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.