Undergraduate Student Research Reflections: Comparing Two Training Models in Psychology
Disciplines
Education | Psychology
Abstract (300 words maximum)
Methods of training undergraduates in scientific thinking have been explored in the natural sciences for some time. Yet few studies examine psychology alone or utilize critical reflections to compare training modalities. This study aims to fill that gap by highlighting two methods of training– the apprenticeship model and Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs). The apprenticeship model is a traditional form of training, where a professor mentors an individual or small group of students, whereas CUREs occur within a class. This study aims to answer which method of training has greater self-reported gains through an analysis of critical reflections written by students. This study utilizes a sample of 151 critical reflections from semester-long research experiences in psychology: 117 reflections from the CURE model of training and 34 from the apprenticeship model. This set of psychological critical reflections comes from a larger data set of over 800 STEM-based critical reflections collected over a 2-year period. Coding and analysis were conducted through NVivo, a qualitative coding software. Two researchers with an established inter-rater reliability manually coded each reflection. Initial codes reflected 4 categories: educational value, connections to coursework, values growth, and integrated problem solving. Additional rounds of open coding utilized a thematic analysis to examine the initial categories more thoroughly. Crosstab queries were conducted to examine the relationship of these codes with training models and demographic information. Results varied across the coding categories. Of these, educational value was endorsed most often. CURE reflections reported greater connections to past course work, personal values growth, and challenges than their apprenticeship peers. Apprenticeship model reflections endorsed greater connections for the use of their research in the future and growth in their work ethic. Findings will be used to inform future development of CURE and apprenticeship model experiences.
Academic department under which the project should be listed
RCHSS - Psychological Science
Primary Investigator (PI) Name
Amy Buddie
Undergraduate Student Research Reflections: Comparing Two Training Models in Psychology
Methods of training undergraduates in scientific thinking have been explored in the natural sciences for some time. Yet few studies examine psychology alone or utilize critical reflections to compare training modalities. This study aims to fill that gap by highlighting two methods of training– the apprenticeship model and Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs). The apprenticeship model is a traditional form of training, where a professor mentors an individual or small group of students, whereas CUREs occur within a class. This study aims to answer which method of training has greater self-reported gains through an analysis of critical reflections written by students. This study utilizes a sample of 151 critical reflections from semester-long research experiences in psychology: 117 reflections from the CURE model of training and 34 from the apprenticeship model. This set of psychological critical reflections comes from a larger data set of over 800 STEM-based critical reflections collected over a 2-year period. Coding and analysis were conducted through NVivo, a qualitative coding software. Two researchers with an established inter-rater reliability manually coded each reflection. Initial codes reflected 4 categories: educational value, connections to coursework, values growth, and integrated problem solving. Additional rounds of open coding utilized a thematic analysis to examine the initial categories more thoroughly. Crosstab queries were conducted to examine the relationship of these codes with training models and demographic information. Results varied across the coding categories. Of these, educational value was endorsed most often. CURE reflections reported greater connections to past course work, personal values growth, and challenges than their apprenticeship peers. Apprenticeship model reflections endorsed greater connections for the use of their research in the future and growth in their work ethic. Findings will be used to inform future development of CURE and apprenticeship model experiences.