FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Here we provide a guide for those interested in understanding and improving the outcomes of UFEs. The intention is to encourage practitioners to use relevant, contextual information about their UFE to iteratively inform assessment strategies and in turn, improve the value and inclusivity of the UFE for the full spectrum of participants and stakeholders. We also encourage researchers to work with practitioners to use the supports provided to conduct applied research about the impact of various characteristics of UFEs on different student populations and “identify what works for whom and under what conditions.” (Dolan 2015, National Academies of Sciences and Medicine (NASEM), 2017) p. 175). We know that in undergraduate research experiences, student context factors interact with program characteristics (NASEM 2017), and we are confident this is also true in UFEs. O’Connell et al., (submitted) describes the impact ofstudent context factors and program design factorson student outcomes in UFEs as a useful resource for design and implementation of and research about UFEs. In general, we have very little empirical evidence about the linkage of design elements to learning outcomes. Through a thoughtful assessment approach, practitioners may begin to unravel which design elements of their UFE are specifically leading to which student outcomes for which students. Future work to build on this strategy could model which design elements lead to specific outcomes, similar to the work by Corwin and colleagues regarding how to better understand how CURE elements influence student outcomes (Corwin et al. 2015).
The process of informed assessment and reflection will almost inevitably improve the accessibility and inclusivity of UFEs. Morales et al. (2020, p. 7) call for continuing a “conversation about creating student-centered field experiences that represent positive and formative experiences for all participants while removing real or imagined barriers to any student participating in field research .” Explicit attention to diversity, equity, access, and inclusion regarding who gets to participate in UFEs and the learning that results from the experiences, are key conversations with important implications (Nairn 1999, Carabajal et al. 2017, Stokes et al. 2019, Giles et al. 2020, Morales 2020 et al., Zavaleta et al. 2020, Demery and Pipkin 2021). As illustrated in Fig.2D for example, authentically considering what it means to be accessible is an important question, and we suggest that practitioners begin to systematically evaluate who is served by their UFE and who is not served and why, thus deeply investigating how the UFE may become more inclusive of diverse individuals. It will be necessary to work across disciplines to learn what is needed to support and advocate for inclusive UFEs such that as many students as possible can participate.
The ‘hands-on’ aspect of UFEs necessarily looks different in a virtual environment. In this case, it is important to ask: What are the characteristics defining a virtual UFE? As it relates to outcomes, what can we learn about the impacts of in-person experiences vs. remote on a student’s affect such as their sense of belonging? The recent COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the forefront vital questions about the role for, as well as the development and implementation of virtual field experiences (Arthurs 2021, Swing et al. 2021), as well as assessment practices that are in alignment with these. We suggest that this is one area where developing novel assessment tools are needed to effectively measure impact.