Undergraduate Field and Remote Research Training in STEM

Knowledge Graph (68 nodes, 998 connections)

Research Primer

Background

Training the next generation of scientists is a central mission at field stations like the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL). For decades, RMBL and similar institutions have hosted undergraduate students who spend summers in Gothic, Colorado, learning to ask scientific questions, design experiments, and work in the landscapes of the Gunnison Basin. Research on how these programs function, who they reach, and what outcomes they produce has become its own area of inquiry — one that shapes how field stations invest in education and how mountain ecosystems continue to be studied over the long term.

A few key ideas anchor this work. Undergraduate field experiences are learning opportunities that take place in nature, ranging from short field labs to multi-week research internships where students collect original data alongside mentors. These experiences are closely tied to STEM retention — the challenge of keeping students engaged in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics so that they continue through graduate school and into scientific careers. Increasingly, field science also demands computational skills, meaning students need to learn data analysis, coding, and remote-sensing tools alongside traditional field techniques. Understanding how programs at places like RMBL develop all three — hands-on field competence, persistence in STEM, and computational fluency — matters for the long-term health of mountain research itself. If field stations cannot train diverse, capable scientists, the long-term ecological records that make the Gunnison Basin a globally important research site become harder to sustain.

This area of research also intersects with questions about access and equity. Who gets to spend a summer in the Rockies doing research? How do remote and hybrid formats change what students gain? And how do structured programs compare with informal mentorship? These questions became especially urgent during the COVID-19 pandemic, when in-person programs were suspended and the community had to rapidly invent new ways to train students at a distance.

Foundational work

The foundational study for this area at RMBL is (Wilson et al., 2018), which compared 88 participants from five National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site programs — including RMBL — with demographically similar students who applied but were not accepted. That work established that structured, funded summer research programs produce measurable gains in scientific career outcomes, and it identified key ingredients: funding for personal and professional needs, access to diverse intellectual and field resources, and a cohort of peers who share goals and support one another.

Alongside this education-focused work, the broader landscape of undergraduate training at RMBL has also produced student-led field research in the Gunnison Basin itself, such as (Haamen et al., 2003), an example of the kind of mentored plant–herbivore experiment that undergraduates carry out during summer residencies. Together, these studies framed undergraduate research both as a subject of study and as a vehicle for generating new ecological knowledge.

Key findings

The strongest evidence for the value of structured undergraduate research comes from (Wilson et al., 2018). That study found that REU participants were significantly more likely to pursue PhD programs — about 48 percent more likely than matched applicants — and correspondingly less likely to stop at a master's degree. Participants also produced more than twice as many scientific presentations, roughly 1.6 times more publications, and about 1.4 times more academic awards than students with similar backgrounds who did not attend an REU. Importantly, these benefits appeared across all five Site programs studied, despite differences in location, management style, and scientific focus, suggesting that the structured REU model itself — not any single institution — drives the effect.

The pandemic-era shift to remote programs produced a second wave of findings. (Erickson et al., 2022) documented how 23 institutions redesigned summer research online in 2020, identifying consistent strengths — strong mentorship, professional development, and a sense of belonging to a larger scientific community — alongside clear weaknesses, including limited cohort building, insufficient structure, and technology barriers. (Hess et al., 2023) then evaluated whether remote programs produced the same kinds of gains as in-person ones. Students did increase their scientific self-efficacy (their confidence in doing research) at rates comparable to in-person programs. However, gains in scientific identity, graduate-school intentions, and perceived benefits of research appeared mainly among students who started with lower levels of these traits, suggesting that remote formats can meaningfully support some students but do not fully substitute for on-site experiences.

Findings from student-led ecological projects further illustrate what undergraduates can accomplish in the field. At RMBL, (Haamen et al., 2003) showed that simulated herbivory on cow parsnip (Heracleum sphondylium) reduced subsequent feeding by Hemiptera insects and led to fewer holes in clipped leaves, while leaf trichome density and new-leaf length were unaffected. The authors suggested the plant may mount a chemical rather than a physical defense — a testable hypothesis generated within the span of a summer program.

Current frontier

Early work in the 2000s and 2010s established the basic case that structured field-based undergraduate programs work. Recent studies since 2020 have shifted focus to format and flexibility. The pandemic forced a natural experiment in remote research training, and (Erickson et al., 2022) and (Hess et al., 2023) have begun to map which elements of in-person programs can translate to virtual settings and which cannot. Mentorship quality and professional development transfer well; spontaneous cohort formation and full scientific identity development are harder to replicate at a distance.

The frontier is now moving toward hybrid designs that combine the cost and access advantages of remote work with the irreplaceable aspects of being in a place like Gothic — working in subalpine meadows, handling specimens, and encountering the unpredictability of real field conditions. Attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion, which (Erickson et al., 2022) flagged as underdeveloped even in well-run remote programs, is also becoming a more central design question.

Open questions

Several questions remain. How can hybrid programs preserve the cohort and identity-building benefits of residential field experiences while expanding access to students who cannot relocate for a summer? What computational and data-science training best complements hands-on field work, and how should field stations integrate it without displacing the ecological experiences that make places like RMBL distinctive? How do short-term gains in self-efficacy and publication output translate into long-term careers, especially for students from groups historically underrepresented in mountain and field sciences? Answering these questions over the next decade will shape how RMBL and similar stations train the people who will steward Gunnison Basin ecosystems through a period of rapid environmental change.

REFERENCES

Erickson, O.A., Cole, R.B., Isaacs, J.M., et al. (2022). "How Do We Do This at a Distance?!" A Descriptive Study of Remote Undergraduate Research Programs during COVID-19. CBE Life Sciences Education. →

Haamen et al. (2003). The response of Heracleum sphondylium (Apiaceae) and its herbivores to simulated herbivory and nutrient augmentation. URBEE. →

Hess, R.A., Erickson, O.A., Cole, R.B., et al. (2023). Virtually the Same? Evaluating the Effectiveness of Remote Undergraduate Research Experiences. Life Sciences Education. →

Wilson, A.E., Pollock, J.L., Billick, I., Domingo, C., Fernandez-Figueroa, E.G., Nagy, E.S., Steury, T.D., Summers, A. (2018). Assessing science training programs: Structured undergraduate research programs make a difference. BioScience. →

Concept (3) →

Author (47) →

Publication (9) →