Suggested Assessment Tools
For suggestions of assessment tools specifically relevant to UFEs, we developed Table 1 , which not only describes common intended student outcomes from UFEs, but also provides example assessment tools that might be appropriate to assess the intended student outcomes. In Table 1 we included only tools that have been peer-reviewed and published. We strongly recommend reviewing the associated peer-reviewed paper before using a tool, as well as looking in the literature to see if others have used the tool and published their findings.
What are the Next Steps?
We encourage that the process of evaluation and assessment is a reflective, cyclical, iterative process of improvement as it relates to UFE design and implementation. There are inevitably going to be aspects of any learning experience that could be improved, and this assessment strategy (Fig. 1) can help practitioners visualize alignment between intended outcomes, programming, assessment and evaluation; and how each informs the other. The next steps for many UFEs might be to first report to stakeholders (funders, the institution, etc.) on the outcomes of the UFE. Or, if the goal of the assessment effort was to conduct novel research, then the next steps might be to analyze, write up and submit the results of the study for peer review, thereby contributing to the growing literature of empirical outcomes from UFEs. For example,Fig. 2D will use the results to inform similar UFE design and assessment, Fig. 2B will provide pilot data for ongoing publishable projects, and Fig. 2A&C will, in-part, leverage results to apply for or validate grant funding. These types of data may be paramount to sustained funding, data-driven advocacy efforts, and/or applying for future funding for continued programming.
An important part of the presented strategy is that it might be used to engage stakeholders in a discussion about what additional questions might be appropriate to ask or what improvements need to be considered. Is there alignment between activities and learning goals? Is the current evaluation strategy accurately measuring what stakeholders expect the students to gain from the UFE? Is the programing intentionally inclusive of the participants’ diverse perspectives and experiences, or could adaptations be made to better serve the UFE population? For example, to address financial and relocation barriers identified through the program evaluation for one field based REU, the REU leaders introduced new policies for students to be paid at the start of their experience and identified field research projects that were located in student communities, and in another case, accommodations were made for the student’s family to join them as part of the residential field experience (Ward et al. 2018). This is just one example of how assessment data can be used to inform the design of future UFEs and highlights how the assessment process can be both informative and iterative.