Design and decision-making analysis for undergraduate research experiences

Abstract

Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) are believed to benefit students, but there is little concrete evidence to support this claim. Likewise, faculty often see UREs as a burden, yet multiple studies show UREs benefit faculty. Outcomes could be improved for both parties if projects were designed better. We report a rational design and decision-making framework for project-based mentoring experiences like UREs to address this misalignment by helping mentors balance competing research and learning requirements. The method requires the mentor to identify factors that are important for success and evaluate their project on those factors. Responses are analyzed using possibility theory to account for uncertainty in these judgments. Three projects are analyzed as a demonstration. We show the method can be used to rank projects based on predicted outcomes and identify areas for improvement, and we describe a procedure for iterative design as evidence changes. Applying the tool to UREs, we show that the method is capable of identifying inconsistencies in the mentor’s beliefs and provides a clear and straightforward procedure for introspection and adaptation over time. More broadly, the method and analysis could be adapted to design and analyze other project-based experiences under uncertainty.