MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Engaging First-year University Students in Research: Promise, Potentials, and Pitfalls

2016· article· en· W2409453793 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sarah L. Sangster, Kara Loy, Sheryl Mills, Karen Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUndergraduate researchMedical educationPsychologyCurriculumPedagogyKinesiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2014, the Undergraduate Research Initiative at the University of Saskatchewan implemented a pilot project to organize, support, and promote curriculum-based research experience as an integral aspect of participating first-year courses. The framework for the course-based initiative was the research arc; usually in groups, students in these classes would develop a research question, investigate it using discipline-appropriate methodologies, and disseminate the results. Nine classes (Agriculture, Animal Bioscience, Environmental Science, Women’s and Gender Studies, Psychology, Kinesiology, and Interdisciplinary Studies) participated in this program pilot. There were four key agents in the program: faculty instructors, research coaches, students in participating first-year classes, and university administrative staff. This preliminary evaluation of the pilot suggests that first-year undergraduate research experiences have potential to benefit the undergraduate student participants as well as the faculty and research coaches involved. The primary benefits that faculty reported experiencing included an increased interest in ways to engage learners, reexamination of and reflection on their teaching strategies, the pragmatic support of a research coach helping with their work load, and an invigoration of their research. The primary benefits to research coaches included enhancement of their professional skills, experience in lesson planning and facilitation, CV building, and an ideology shift in how to best facilitate learning for undergraduate students. The most prominent benefits for undergraduate students appeared to be that they gained a better idea about how researchers think and work, that they increased their understanding of how research works, and that their own research and professional skills had improved. Early, bottom-up evaluation identified characteristics of implementation that appear to best facilitate achievement of the initiative’s outcomes and identified the potential pitfall of imposing outcomes, from related but distinct initiatives, that may not be achievable or optimal in in the setting of first-year classes. The results of this evaluation suggest that rather than gaining clarity or focus, first-year students in course-based research experiences might gain awareness of their personal potential, of the potential of research, and of their career/educational options. En 2014, l’Université de la Saskatchewan a mis en oeuvre un projet pilote, la Undergraduate Research Initiative (Initiative de recherche pour étudiants de premier cycle) dont l’objectif était d’organiser, de soutenir et de promouvoir l’expérience de recherche basée sur le programme de cours et faisant directement partie des cours de première année participants. Le cadre de cette initiative basée sur les cours était l’arc de recherche; habituellement divisés en groupes, les étudiants inscrits dans ces cours ont élaboré une question de recherche, l’ont examinée par le biais de méthodologies appropriées à la discipline et en ont diffusé les résultats. Neuf cours (agriculture, sciences biologiques animales, sciences de l’environnement, études sur les femmes et le genre, psychologie, kinésiologie et études interdisciplinaires) ont participé à ce programme pilote. Il y avait quatre agents clés dans le programme : les professeurs, les accompagnateurs de recherche, les étudiants inscrits dans les cours de première année participants et le personnel administratif de l’université. Cette évaluation préliminaire du projet pilote suggère que les expériences de recherche en première année d’un programme de premier cycle peuvent potentiellement offrir des avantages aux étudiants de premier cycle qui y participent ainsi qu’aux professeurs et aux accompagnateurs de recherche. Les avantages principaux, selon les professeurs qui ont fait un rapport sur leur expérience, comprennent un plus grand intérêt dans les manières d’engager les apprenants, le réexamen d’une réflexion sur leurs stratégies d’enseignement, le soutien pragmatique des accompagnateurs de recherche qui les aident avec leur charge de travail et une revitalisation de leur recherche. Les avantages principaux pour les accompagnateurs de recherche comprennent une amélioration de leurs compétences professionnelles, une expérience dans la planification et la facilitation des leçons, des expériences à ajouter à leur curriculum vitae et un changement idéologique concernant la meilleure manière de faciliter l’apprentissage des étudiants de premier cycle. Les avantages les plus importants pour les étudiants de premier cycle semblent être qu’ils ont acquis une meilleure compréhension de la manière dont les chercheurs pensent et travaillent et de la manière dont la recherche fonctionne, et que leurs propres recherches et leurs propres compétences professionnelles ont été améliorées. L’évaluation préliminaire participative a identifié des caractéristiques de mise en oeuvre qui semblent faciliter au mieux l’atteinte des résultats de l’initiative et a identifié l’écueil potentiel d’imposer des résultats, à partir d’initiatives différentes mais connexes, qui risquent de ne pas être réalisables ou optimales dans le cadre de cours de première année. Les résultats de cette évaluation suggèrent que, plutôt que de gagner en clarté ou en focus, les étudiants de première année qui participent à des expériences de recherche basées sur les cours pourraient prendre conscience de leur potentiel personnel, du potentiel de la recherche et de leurs options de carrière ou scolaires.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207