22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Tracking Undergraduate Research in Texas: What Student and Institutional Characteristics Predict Participation in Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences?
Jacob Kirksey1, Raegan Higgins1, Jessica Gottlieb1, Jessica Spott1, Jennifer Freeman2, Teresa Lansford1
1Texas Tech University, United States of America; 2University of Pennsylvaina, United States of America
Presenting Author: Freeman, Jennifer
The global economic landscape is ever in flux, and as such, there is constant demand for highly skilled workers (Nager & Atkinson, 2017). This is especially true in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related industries which represent the fastest growing sector of the global labor force (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020; Smit et al., 2020). However, less than one-third (28%) of bachelor’s degree STEM graduates ultimately work in a STEM-designated field in the United States (Day & Martinez, 2021), and the share of STEM programs graduates has declined in Europe for the past two decades (Bacovic et al., 2022), suggesting a weak STEM college-to-career pathway for students. These pathways have also been shown to unequally sort students from under-represented groups out of STEM fields and/or into gendered STEM roles for women (Funk & Parker, 2018).
Countries across the world have dedicated significant resources to combatting employment shortages in fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), especially given the demand for STEM-related skills is only expected to increase in years to come (OECD, 2017). In the U.S., the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health have allocated significant financial support to undergraduate student success in STEM fields through undergraduate research programs. Such experiences equip students with research and critical thinking skills, support STEM major retention, and promote entrance to graduate school and research-based careers in STEM fields (NSB, 2018). Even non-STEM majors have reported that these experiences have increased their interest in STEM fields (Stanford et al., 2015). The design of undergraduate research experiences varies across and within institutions of higher education (IHEs), including summer research programs, volunteer lab positions, laboratory courses, and other “research-like” experiences.
Faculty-mentored undergraduate research experiences are standard in many colleges across the U.S. However, most of these experiences are highly selective and serve predominantly White male students from high-income backgrounds (Hu et al., 2008). Because these experiences are not widely accessible to most students (Balled et al., 2017; Bhattacharyya et al., 2020), there has been a recent push for universities to increase opportunities and access to undergraduate research opportunities through course-based undergraduate research (CUR). While the design of CUR varies across and within institutions, many have developed intensive, research-based courses that expose students to the process of research early in their college careers with faculty oversight (Auchincloss et al., 2014).
While researchers, universities, and policymakers widely accept CUR as an example of a scalable learning environment that can increase access to research opportunities, particularly for traditionally under-represented groups, there is limited research supporting this assertion. Moreover, the studies that do exist have data-related limitations, including narrow disciplinary focus, using data from a single institution, and relying on self-report measures of participation. The most striking limitation across many of the studies included the lack of addressing sources of selection bias. This issue arises because of the strong academic histories of students who are selected to participate in research experiences.
Given the recent push for universities to embed CUR in their curriculum, it is critical to understand which students are accessing such experiences. Additionally, understanding the characteristics of students participating int these experiences is important for understanding the sources of bias needed to model selection into undergraduate research. Drawing on the Texas statewide longitudinal data, the present study addresses the data-related shortcomings of previous studies to explore which student and institutional factors enable or constrain participation in CUR. Specifically, we ask:
- What pre-college characteristics are related to the likelihood of participation in CUR?
- Do these relationships differ by field of research (e.g., STEM vs. non-STEM?)
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study uses administrative data from drawing from the Texas Statewide Longitudinal Data System provided by the University of Houston’s Education Research Center (ERC) from 2010-2022. The UH-ERC database is designed to track individual students attending Texas public institutions longitudinally from K-12 schools to postsecondary certificate and degree programs to the workforce. The UH-ERC contains a rich set of recorded high school student characteristics prior to attending IHEs, which are underexplored in the current literature on undergraduate research participation and the key variables of interest to address our research questions. Our sample will include students who graduated from Texas public high schools and attended a public, R1 university in Texas between 2010-2021. IHEs designated as R1 universities by the Carnegie Classification of IHEs are those with the highest research activity, measured by expenditures in research and development and doctoral degree conferrals.
Each public 4-year university in Texas posts course catalogues, which contain course abbreviations and identifiers. Additionally, the ERC contains institution-specific course abbreviations and numbers, which can be linked to student data. Relying on course names, key words, and long-form descriptions, we identified all CUR offered available at a public, R1 university in Texas, and linked this to the students in the ERC database. We plan to expand this analysis to include 6 additional universities in the upcoming months. We define STEM fields in accordance with the National Science Foundation (NSF) to include fields in the physical and life sciences, technology, engineering, mathematics, as well as in psychology and other social sciences.
The ERC contains a host of pre-college characteristics used in our analysis, including sex, race/ethnicity, disability, English proficiency, and immigrant-origin. From students’ high school data, we will also include measures of high school GPA, and number of advanced STEM or STEM-related credits earned. In the future analyses, we will also include several institutional measures, including acceptance rate, financial characteristics (e.g., endowment, research expenditures), urbanicity, retention rate, average time to graduation, number of CUR offerings, number of STEM degrees, and faculty research activity. We use a linear probability model with fixed effects for academic major declared at college-entry to identify what pre-college and institutional characteristics predict likelihood of participating in CUR.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThus far, we have identified all CUR offered at a single, R1 university in Texas, and linked this to the students in the ERC database. We plan to expand this analysis to include 6 additional IHEs in the upcoming months. We focus our preliminary results on which student factors associate with participation in CUR.
Our analysis illustrates that roughly 3% of all students participated in CUR from 2010-2021. The most popular subject areas of CURs were biological science (21%), communications (11%), and physical sciences (10%). We show that students who participated in gifted and talented programs (at any point in K-12) were 6.7% more likely (0.002 percentage points) to participate in CUR. Students whose mother earned an advanced degree beyond a bachelor’s were 20% more likely to participate in CUR (0.006 percentage points).
When looking at differences across fields, students with limited English proficiency were 16.6% (0.005 percentage points) more likely to participate in non-STEM CURs. For students in STEM fields, the results mirrored those from research question 1. Namely, students identified as gifted and those whose mother earned an advanced degree had higher rates of participating in CUR experiences in STEM fields. The next steps in our analysis include expanding our data to include six additional R1, public universities in Texas for which we have compiled accurate CUR identifiers using course catalogues and syllabi. With the addition of more universities, we will include our set of institutional characteristics into the analysis along with institution-by-year fixed effects.
The results from this study will provide university stakeholders and policymakers with information needed to make more informed decisions regarding the availability of CUR, which can be used to develop targeted interventions aimed and increasing participation for key underrepresented groups, including females, students of color, students from low-income households, and students with disabilities.
ReferencesAuchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I., Lawrie, G., McLinn, C. M., Pelaez, N., Rowland, S., Towns, M., Trautmann, N. M., Varma-Nelson, P., Weston, T. J., & Dolan, E. L. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report. CBE life sciences education, 13(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004
Bacovic, M., Andrijasevic, Z., & Pejovic, B. (2022). STEM Education and Growth in Europe. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(3), 2348–2371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00817-7
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Employment in STEM occupations [Table 1.11 Employment in STEM occupations, 2020 and projected 2030].
Day, J.C., & Martinez, A. (2021). STEM majors earned more than other STEM workers. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/06/does-majoring-in-stem-lead-to-stem-job-after-graduation.html
Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2018). Diversity in the STEM workforce varies widely across jobs. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/diversity-in-the-stem-workforce-varies-widely-across-jobs/
Hu, S., Scheuch, K., Schwartz, R., Gayles, J. G., & Li, S. (2008). Reinventing undergraduate education: Engaging college students in research and creative activities. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(4), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3304
Nager, A., & Atkinson, R. D. (2017). The Case for Improving U.S. Computer Science Education. SSRN Electronic Journal, May, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3066335
National Science Board. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01)
OECD. (2017). In-depth analysis of the labour market relevance and outcomes of higher education systems: Analytical framework and country practices report. Enhancing Higher Education System Performance, OECD, Paris.
Smit, S., Tacke, T., Lund, S., Manyika, J., & Thiel, L. (2020). The future of work in Europe: Automation, workforce transitions, and the shifting geography of employment. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-in-europe
Stanford, J. S., Rocheleau, S. E., Smith, K. P., & Mohan, J. (2017). Early undergraduate research experiences lead to similar learning gains for STEM and Non-STEM undergraduates. Studies in Higher Education, 42(1), 115-129.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
From Global Thinker to Innovative Mind: An equity and quality roadmap through personalised learning and assessment
Brian Denman1,2
1Stockholm University, Sweden; 2Wenner Gren Foundation
Presenting Author: Denman, Brian
Every year, thousands of young graduates leave university without having a clear idea for their future employment/career pathways. Higher education’s role in preparing students to be well-rounded and ready for the workforce is becoming a mounting concern (Denman & James 2016), yet few data are readily available to indicate how teaching (course content) (Seely-Brown et. al 2001), employer needs, and additional learning and assessment needs work together to prepare graduates for the world of work (Scott 2016). Arguably, the alignment between education and employment is important if not vital for students being future-ready for the workforce. The value proposition of a higher education degree begs the question of the ‘global thinker’ and what that may entail. Notwithstanding the concern of what jobs will exist in five to ten years, students and prospective employers are actively seeking out what specialised skills they will need to possess for the foreseeable future.
Similarly, there have been a number of concepts proposed throughout the years that address the ‘innovative’ mind. But instead of building a well-rounded and strong liberal arts background using the familiar works of leading scholars in the disciplines, the emphasis is shifted towards the development and application of skills over time. Learning analytics to date have yet to consolidate and synthesize knowledge and experience through themes, patterns of development, and approaches.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis presentation begins by exploring emerging themes and patterns associated with sociocultural perspectives of the global thinker and innovation. It is believed that personal attributes such as creativity, communication, problem solving, analytical thinking and reflective thinking help to construct paradigmatic dimensions of human potential that identify and define the ‘global’ and the ‘innovative’ mind using a sociocultural lens. The exploration then presents a case study analysis of undergraduate and postgraduate students in Australia, China and Sweden in an attempt to capture a comparative sample of social and cultural engagement in the classroom and community-at-large. These case studies contribute to a stream of evidence demonstrating how certain attributes provide a coherent and consistent theme or pattern that reflects how innovation is interpreted within localised contexts. The case studies are used to frame the tensions and dilemmas arising in defining and compartmentalising expansive learning theory that incorporates development of global thinking and innovation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAfter several decades of study on innovation, and contribution from many different disciplines and perspectives, there are still many aspects of how we can develop the global thinker and innovation about which we know very little. The investigation of global thinking and innovation still has much to deliver; important questions remain unanswered and many problems still require solutions. There is a glimmer of hope that education could be recalibrated to consider ideas development based on strengths rather than competency development based on a deficit model of skills.
The study raises a further question of whether we should be simply training our graduates for employment or rather developing them as well-rounded 'global thinking' individuals who can contribute to society and its changing needs.
ReferencesDenman, Brian D., & Rosalind James, (2016). Cultural ecology and isomorphism applied to educational planning in China’s Inner Mongolia: A new rubric. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, Vol 18, No 1, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK: 40-52.
Scott, Donald E., (2016). Assessment as a Dimension of Globalisation: Exploring International Insights. Assessment in Education. Implications for Leadership. Shelleyann Scott, Donald E. Scott, & Charles F. Webber, eds., Springer International Publishing.
Seely-Brown, John and Paul Duguid (2001). Creativity versus Structure: A useful tension. MITSloan Management Review (15 October 2001). Accessed 30 March 2021, http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/creativity-versus-structure-a-useful-tension-2/
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Mapping Inclusive Student Centred Pedagogical Competences and First Steps Towards Developing Academics’ Pedagogical Acuity
Kalliopi {Kallia} Katsampoxaki1, Meeri Hellstén2, Elena Marin3, Roeland van der Rijst4, Elia Maria Fernandez Diaz5, Marite Kravale-Paulina6
1University of Crete, Greece; 2Stockholm University, Sweden; 3University of Bucharest, Romania; 4Leiden University, The Netherlands; 5University of Cantabria, Spain; 6Daugavpils University, Latvia
Presenting Author: Katsampoxaki, Kalliopi {Kallia};
Hellstén, Meeri
In this paper, we argue for the need to shift towards more sustainable faculty development (FD) processes so that academics can become self-regulated, autonomous learners themselves and develop competences that allow them to design efficacious Inclusive Student-centred Pedagogy (ISCP) lessons in their context. Drawing on Hockings (2001), we define ISCP in Higher Education as proactive and intentional teaching and learning activities, course design, curricula and assessment that foster equity during carefully designed learner-centred opportunities for student engagement, self-awareness, self-regulation, and learner autonomy for all stakeholders in higher education; hence, ISCP does not label certain groups of students or individuals who may have additional needs but it attempts to meet all student needs proactively taking into account potential needs of all stakeholders without labelling (Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, 2022).
The Covid-19 pandemic created many challenges that higher education (HE) has to address (EU Commission Directorate, 2021) including the rapid digitalisation of education and the expression of often muted or suppressed academic voices. The digital transformation of education enhanced our awareness that some on-campus teaching models may not be appropriate as certain groups of students may be under-privileged. In this new landscape, academics ought to revise their teaching and their curricula, listening at the same time to voices that may have been unassumed, like those of students. Incorporating needs, plans and ambitions of all students, regardless of identity, ISCP can address such discrepancy in a context where everyone’s voice can be heard through all available means and students are viewed as equal partners (Cook-Sather, 2016). This need for educational change is highlighted and promoted throughout the EU through University alliances i.e. Circle.U or CIVIS and European Agencies promoting Inclusion i.e. EASIE. Academics’ role needs to adapt to becoming more responsible for cultivating an inclusive and equity-driven learning environment where all students can succeed academically (Whittaker & Montgomery, 2014) and improving ISCP teaching practices and faculty development (FD) interventions in Higher Education become imperative (Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, 2022).
Following top-down policy directives and despite faculty member resistance, faculty development (FD) modes entail organising formal learning cycles including teacher-fronted training sessions, lectures, seminars or hands-on workshops. Recent FD developments opt for modes that employ informal discussions among or between peers, peer coaching discussion prior to or after completion of peer-observation protocols and self-regulation tasks that require alignment of all syllabus components with ISCP pedagogies. Action research combined with reflective diaries or teacher portfolios also serve as a promising FD model. However, there is a yawning gap between teaching practices and policies as little attention has been given to academics’ pedagogical acuity following target faculty development (FD) modes. With this shift in mind and by systematically recording academics reflections and evaluations of existing formal, informal, typical and atypical formal development modes, COALITION partners, an international European project with six universities, aim to map emerging needs in terms of academics pedagogical acuity as well as overall readiness to embrace ISCP pedagogies by placing emphasis on the need to implement adequate schemes for pedagogical development that empower academics to teach in ISCP programmes with confidence.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study has a comparative dimension among six universities in six European countries (Greece, Latvia, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Romania) involved in this consortium. Following a functionalist and an empowerment approach of needs analysis (Sava, 2012), we employed two survey methods, a questionnaire and interview to collect data from faculty members (academics) and students.
The initial component of this large scale project examined faculty (n=180) and students’ (n=180) perceptions in terms of how ISCP is facilitated and implemented at their home university. The context takes into account institutional situatedness and personalised standpoints. The survey instrument consisted of 46 statements that obtained descriptive data using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree.
The survey has four sections; the first one aims at mapping academic perceptions of possible institutional barriers and facilities in terms of ISCP, the second section explores faculty’s beliefs regarding support of inclusive pedagogy approaches, the third section focuses on curricular and assessment adjustments that support ISCP, while the fourth section examines facilitation of active learning and engagement of all students through ISCP.
This tool was employed to map any expected competences among faculty member ISCP and faculty development needs taking into account various teaching, learning and assessment modes. The survey was followed up by semi structured interviews whose thematic analysis gave rise to academics’ agentic engagement potential and expectations of typical and atypical faculty development modes. Participation in the study was voluntary and the protocol was approved by the institutional review board for the protection of human subjects.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFramed through an evidencing value lens (Bamber & Stefani, 2016; van der Rijst et al., 2022), the theoretical framework, the methodology, the tools used by six European Universities will shed light to academics’ needs and competences with regards to ISCP and follow up interventions designed.
In this light, we also aim, at a later stage, to provide a more learner centred FD approach with academics as learners, through a “methodological approach that foregrounds plurality and contestation, orienting research frameworks towards inclusiveness, tensions, unpredictability and complexity” (Khoo et al., 2019: 182). Based on the initial data and upon mapping of academics ISCP competences, we aim to design formal and informal faculty development approaches (incl. reflexive and communicative interaction tools). In an attempt to evaluate how substantive each FD approach is in terms of ‘doing’ ISCP. We also aim to complement each academic’s action with an evaluation questionnaire that will provide us with reflexive opportunities by focusing on processes (Kläy et al., 2015). The same evaluation questionnaires will be used after each FD activity as purposive spaces, frameworks (Mitchell et al., 2015) and structured opportunities for reflection or a self-regulation tool.
Drawing upon insights from critical reflexivity (Wilmes et al. 2018) and collaborative autoethnography as a qualitative methodology and a theoretical approach that allows researchers to “transcend narrations of the past” (Chang, Wambura Ngunjiri, Hernandezm, 2013:19), we will encourage participants to work toward interpretation of the self, relative to situated social and cultural contexts (Lave & Wenger, 1998). This non-dominating and reflexive ‘strong objectivity’ (Rosendahl et al., 2015) view promotes a standpoint perspective that involves both expert and non-expert actors in co-producing knowledge as equal partners. Reflexivity upon their decisions will reveal academics’ actions and stance as ‘a self-referential analytic exercise’ which ‘aligns methodological rigour with a critically disciplined subjectivity’ (Macbeth 2001: 38–39).
ReferencesBrew, A. & Boud, D. (1996). Preparing for new academic roles: A holistic approach to development, IJAD, 1:2, 17-25.
Bamber, V., & Stefani, L. (2016). Taking up the challenge of evidencing value in educational development: From theory to practice. IJAD, 21(3), 242–254.
Chang, H. et al.(2013). Collaborative Autoenthography. Walnut Creek. CA: Left Coast Press.
Cook-Sather, A. (2016). Creating brave spaces within and through student-faculty pedagogical partnerships. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education (18).
Dinkleman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. J. Teacher Education, 54(1), 6–18.
Hellstén M., Mickwitz L. & Scharfenberg J. (2020). Teacher Education in Sweden: Revisiting the Swedish Model. Teacher Education in in the Global Era, 99-114.
Grunefeld H. et al. (2022). Development of educational leaders’ adaptive expertise in a professional development programme, IJAD, 27:1, 58-70
Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Research. York: Higher Education Academy.
Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, K. (2022). The ‘naked’ syllabus as a model of faculty development: is this the missing link in Higher Education?, IJAD
Khoo, SM., Haapakoski, J., Hellsten, M. And Malone, J. (2019). Moving form interdisciplinary educational ethics: bridging epistemological differences in researching higher education internationalisation(s), Eu.Ed.Re.J. 18 (02) 181-199.
Kläy, A. Zimmerman, AR and Schneider, F. (2015). Rethinking Science for Sustainable Development: Reflexive inaction for a paradigm transformation. Futures. 65: 72-85.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. (1998). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Macbeth, D. (2001). “On ‘Reflexivity’ in Qualitative Research: Two Readings, and a Third.” Qualitative Inquiry 7 (1): 35–68.
Mitchell, C., Cordell, D. And Fame, D. (2015). Beginning at the end: The outcomes spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research. Futures. 65: 86-96.
Roeland van der Rijst, Bonnie Dean & Klara Bolander Laksov (2022) Revisiting the impact of academic development: scholarship and practice, IJAD 27:1, 1-3
Rosendahl, J. Zanella MA and Rist, S. (2015). Scientists’ situated knowledge: String objectivity in trasndisciplinarity. Futures 65: 17-27.
Sava, S. (2012). Needs Analysis and Programme Planning in Adult Education (1st ed.). Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Whittaker, J.A., Montgomery, B.L. (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9277-9
Wilmes, S., Siry, C., Heinericy, S. Heesen, KT., Kneip, N. (2018). doi: 10.17564/2316-3828.2018v7n1p13-24
Zou, T. X. P., & Geertsema, J. (2020). Higher Education Research & Development, 29(3), 606–620.
|
