Given the centrality of data visualizations in communicating scientific information, increased emphasis has been placed on the development of students’ graph literacy—the ability to generate and interpret data representations—to foster understanding of domain-specific knowledge and the successful navigation of everyday life. Despite prior literature that identifies student difficulties and methods to improve graphing competencies, there is little understanding as to how learners develop these skills. To gain a better resolution of the cognitive basis by which individuals “see” graphs, this study uses eye tracking (ET) to compare the strategies of non–science undergraduates ( n = 9), early ( n = 7) and advanced ( n = 8) biology undergraduates, graduate students ( n = 6), and science faculty ( n = 6) in making sense of data displays. Results highlight variation in how individuals direct their attention (i.e., fixations and visual search patterns) when completing graph-based tasks as a function of science expertise. As research on the transition from novice to expert is crucially important in understanding how we might design curricula that help novices move toward more expert-like performance, this study has implications for the advancement of new strategies to aid the teaching and learning of data analysis skills.

Given the importance of succinctly communicating complex information, proficiency in graphing is a central element of scientific literacy. Evidence indicates that learners of all ages and levels of expertise have difficulties in displaying and reading visual data. Numerous studies have investigated the enactment of various activities to improve graphing in the college science classroom, but most of this work has focused on graphing difficulties and the implications of general instructional strategies as part of a semester-long curriculum. Few studies have discussed how specific interventions can be implemented to effectively hone graphing abilities. We evaluated (1) five key instructional features of an inquiry-oriented stream-ecology unit that consisted of data collection and graphing and (2) the unit's impact on non–science majors' analytical skills. Comparing pretest and posttest data, as well as a supplemental questionnaire, student responses demonstrated substantial positive impacts on graphing skills and attitudes toward graphing. The results also highlighted features of the unit that were considered successful. Although we a describe a particular stream-ecology activity, the framework and design features we present can be applied to other case studies and across disciplines.

Despite many millions of dollars being spent each year to support undergraduate research experiences for students in the sciences, there has been little in the way of solid evaluation of these experiences. Recently, research has surfaced that addresses this issue and provides tools that are useful for researchers and evaluators to assess the gains students make from participation. This paper offers a new tool that can be used to measure student gains as a result of participation in these experiences. We discuss the development of the tool and use confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the quality of the tool for measuring change over time in student confidence.

Undergraduate research (UR) is a vetted educational tool that is commonly perceived to prepare students for entering graduate school and careers in STEM fields; however, scholarly attention to date has largely relied on self-report data, which may limit inferences about the causal effects on student outcomes. In light of this, recent calls have been made for innovative and rigorous assessment strategies to better understand the efficacy and impact of UR on key disciplinary skills, both in classroom and internship UR models, that can help inform decisions about educational refinement. To more accurately measure the effect of UR on students, well-designed performance-based assessments can be used to provide direct evidence to the development of targeted skills during their research experience. Given the limited availability of tested, adaptable (and freely available) performance measures for assessing undergraduate chemistry students' scientific thinking skills, this article outlines a five-step process drawn from the literature about how reliable tasks and rubrics can be developed by faculty interested in assessing the effect of research training in the lab and classroom. For this purpose, as an applied example, the manuscript describes the development, testing, and validation of the Performance assessment of Undergraduate Research Experiences (PURE) instrument, which was designed to directly characterize the effects of research experiences on chemistry students' analytical and data-driven decision-making through open-response tasks situated in real-world scientific problems. Initial results reveal that the PURE instrument has high face validity and good reliability in measuring the scientific thinking skills of chemistry student researchers, and documents differences in UR students' answer quality over time supporting the effect of UR on research skill growth and the viability of performance data to assess these changes.

Participation in undergraduate research experiences have been shown to positively influence the learning, development, and educational and career trajectory of students, particularly for individuals from groups traditionally excluded from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. As few studies have explored the engagement of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) researchers in inclusive laboratory experiences, this article reports on the assessment of a long-standing summer program that draws on best practices to integrate DHH, hearing, and sign language interpreting students in chemical research. To assess outcomes associated with participation, mixed survey data were collected from student researchers over three consecutive program years. Findings highlight the positive impact of the program for all participants, particularly how the experience contributed to hearing students’ awareness of Deaf culture and inclusive communication strategies. While this case study highlights a model for a unique student group, the general lessons learned are broadly applicable to creating inclusive laboratory environments for researchers of varying abilities and how participation in such experiences may benefit mainstream students’ cultural competences as future practitioners in science disciplines.