Lenhart. 2017. “Developing Collaboration Skills in Team Undergraduate Research Experiences.” PRIMUS 27: 370–388. doi: 10.1080/10511970.2016.1188432
Tricco, Andrea C., Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, Kelly K. O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun, Danielle Levac, David Moher, et al. 2018. “PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.” Annals of Internal Medicine 169: 467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850
Vandermaas-Peeler, Maureen, Paul C. Miller, and Jessie L. Moore (Eds.). 2018. Excellence in Mentoring Undergraduate Research. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Weston, Timothy J., and Sandra L. Laursen. 2015. “The Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA): Validation for Use in Program Evaluation.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 14(3): ar33. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-11-0206
Zier, Karen, and Lisa D. Coplit. 2009. “Introducing INSPIRE: A Scholarly Component in Undergraduate Medical Education.” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 76: 387–391. doi: 10.1002/msj.20121
Amanda B. MacDonald
Virginia Tech, abmacdon@vt.edu
Amanda B. MacDonald is an associate professor and the undergraduate research services coordinator for university libraries at Virginia Tech. Her work focuses on creating openly accessible resources to support students and faculty engaging with formal undergraduate research experiences. MacDonald coordinates the Advanced Research Skills Program and is deeply involved in the university’s Undergraduate Research Excellence Program. She previously served as the undergraduate research librarian at Louisiana State University.
Jeanne Mekolichick is associate provost of research, faculty success, and strategic initiatives and professor of sociology at Radford University. She provides strategic leadership and direction for the research and creative scholarship enterprise, online education, faculty success, experiential learning, career services, and strategic initiatives. Mekolichick is a workshop facilitator, consultant, and program reviewer. Her work has been funded for mission-central efforts, including inclusive excellence initiatives, community-based research, undergraduate research, and career readiness.
Kristin Picardo is the assistant provost in the Office of Sponsored Programs, professor of biology, and founding director of the Center for Student Research and Creative Work at St. John Fisher University. She has published with undergraduate research students working in her bacteriology lab, is a former representative of the CUR Biology Division, and served as principal investigator on a track-1 National Science Foundation S-STEM grant.
Eric Hall is professor of exercise science and director of undergraduate research at Elon University. He is interested in the influence of undergraduate research mentorship on student and faculty development. Hall has coauthored 100 research articles, 10 book chapters, and is coeditor of one book. He has received awards for his mentorship and scholarship, including the 2022 Health Sciences Innovative Mentor Award from the Council on Undergraduate Research.
Rosalie A. Richards is associate provost for faculty development and professor of chemistry and education at Stetson University. She is responsible for the vision and strategic leadership of faculty development and support. Richards is a nationally recognized leader in undergraduate research, faculty development, STEM education, equity, and intercultural competence. She has published widely on these areas in higher education and serves frequently as a consultant to universities and other undergraduate institutions.