Understanding the impact of undergraduate research experiences (UREs) and course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) is crucial as universities debate the value of allocating scarce resources to these activities. We report on the Berkeley Undergraduate Research Evaluation Tools (BURET), designed to assess the learning outcomes of UREs and CUREs in chemistry and other sciences. To validate the tools, we administered BURET to 70 undergraduate students in the College of Chemistry and 19 students from other STEM fields, comparing the performance of students who had less than one year of undergraduate research to those with more than one year of research experience. Students wrote reflections and responded to interviews during poster presentations of their research project. BURET asks students to communicate the significance of their project, analyze their experimental design, interpret their data, and propose future research. Scoring rubrics reward students for integrating disciplinary evidence into their narratives. We found that the instruments yielded reliable scores, and the results clarified the impacts of undergraduate research, specifically characterizing the strengths and weaknesses of undergraduate researchers in chemistry at our institution. Students with at least a year of research experience were able to use disciplinary evidence more effectively than those with less than one year of experience. First-year students excelled at explaining the societal relevance of their work, but they incorporated only minimal discussion of prior research into their reflections and presentations. Students at all levels struggled to critique their own experimental design. These results have important implications for undergraduate learning, suggesting areas for faculty members, graduate student research mentors, and CURE or URE programs to improve undergraduate research experiences.

In efforts to increase scientific literacy and enhance the preparation of learners to pursue careers in science, there are growing opportunities for students and teachers to engage in scientific research experiences, including course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), undergraduate research experiences (UREs), and teacher research experiences (TREs). Prior literature reviews detail a variety of models, benefits, and challenges and call for the continued examination of program elements and associated impacts. This paper reports a comprehensive review of 307 papers published between 2007 and 2017 that include CURE, URE, and TRE programs, with a special focus on research experiences for K-12 teachers. A research-supported conceptual model of science research experiences was used to develop a coding scheme, including participant demographics, theoretical frameworks, methodology, and reported outcomes. We summarize recent reports on program impacts and identify gaps or misalignments between goals and measured outcomes. The field of biology was the predominant scientific disciplinary focus. Findings suggest a lack of studies explicitly targeting 1) participation and outcomes related to learners from underrepresented populations, 2) a theoretical framework that guides program design and analysis, and, for TREs, 3) methods for translation of research experiences into K-12 instructional practices, and 4) measurement of impact on K-12 instructional practices.