Authentic Research, Real Gains: Evaluation of the University of Florida Research and Extension Experiences for Circularity and Digitalization Skill Development of Undergraduates

R. L. Wright; Ana Martin-Ryals; Ziynet Boz; T. Grady Roberts

doi:10.5032/jae.v67i3.3368

Authors

R. L. Wright University of Florida https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5343-2995
Ana Martin-Ryals University of Florida https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3867-2219
Ziynet Boz University of Florida https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6764-2022
T. Grady Roberts University of Florida https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7618-7850

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v67i3.3368

Keywords:

undergraduate engagement, agriculutral education, Global Competence, Experiential Learning, science lab self-efficacy, personal self-efficacy, agricultural literacy program, evaluation competencies, Evaluation, agricultural education programs, research, summer institute, agricultural laboratory

Abstract

This study examines the University of Florida Circularity and Digitalization Skills Research and Extension Experiences for Undergraduates (Florida’s CD-Skills REEU) to answer: Is the program successful, and what features or mechanisms make it so? We conducted a qualitative outcomes-focused program evaluation with embedded process evaluation elements using semi-structured group interview and a nested codebook (five themes, twenty subcodes) interpreted through a theory-as-lens framework. Participants characterized CD-Skills as a qualitatively different experience anchored in authentic, end-to-end project ownership that built hands-on competence, confidence, and researcher/“ag person” identity; a layered mentoring ecology (faculty/principal investigators (PIs), graduate near-peers, program leaders) that provided modeling, feedback, belonging, and pathway clarity; coherent learning activities linking labs, field visits, and weekly sessions; growth in systems thinking and circularity/sustainability orientation with a shift from early problem-immersion fatigue to solution-focused agency and interest in outreach; and operational guardrails (role clarity, early orientation, predictable scheduling) that protected research time. Negative cases (e.g., underprepared site visits, last-minute changes) revealed predictable failure modes and concrete fixes (pre-brief/debrief routines, host checklists, scheduling discipline, backup protocols). Implications include protecting student-designed projects, codifying mentor roles and cadence, aligning weekly sessions to ongoing lab/site work, balancing problem and solution phases, and formalizing onboarding and logistics. This study contributes to a practice-informed model for designing and evaluating intensive undergraduate research experience in agriculture and food systems. Limitations include reliance on self-report and a short horizon; future work should add common rubrics for student artifacts and brief longitudinal follow-ups.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Bowman, N., & Holmes, J. (2018). Getting off to a good start? First-year undergraduate research experiences and student outcomes. Higher Education, 76, 17-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0191-4

Brownell, S. E., & Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Studies in Higher Education, 40, 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234

Burcin, R., Mruthyunjaya, V., & Dolan, J. M. (2023). Transforming undergraduate research experiences with experiential learning. The IAFOR Conference on Educational Research & Innovation 2023: Official Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2435-1202.2023.11

Coates, W. C., Jordan, J., & Clarke, S. O. (2021). A practical guide for conducting qualitative research in medical education: Part 2—Coding and thematic analysis. AEM Education and Training, 5(4), e10645. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10645

Corwin, L. A., Graham, M. J., & Dolan, E. L. (2015). Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: An agenda for future research and evaluation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-10-0167

Fendos, J., Cai, L., Yang, X., Ren, G., Li, L., Yan, Z., Lu, B., Pi, Y., Ma, J., Guo, B., Wu, X., Lu, P., Zhang, R., & Yang, J. (2022). A course-based undergraduate research experience improves outcomes in mentored research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-03-0065

Griep, M. A., & Watkins, L. (2018). Overview of best practices for chemistry REU programs. In Best practices for chemistry REU programs (pp. 1-16). American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2018-1295.ch001

Haeger, H., & Fresquez, C. (2016). Mentoring for inclusion: The impact of mentoring on undergraduate researchers in the sciences. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0016

Hernandez, P. R., Woodcock, A., Estrada, M., & Schultz, P. W. (2018). Undergraduate research experiences broaden diversity in the scientific workforce. BioScience, 68, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix163

Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91, 36–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173

Joshi, M. P., Aikens, M. L., & Dolan, E. L. (2019). Direct ties to a faculty mentor related to positive outcomes for undergraduate researchers. BioScience, 69, 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz039

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., & Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261757

Lochmiller, C. R. (2021). Conducting thematic analysis with qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 26(6), 2029–2044. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008c

Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 64, 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039

Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 3351–33514.

Malterud, K., Siersma, V., & Guassora, A. (2016). Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1753 - 1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2019). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. Guilford Press.

Morin, M. P. (2022). The value of a REU program for an engineering community college student’s persistence and continuation (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University)

Peel, K. L. (2020). A beginner’s guide to applied educational research using thematic analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 25(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7275/ryr5-k983

Pierrakos, O., Zilberberg, A., & Anderson, R. (2010). Understanding undergraduate research experiences through the lens of problem-based learning: Implications for curriculum translation. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1103

Richards, K. A. R., & Hemphill, M. A. (2018). A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(3), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084

Roberts, K., Dowell, A., & Nie, J.-B. (2019). Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data: A case study of codebook development. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19, 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y

Rodenbusch, S. E., Hernandez, P. R., Simmons, S. L., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117

Rosenthal, M. (2016). Qualitative research methods: Why, when, and how to conduct interviews and focus groups in pharmacy research. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(4), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.03.021

Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316, 548–549. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140384

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

Searels, L., Martin-Ryals, A., Boz, Z., & Roberts, T. G. (2026). Authentic research, real gains: Evaluation of the University of Florida Circularity and Digitalization Skills Research and Extension Experiences for Undergraduates [Poster presentation]. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Conference, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS.

Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 13–27). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0002

Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88, 493–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131

Splan, R. K., Porr, C. A. S., & Broyles, T. W. (2011). Undergraduate research in agriculture: Constructivism and the scholarship of discovery. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(4), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.04056

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Stalmeijer, R. E., McNaughton, N., & Van Mook, W. N. K. A. (2014). Using focus groups in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 91. Medical Teacher, 36(11), 923–939. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.917165

Trenor, J., & Pierrakos, O. (2008). Utilizing a social cognitive theoretical framework to investigate the influences of a summer undergraduate research experience on participants’ academic and career plans. In Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (Paper No. 3386). American Society for Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--3386

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wayland, K. A., & Wylie, C. D. (2025). Using REU program evaluation to foster learning through reflection. In Proceedings of the 2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (Montreal, Quebec, Canada). https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--57316

Wei, C. A., & Woodin, T. (2011). Undergraduate research experiences in biology: Alternatives to the apprenticeship model. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10, 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0028

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Zilvinskis, J. (2019). Measuring quality in high-impact practices. Higher Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00365-9