To provide examples of the diversity of UFEs and give realistic examples of using the strategy to guide assessment and/or evaluation,Fig. 2 presents four sample vignettes that highlight different kinds of UFEs and illustrate using the approach outlined in Fig. 1 . The vignettes provide examples of how one might apply the strategy to a given UFE. At the end of the paper we present two of the vignettes in a more detailed narrative, offering examples that synthesize the ideas presented (Expanded Vignettes).

Figure 1. Strategy for Assessment of Undergraduate Field Experiences (UFEs). The strategy is meant to serve as a guide to walk practitioners through assessing their UFE. The green arrows signify that each box informs the other, and iterative reflection and refinement are a key aspect of informed evaluation and assessment. The logic model includes four key components: I) Identifying the intended student and/or programmatic outcomes for the UFE; II)Considering the context of the UFE, which may include any number of factors such as: student context, setting, duration, timing, one or multiple disciplines, and accessibility of the UFE; III)Defining an assessment approach that is appropriate for the context and in alignment with intended outcomes; IV) Utilizing the outcomes and approach to inform and refine next steps in the UFE.

The main focus of this work is to provide the tools and resources needed such that stakeholders can confidently assess if students are meeting expected learning outcomes from UFEs (e.g. students expand their knowledge of endemic amphibians; students report an increased interest in environmental sustainability efforts); however, programmatic outcomes and goals (e.g. participants are involved in community engagement and scientific knowledge-building activities) are also critical components of this type of learning environment, and thus are also represented in example vignettes (Fig. 2 ).

We draw upon Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning (Bloom and Krathwohl 1966, Anderson et al. 2001) to aid practitioners in considering the possible outcomes from UFEs. The taxonomy describes three fundamental domains of learning: the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Studies about UFEs demonstrate that students may experience outcomes across all of these domains and more (Boyle et al. 2007, Stokes and Boyle 2009, Scott et al. 2012, Petcovic et al. 2014, Scott et al. 2019, O’Connell et al. 2020). Cognitive outcomes from a UFE could include: an improved ability explain plant species interactions, accurately identify geological formations, or solve a problem using an interdisciplinary lens (Fuller et al. 2006, Bauerle and Park 2012, Tripp et al. 2020). Affective outcomes could include: a newfound interest in a subject, such as conservation; motivation to continue seeking out field learning experiences; or, development of a connection to place (Boyle et al. 2007, Simm and Marvell 2015, Jolley et al. 2018a, Scott et al. 2019). Outcomes in the psychomotor domain could include: the improved ability to geolocate, collect and measure sediment in a lake with the appropriate instrumentation and accuracy, or use established methodology to sample stream invertebrates (Arthurs 2019, Scott et al. 2012). In addition to considering these three fundamental learning domains, UFEs may promote student outcomes that span domains and enter the social realm, such as developing communication skills (Bell and Anscombe 2013), building friendships and collaborations (Stokes and Boyle 2009, Jolley et al. 2019), and/or developing a sense of belonging in a discipline (Kortz et al. 2020, Malm et al. 2020, O’Brien et al. 2020). Lastly, students participating in UFEs could result in broader, societal level outcomes, such as students pursuing conservation efforts, contributing to citizen science projects, increasing awareness for social justice issues, or supporting for sustainability efforts (Grimberg et al. 2008, Bell and Anscombe 2013, Ginwright and Cammarota 2015).

In Table 1 , we present a list of common intended student outcomes from UFEs. The list of outcomes was propagated by UFE practitioners, first identified from a UFERN landscape study (O’Connell et al. 2020) and by participants at the 2018 UFERN meeting. O’Connell et al. (2020) surveyed practitioners on expected student outcomes from their UFEs. We then refined the list of outcomes by removing outcomes that were redundant, not measurable, or linked to very specific contexts (not field universal), and then grouped them by what we call ‘primary aim’. The primary aim category is an umbrella category by which to group similar intended outcomes.

Table 1 illustrates a diversity of possible and likely outcomes from UFEs ranging across domains, but not every conceivable outcome is accounted for, and we encourage practitioners to consider outcomes that they do not see on this table if they are in alignment with their UFE. Interestingly, in O’Connell et al.’s (2020) survey of intended student outcomes in extended UFEs, the majority of respondents chose outcomes in the cognitive and/or psychomotor domains. Thus, students gaining content knowledge and skills is a prominent goal for practitioners of UFEs, but content can also be learned in many contexts. We and others propose that the distinctive impact of participation in a UFE may actually be more in the affective domain (Van Der Hoeven Kraft et al. 2011, Kortz et al. 2020). Thus, we encourage practitioners to consider focusing less on content level outcomes and more on the full spectrum of possible outcomes.

UFEs themselves can be highly variable (Lonergan and Andresen 1988, Whitmeyer et al. 2009b, O’Connell et al. 2020). For example, some are strictly disciplinary (Jolley et al. 2018b), others interdisciplinary (Alagona and Simon 2010); they might occur locally (Peacock et al. 2018), in short duration (Hughes 2016), over an entire course (Thomas and Roberts 2009), or as a summer research experience held at a residential field station (Hodder 2009, Wilson et al. 2018).

Acknowledging that UFEs come in almost infinite shapes and sizes, we will not be able to list all of the contextual variables that may define a particular UFE. However, we do urge practitioners to consider a number of situated contextual factors, such as those highlighted throughout this paper, when utilizing the assessment strategy to make decisions about next steps in assessment or evaluation (Fig. 1 ). Please note that the intention is for the strategy to be used for iterative change and improvement and reflective practice, not as static scaffolding. We encourage consideration of contextual factors both in thinking about next steps in assessment and evaluation and in iteratively developing and reconsidering intended outcomes for the UFE. A paper is forthcoming (O’Connell et al, submitted) that comprehensively describes and organizes the evidence for how student context factors such as student identity, prior knowledge, and prior experience and design factors such as setting and social interaction that influence learning in UFEs.  The focus of this paper is to provide examples of factors that have a direct impact on assessment strategy.