文章基本信息

标题：How Do Advisor Assessments of Diverse Undergraduate Researchers Compare with the Students’ Self-Assessments? And What Does This Imply for How We Train and Assess Students?
本地全文：下载
作者：Barbara C. Bruno ; Cherryle Heu ; Grady Weyenberg 等
期刊名称：Oceanography - Oceanography Society
印刷版ISSN：1042-8275
出版年度：2020
卷号：33
期号：2
页码：134-143
DOI：10.5670/oceanog.2020.210
出版社：Oceanography Society
摘要：This study involves survey data collected from 30 diverse undergraduates and their research advisors in oceanography and related fields who participated in the SOEST Scholars Program at the University of Hawai‘i in 2016–17 and 2017–18. At the end of the research experience, students and their advisors each complete online surveys to evaluate student performance and growth over the course of the program on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high). The results indicate that, on average, (1) the students (4.06) underrate their performance relative to their advisors’ assessments (4.24), a difference (D = 0.18) that is highly significant (p = 0.005), and (2) there is no statistically significant difference between student and advisor assessments of student growth (p = 0.25). Further analysis by student demographics reveals distinct differences by gender and ethnicity. In particular, women of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander ancestry showed the greatest (D = 0.36) and most significant (p = 0.02) underrating of their own performances relative to their advisors’ assessments. In contrast, the mean student-advisor differences obtained for men and non-indigenous students were statistically insignificant (p = 0.31 and 0.18, respectively). This paper explores various possible interpretations of these results and their implications for how we train and assess students, and it includes recommendations for undergraduate research programs in oceanography. Specifically, we recommend intentionally focusing on building student self-efficacy alongside technical training, designing evaluation instruments that avoid the use of self-promoting language, and scheduling—or at least revisiting—discussions on STEM pathways and careers toward the end of the undergraduate research experience.