↓ Skip to main content

Do We Need to Design Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences for Authenticity?

Overview of attention for article published in CBE—Life Sciences Education, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do We Need to Design Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences for Authenticity?
Published in
CBE—Life Sciences Education, December 2016
DOI 10.1187/cbe.16-02-0102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Rowland, Rhianna Pedwell, Gwen Lawrie, Joseph Lovie-Toon, Yu Hung

Abstract

The recent push for more authentic teaching and learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics indicates a shared agreement that undergraduates require greater exposure to professional practices. There is considerable variation, however, in how "authentic" science education is defined. In this paper we present our definition of authenticity as it applies to an "authentic" large-scale undergraduate research experience (ALURE); we also look to the literature and the student voice for alternate perceptions around this concept. A metareview of science education literature confirmed the inconsistency in definitions and application of the notion of authentic science education. An exploration of how authenticity was explained in 604 reflections from ALURE and traditional laboratory students revealed contrasting and surprising notions and experiences of authenticity. We consider the student experience in terms of alignment with 1) the intent of our designed curriculum and 2) the literature definitions of authentic science education. These findings contribute to the conversation surrounding authenticity in science education. They suggest two things: 1) educational experiences can have significant authenticity for the participants, even when there is no purposeful design for authentic practice, and 2) the continuing discussion of and design for authenticity in UREs may be redundant.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Unknown 132 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Researcher 19 14%
Professor 16 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 11%
Lecturer 12 9%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 15%
Social Sciences 21 15%
Chemistry 10 7%
Environmental Science 8 6%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 25 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#8,428,959
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from CBE—Life Sciences Education
#578
of 1,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,237
of 416,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CBE—Life Sciences Education
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.