Panorama of Undergraduate Research in Brazil: Profile, Scientific Production, and Perceptions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Method
2.1. Context
2.2. Population and Sample
2.3. Data Collection Procedures
2.4. Validation of Research Instruments
2.5. Statistical Analysis
2.6. Content Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Quantitative Measures
3.2. Qualitative Measures
It is like…you get even more organized because we work at a professional level right there. You must organize your own schedule, define the approach for their experiments, be available, be punctual, arrive on time, and then you start to interact with people more frequently, both professionally and even socially, you know, making friends. Thus, [scientific research] is an advantage not only in the professional, but also in the social life.(S1)
My experience with PIBIC was something that completely changed me as a person. Being part of a program like undergraduate research simply changed my whole outlook, my career, my professional and academic perspective in every way during graduate studies because it helped me to have a vision that I did not have before. Even the disciplines made me grow a lot and enable me to learn, meet people, visit places, which was incredible for me.(S4)
I think that only the classroom can bring knowledge, but not in the same practical and experiential way enabled by research. When conducting research, you are the subject of learning, constructing your own knowledge with the help of a person who is there to help you along the way; you have great autonomy to grow differently. You are the one producing that, you are building that knowledge and building it with other people, with other researchers.(S4)
[…] I think I will be able to work in the development of new products and the area of food analysis when I graduate. […]. So, we already have…at least a little bit, we are not going to the market 100% prepared, but we have a good notion, I think, so we can go there and say ‘ah! I made it!’ We learn a lot more by practicing than simply reading in the classroom. There, we are getting our hands dirty, so we learn a lot more.(S6)
[…] The most similar aspect among them is that they have a close relationship with a professor. So, they like that professor more than the others and look for that professor to develop a project. Alternatively, a professor perceives that a student stands out in a specific area due to their empathy, responsibility, dedication, or grade and invites them to participate in the project.(A3)
I believe that the profile of a student of undergraduate research is already defined even before they join the research program; they are characterized by being objective and knowing what they want, and being concerned even with their future. They are not only concerned with their current activities within the institution as a student, but also with what they will become in the future, so these students have a scientific profile that is aligned to the objectivity required by research.(A1)
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Do you agree to participate in this research? ◯ Yes ◯ No |
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey! Below are the questions. |
BLOCK 1: About your profile. |
1. What is your date of birth? |
2. What is your sex? ◯ Female ◯ Male |
3. What is your color/ethnicity? ◯ White ◯ Mixed ◯ Indigenous ◯ Black ◯ Yelow ◯ I don’t with to answer |
4. Which campus are you a student at? ◯ Campos Belos ◯ Cristalina ◯ Iporá ◯ Rio Verde ◯ Catalão ◯ Hidrolândia ◯ Morrinhos ◯ Trindade ◯ Ceres ◯ Ipameri ◯ Posse ◯ Urutaí |
5. What graduation course are you enrolled in? |
6. Which program did you take part in from 2018 to 2019? ◯ PIBIC ◯ PIBITI ◯ PIVIC ◯ PIVITI |
7. Was this the first time you participated in undergraduate research or technological development programs? ◯ Yes ◯ No |
8. Do you intend to continue participating in undergraduate research or technological development programs? ◯ Yes ◯ No ◯ I can’t say |
BLOCK 2: Do you consider that participating in a project of the undergraduate research or the technological development programs … |
9. … how was your evolution during the research period? ◯ Very good ◯ Good ◯ Fair ◯ Poor ◯ Very poor |
10. … was important during your undergraduate studies? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
11. … sparked your interest in research? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
12. … added knowledge? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
13. … developed your critical thinking? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
14. … stimulated your creativity? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
15. … made you more responsible? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
16. … helped the organization to carry out the planned activities within the deadline? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
17. … made you acquire knowledge, learning about research methods and techniques? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
18. … aroused your interest in scientific writing? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
19. … encouraged you in the oral presentations of works? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
20. … your academic performance will be better in postgraduate program due to this experience? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
21. … could help you in any way to get a good job in the future? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
22. … encouraged you to have contact with foreign languages (e.g.,: English, Spanish)? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
BLOCK 3: |
23. Do you consider that the IF Goiano supports scientific research activities such as undergraduate research or technological development programs? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
24. What is your level of satisfaction after the end of the term of your research activities? ◯ Very satisfied ◯ Satisfied ◯ Reasonably satisfied ◯ Dissatisfied ◯ Very unsatisfied |
25. Which of the options represents how was your relationship with your project advisor? ◯ Very good ◯ Good ◯ Fair ◯ Poor ◯ Very poor |
26. Have you and your supervisor published the results of the project? (mark as many as needed) ☐ Yes, in a national or international magazine ☐ Yes, in national or international event annals ☐ No, we don’t publish and do not intend to publish ☐ No, we don’t publish but we intend to publish in national or international event annals ☐ No, we don’t publish but we intend to publish in a national or international journal |
27. Did you write abstracts and articles? ◯ Yes ◯ No |
28. Is your curriculum on the Lattes platform up to date? ◯ Yes ◯ No |
Appendix B
Do you agree to participate in this research? ◯ Yes ◯ No |
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey! Below are the questions. |
BLOCK 1: About your profile. |
1. What is your date of birth? |
2. What is your sex? ◯ Female ◯ Male |
3. What is your color/ethnicity? ◯ White ◯ Mixed ◯ Indigenous ◯ Black ◯ Yelow ◯ I don’t with to answer |
4. Which Campus of IF Goiano do you have a link to? ◯ Campos Belos ◯ Cristalina ◯ Iporá ◯ Rio Verde ◯ Catalão ◯ Hidrolândia ◯ Morrinhos ◯ Trindade ◯ Ceres ◯ Ipameri ◯ Posse ◯ Urutaí |
5. What is the main area of knowledge of your education? ◯ Agrarian Sciences ◯ Humanities ◯ Biological Sciences ◯ Applied Social Sciences ◯ Health Sciences ◯ Engineering ◯ Exact and Earth Sciences ◯ Linguistics, Languages, and Arts |
6. Which program did you act as a suppervisor in from 2018 to 2019? (mark as many as needed) ☐ PIBIC-EM ☐ PIBIC ☐ PIBITI ☐ PIVIC-EM ☐ PIVIC ☐ PIVITI |
7. How many students did you supervise in the undergraduate research and technological development programs from 2018 to 2019? |
8. Do you intend to continue advising students in undergraduate research and technological development programs? ◯ Yes ◯ No ◯ I can’t say |
BLOCK 2: Do you consider that by participating in a project of the undergraduate research or the technological development programs … |
9. … how do you rate the evolution of your advisees during the term 2018 to 2019? ◯ Very good ◯ Good ◯ Fair ◯ Poor ◯ Very poor |
10. … are important for the participation the students of high school and undergraduate students in scientific research projects or the technological development programs? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
11. … awaken students’ interest in research? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
12. … add knowledge to students? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
13. … develop critical thinking of students? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
14. … stimulate creativity of students? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
15. … make students more responsible? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
16. … help students to better organize themselves to fulfill the planned activities within the deadline? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
17. … help students gain knowledge and learning about methods and techniques of research? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
18. … awaken students’ interest in scientific writing? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
19. … encourage students to present work orally? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
20. … allow students to perform better in postgraduate studies due to this experience? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
21. … allow students to get a prestigious job in the future than others who haven’t had this experience? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
22. … encourage students to have contact with foreign languages? ◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
BLOCK 3: |
23. Do you consider that the IF Goiano supports scientific research activities such as undergraduate research or technological development programs?
◯ Totally agree ◯ Partially agree ◯ Indifferent ◯ Partially disagree ◯ Totally disagree |
24. What is your level of satisfaction after the end of the 2018 to 2019 term?
◯ Very satisfied Satisfied Reasonably satisfied Dissatisfied ◯ Very unsatisfied |
25. How do you evaluate your relationship with your mentees in the period from 2018 to 2019?
◯ Very good ◯ Good ◯ Fair ◯ Poor ◯ Very poor |
26. Have you and your mentees published the results of the project? (mark as many as needed)
☐ Yes, in a national or international magazine ☐ Yes, in national or international event annals ☐ No, we don’t publish and do not intend to publish ☐ No, we don’t publish but we intend to publish in national or international event annals ☐ No, we don’t publish but we intend to publish in a national or international journal |
27. Have you submitted any products for patent registration from student projects during this term? ◯ Yes ◯ No |
28. Do you believe that the activities carried out in research projects and/or technological development programs (PIBIC, PIBIC-EM and PIBITI) contribute to your scientific publications? ◯ Yes ◯ No |
Appendix C
Do you agree to participate in this research? ◯ I agree to participate in the research ◯ I don’t agree to participate in the research |
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview! |
1. Was it the first time you were linked to the program and do you recommend this experience to others? |
2. What have you learned this term? |
3. What were your greatest facilities during the development of your research project? And the main difficulties? |
4. Do you believe that CI is important for your future? Why? |
5. Do you believe that having participated in IC during graduation is a differential from other students? Why? |
6. Do you notice any kind of association between the activities developed in Scientific Initiation and professional activities? |
7. Do you have any kind of suggestion or criticism to make about Scientific Initiation in general (Institute, advisor, other students, etc.)? |
Appendix D
Do you agree to participate in this research? ◯ I agree to participate in the research ◯ I don’t agree to participate in the research |
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview! |
1. Is there a program presentation meeting held at the beginning of the term to instruct students? If so, what subjects are covered? |
2. How do you describe the profile of students enrolled in these Programs? |
3. How would you describe the profile of the advisors? |
4. Do you believe that Scientific Initiation and Technological Development activities contribute to publications by advisors and students? |
5. Do you consider that the Institution supports scientific research activities? |
6. What are the main challenges encountered in coordinating the Scientific Initiation and Technological Development Programs? |
7. What are the main challenges encountered in coordinating the Scientific Initiation and Technological Development Programs? |
References
- CNPq. Normative Resolution no 17/2006: Quota Scholarships in the Country; CNPq: Brasília, Brazil, 2006. Available online: http://memoria2.cnpq.br/view/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_0oED/10157/100352?COMPANY_ID=10132 (accessed on 15 January 2023).
- National Research Council. Scientific Research in Education: Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research; Shavelson, R.J., Towne, L., Eds.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [CrossRef]
- Robnett, R.D.; Chemers, M.M.; Zurbriggen, E.L. Longitudinal associations among undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2015, 52, 847–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bangera, G.; Brownell, S.E. Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 602–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harsh, J.A.; Maltese, A.V.; Tai, R.H. A perspective of gender differences in chemistry and physics undergraduate research experiences. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1364–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopatto, D. Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First findings. Cell Biol. Educ. 2004, 3, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schultz, P.W.; Hernandez, P.R.; Woodcock, A.; Estrada, M.; Chance, R.C.; Aguilar, M.; Serpe, R.T. Patching the pipeline. Eval. Policy Anal. 2011, 33, 95–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CGEE. The formation of new staff for CT&I: Evaluation of the Institutional Program of Scientific Initiation Scholarships (PIBIC); Athalaia: Brasília, Brazil, 2017. Available online: https://www.gov.br/cnpq/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/publicacoes/3pibic-.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2023).
- Olimpo, J.T.; Fisher, G.R.; DeChenne-Peters, S.E. Development and evaluation of the tigriopus course-based undergraduate research experience: Impacts on students’ content knowledge, attitudes, and motivation in a majors introductory biology course. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2016, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heras, M.; Ruiz-Mallén, I. Responsible research and innovation indicators for science education assessment: How to measure the impact? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2017, 39, 2482–2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, S.H.; Hancock, M.P.; McCullough, J. Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science 2007, 316, 548–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, K.M.; Gin, L.E.; Akeeh, B.; Clark, C.E.; Hunter, J.S.; Roderick, T.B.; Elliott, D.B.; Gutierrez, L.A.; Mello, R.M.; Pfeiffer, L.D.; et al. Factors that predict life sciences student persistence in undergraduate research experiences. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunter, A.-B.; Laursen, S.L.; Seymour, E. Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Sci. Educ. 2007, 91, 36–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahatmya, D.; Morrison, J.; Jones, R.M.; Garner, P.W.; Davis, S.N.; Manske, J.; Berner, N.; Johnson, A.; Ditty, J. Pathways to undergraduate research experiences: A multi-institutional study. Innov. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 491–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiry, H.; Weston, T.J.; Laursen, S.L.; Hunter, A.-B. The benefits of multi-year research experiences: Differences in novice and experienced students’ reported gains from undergraduate research. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2012, 11, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zydney, A.L.; Bennett, J.S.; Shahid, A.; Bauer, K.W. Impact of undergraduate research experience in engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 2002, 91, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mabrouk, P.A. Survey study investigating the significance of conference participation to undergraduate research students. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 866, 1335–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behar-Horenstein, L.S.; Roberts, K.W.; Dix, A.C. Mentoring undergraduate researchers: An exploratory study of students’ and professors’ perceptions. Mentor. Tutoring: Partnersh. Learn. 2010, 18, 269–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brownell, S.E.; Hekmat-Scafe, D.S.; Singla, V.; Seawell, P.C.; Imam, J.F.C.; Eddy, S.L.; Stearns, T.; Cyert, M.S. A high-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience improves student conceptions of scientific thinking and ability to interpret data. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, ar21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Droescher, F.D.; da Silva, E.L. The researcher and scientific production. Perspect. Em Ciênc. Da Inf. 2014, 19, 170–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabrero, R.D.C.; Costa, M.D.P.R. Scientific Initiation, scientific initiation scholarship and research groups. In Scientific Initiation: Historical, Organizational, and Formative Aspects of the Activity in Brazilian Higher Education, 1st ed.; Massi, L., Queiroz, S.L., Eds.; UNESP: São Paulo, Brazil, 2015; pp. 109–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amaya, L.R.; Betancourt, T.; Collins, K.H.; Hinojosa, O.; Corona, C. Undergraduate research experiences: Mentoring, awareness, and perceptions—A case study at a Hispanic-serving institution. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2018, 5, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CNPq. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq: The Creation. 2017. Available online:http://memoria.cnpq.br/a-criacao (accessed on 15 January 2023).
- Pires, R.C.M. Initial training of research professors through the PIBIC/CNPq Program: What does the professional practice of graduates tell us? Eval. High. Educ. Eval. Mag. 2009, 14, 487–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massi, L.; Queiroz, S.L.; Dinham, R. Studies on Scientific Initiation in Brazil: A review. Res. Noteb. 2010, 40, 173–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, J.L.; Deemer, E.D.; Thoman, D.B.; Zazworsky, L. Motivation under the microscope: Understanding undergraduate science students’ multiple motivations for research. Motiv. Emot. 2014, 38, 496–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galvão, T.; Noll, P.R.E.S.; Noll, M. Perceptions, relationships, expectations, and challenges: Views of communication and research for scientific dissemination in Brazilian Federal Institutes. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed.; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Brazil. Nilo Peçanha Platform. 2019. Available online: https://www.gov.br/mec/pt-br/pnp (accessed on 2 February 2023).
- Baqui, P.; Bica, I.; Marra, V.; Ercole, A.; van der Schaar, M. Ethnic and regional variations in hospital mortality from COVID-19 in Brazil: A cross-sectional observational study. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e1018–e1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 32. IBGE Social Inequalities by Color or Race in Brazil: Technical Notes, 2nd ed.; Report No.: 48; IBGE: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2022. Available online: https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=2101972 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
- Hermida, P.M.V.; Araújo, I.E.M. Elaboration and validation of the nursing interview instrument. Braz. J. Nurs. 2006, 59, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexandre, N.M.C.; Coluci, M.Z.O. Content validity in the processes of construction and adaptation of measurement instruments. Public Sci. Health 2011, 16, 3061–3068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 1932, 22, 5–55. [Google Scholar]
- Khatatbeh, H.; Al-Dwaikat, T.; Oláh, A.; Onchonga, D.; Hammoud, S.; Amer, F.; Prémusz, V.; Pakai, A. The relationships between paediatric nurses’ social support, job satisfaction and patient adverse events. Nurs. Open 2021, 8, 3575–3582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Rosa, B.N.; Candotti, C.T.; Pivotto, L.R.; Noll, M.; Silva, M.G.; Vieira, A.; Loss, J.F. Back pain and body posture evaluation instrument for children and adolescents (BackPEI-CA): Expansion, content validation, and reliability. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ugoni, A.; Walker, B.F. The chi square test: An introduction. COMSIG Rev. 1995, 4, 61–64. [Google Scholar]
- Henrique, N.C.P.; Hilário, J.S.M.; Louzada, F.M.; Scorzafave, L.G.D.S.; Santos, D.D.; Mello, D.F. Child sleep habits and maternal perception during the child’s first year of life. J. Hum. Growth Dev. 2022, 32, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazra, A.; Gogtay, N. Biostatistics series module 3: Comparing groups: Numerical variables. Indian J. Dermatol. 2016, 61, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, M.D.S.V.; da Silva, T.M.V.; Noll, P.R.E.S.; de Almeida, A.A.; Noll, M. Depressive symptoms and their associated factors in vocational–technical school students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leitão, F.N.C.; Ferreira, C.R.T.; de Abreu, K.L.; de Deus, M.B.B.; Junior, H.M.; Morais, M.J.D.D. Effects of the social isolation generated by COVID-19 on the quality of life of the population in two Brazilian cities. J. Hum. Growth Dev. 2021, 31, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardin, L. Content Analysis, 1st ed.; Edições: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Dowling, K.; Barry, M.M. Evaluating the implementation quality of a social and emotional learning program: A mixed methods approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, N.L.D.S.; Fernandes, L.M.A.; Silva, F.F. Beyond academic training: The contributions of Scientific Initiation to the personal and professional development of Business Administration students. Adm. Teach. Res. 2016, 17, 301–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerkhoven, A.H.; Russo, P.; Land-Zandstra, A.M.; Saxena, A.; Rodenburg, F.J. Gender stereotypes in science education resources: A visual content analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vázquez-Cupeiro, S. Science, stereotypes, and gender: A review of explanatory frameworks. J. Soc. Sci. 2015, 22, 68. [Google Scholar]
- CNPq. Panel of Institutional Scientific and Technological Initiation Programs. 2017. Available online: http://estatico.cnpq.br/bi/IndicacaoBolsa/paineis-indicacao-bolsa/painel-dados-painel/index.html (accessed on 6 February 2023).
- Noll, M.; Melo, A.F.; Araújo, T.G.; Soares, F.A.L. Profile of scientific initiation students in brazilian Federal Institutes: Research areas, gender, and scholarship type by region. Res. Soc. Dev. 2021, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silveira, E.A.; Romeiro, A.M.D.S.; Noll, M. Guide for scientific writing: How to avoid common mistakes in a scientific article. J. Hum. Growth Dev. 2022, 32, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spronken-Smith, R.; Mirosa, R.; Darrou, M. ’Learning is an endless journey for anyone’: Undergraduate awareness, experiences and perceptions of the research culture in a research-intensive university. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2014, 33, 355–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linn, M.C.; Palmer, E.; Baranger, A.; Gerard, E.; Stone, E. Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science 2015, 347, 1261757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mitchell, N.; Triska, M.; Liberatore, A.; Ashcroft, L.; Weatherill, R.; Longnecker, N. Benefits and challenges of incorporating citizen science into university education. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramírez-Castañeda, V. Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melo, A.F.; Felício, C.M.; Ferreira, J.C.; Noll, M. The effect of practical activities on Scientific Initiation students’ understanding of the structure of scientific articles: An experience report. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2020, 32, 367–375. [Google Scholar]
- EF Education. EF EPI 2018 Reports: English proficiency index—Europe. 2018. Available online: https://www.ef.com.br/epi/downloads/ (accessed on 16 February 2023).
- Seymour, E.; Hunter, A.-B.; Laursen, S.L.; DeAntoni, T. Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Sci Educ. 2004, 88, 493–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernandez, P.R.; Woodcock, A.; Estrada, M.; Schultz, P.W. Undergraduate research experiences broaden diversity in the scientific workforce. Bioscience 2018, 68, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceyhan, G.D.; Tillotson, J.W. Early year undergraduate researchers’ reflections on the values and perceived costs of their research experience. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020, 7, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brazil; Resolution CNS no 510/2016: Provides for Ethical Norms Applicable to Brazilian Research in Human and Social Sciences; Brazilian National Health Council: Brasília, Brazil, 2016. Available online: https://www.in.gov.br/materia/-/asset_publisher/Kujrw0TZC2Mb/content/id/22917581 (accessed on 17 January 2023).
Variables | Frequency | |
---|---|---|
(n) | % | |
Students | 213 | 100.0 |
Sex | ||
Female | 115 | 54.0 |
Male | 98 | 46.0 |
Age range | ||
19 to 20 years | 48 | 22.5 |
21 to 22 years | 99 | 46.6 |
23 to 24 years | 41 | 19.2 |
25 years or more | 25 | 11.7 |
Color/ethnicity | ||
Mixed | 126 | 59.2 |
White | 61 | 28.6 |
Black | 17 | 8.0 |
Yellow | 6 | 2.8 |
I do not wish to answer | 3 | 1.4 |
Indigenous | 0 | 0.0 |
Field of knowledge | ||
Agrarian Sciences | 132 | 62.0 |
Exact and Earth Sciences | 30 | 14.1 |
Biological Sciences | 26 | 12.2 |
Engineering | 16 | 7.5 |
Humanities | 3 | 1.4 |
Applied Social Sciences | 5 | 2.3 |
Health Sciences | 1 | 0.5 |
Linguistics, Languages, and Arts | 0 | 0.0 |
Student | ||
Receiving a scholarship | 132 | 62 |
Voluntary | 81 | 38 |
Variables | Frequency | |
---|---|---|
(n) | % | |
Advisors | 167 | 100.0 |
Sex | ||
Male | 96 | 57.5 |
Female | 71 | 42.5 |
Profile of the advisor | ||
Professor at IF Goiano | 152 | 91.0 |
Administrative technician at IF Goiano | 10 | 6.0 |
Visiting professor or researcher officially linked to IF Goiano’s research activities | 4 | 2.4 |
Professor/researcher external to the IF Goiano campus | 1 | 0.6 |
Age range | ||
27 to 32 years | 32 | 19.2 |
33 to 38 years | 65 | 38.9 |
39 to 44 years | 41 | 24.5 |
45 to 50 years | 13 | 7.8 |
51 years or more | 16 | 9.6 |
Color/ethnicity | ||
White | 96 | 57.5 |
Mixed | 52 | 31.1 |
Black | 11 | 6.6 |
Yellow | 5 | 3.0 |
Indigenous | 2 | 1.2 |
I do not wish to answer | 1 | 0.6 |
Field of knowledge | ||
Agrarian Sciences | 87 | 52.1 |
Exact and Earth Sciences | 32 | 19.1 |
Humanities | 13 | 7.8 |
Biological Sciences | 12 | 7.2 |
Engineering | 11 | 6.6 |
Linguistics, Languages, and Arts | 6 | 3.6 |
Applied Social Sciences | 4 | 2.4 |
Health Sciences | 2 | 1.2 |
Highest academic degree | ||
Doctorate | 136 | 81.4 |
Master’s degree | 31 | 18.6 |
Variables | Participation | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|
1st Time M ± SD | 2nd Time or More M ± SD | ||
Scientific articles | 0.07 ± 0.35 | 1.18 ± 3.02 | <0.001 |
Scientific articles in English | 0.03 ± 0.16 | 0.52 ± 1.53 | <0.001 |
Expanded abstracts | 0.90 ± 2.28 | 4.70 ± 5.54 | <0.001 |
Simple abstracts | 0.99 ± 2.09 | 4.75 ± 5.86 | <0.001 |
Books and chapters | 0.08 ± 0.34 | 0.11 ± 0.42 | 0.690 |
Patents | 0.03 ± 0.29 | 0.13 ± 1.03 | 0.525 |
All productions | 2.10 ± 4.02 | 11.38 ± 12.89 |
Variables | Total (N = 380) n (%) | Students (N = 213) n (%) | Advisors (N = 167) n (%) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
(a) Student evolution during UR | ||||
Very good | 190 (50.0) | 123 (57.7) | 67 (40.1) | |
Good | 146 (38.4) | 76 (35.7) | 70 (41.9) | |
Fair | 39 (10.3) | 13 (6.1) | 26 (15.6) | <0.001 |
Poor | 5 (1.3) | 1 (0.5) | 4 (2.4) | |
Very poor | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
(b) Importance of UR during undergraduate studies | ||||
Totally agree | 339 (89.2) | 187 (87.7) | 152 (91) | |
Partially agree | 38 (10.0) | 24 (11.3) | 14 (8.4) | |
indifferent | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.599 |
Partially disagree | 2 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.6) | |
Strongly disagree | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
(c) Interest in scientific research | ||||
Totally agree | 272 (71.6) | 149 (70) | 123 (73.7) | |
Partially agree | 98 (25.8) | 55 (25.8) | 43 (25.7) | |
indifferent | 4 (1.0) | 4 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0.088 |
Partially disagree | 6 (1.6) | 5 (2.3) | 1 (0.6) | |
Strongly disagree | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
(d) Adds knowledge | ||||
Totally agree | 338 (88.9) | 184 (86.4) | 154 (92.2) | |
Partially agree | 38 (10.0) | 25 (11.7) | 13 (7.8) | |
indifferent | 3 (0.8) | 3 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0.084 |
Partially disagree | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | |
Strongly disagree | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
(e) Develops critical thinking | ||||
Totally agree | 303 (79.7) | 164 (77.0) | 139 (83.2) | |
Partially agree | 68 (17.9) | 41 (19.2) | 27 (16.2) | |
Indifferent | 6 (1.6) | 5 (2.4) | 1 (0.6) | 0.087 |
Partially disagree | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
Strongly disagree | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | |
(f) Stimulates creativity | ||||
Totally agree | 267 (70.3) | 140 (65.7) | 127 (76.0) | |
Partially agree | 99 (26.0) | 59 (27.7) | 40 (24.0) | |
Indifferent | 11 (2.9) | 11 (5.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0.002 |
Partially disagree | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
Strongly disagree | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | |
(g) Develops responsibility | ||||
Totally agree | 278 (73.2) | 150 (70.4) | 128 (76.6) | |
Partially agree | 80 (21.0) | 44 (20.6) | 36 (21.6) | |
Indifferent | 19 (5.0) | 17 (8.0) | 2 (1.2) | 0.013 |
Partially disagree | 2 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.6) | |
Strongly disagree | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | |
(h) Performance of the planned activities on time | ||||
Totally agree | 224 (59.0) | 127 (59.6) | 97 (58.1) | |
Partially agree | 132 (34.7) | 65 (30.5) | 67 (40.1) | |
Indifferent | 21 (5.5) | 18 (8.5) | 3 (1.8) | 0.002 |
Partially disagree | 3 (0.8) | 3 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
Strongly disagree | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
(i) Knowledge acquisition, learning about research methods and techniques | ||||
Totally agree | 321 (84.5) | 179 (84.0) | 142 (85.0) | |
Partially agree | 55 (14.5) | 31 (14.6) | 24 (14.4) | |
Indifferent | 4 (1.0) | 3 (1.4) | 1 (0.6) | 0.742 |
Partially disagree | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
Strongly disagree | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
(j) Arouses interest in scientific writing | ||||
Totally agree | 210 (55.3) | 118 (55.4) | 92 (55.1) | |
Partially agree | 139 (36.6) | 69 (32.4) | 70 (41.9) | |
Indifferent | 23 (6.1) | 19 (8.9) | 4 (2.4) | 0.002 |
Partially disagree | 4 (1.0) | 4 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
Strongly disagree | 4 (1.0) | 3 (1.4) | 1 (0.6) | |
(k) Encouraged presentation of papers orally | ||||
Totally agree | 252 (66.3) | 130 (61.0) | 122 (73.1) | |
Partially agree | 95 (25.0) | 54 (25.4) | 41 (24.5) | |
Indifferent | 26 (6.8) | 23 (10.8) | 3 (1.8) | <0.001 |
Partially disagree | 3 (0.8) | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.6) | |
Strongly disagree | 4 (1.1) | 4 (1.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
(l) Relationship between advisors and students | ||||
Very good | 263 (69.2) | 161 (75.6) | 102 (61.1) | |
Good | 98 (25.8) | 37 (17.3) | 61 (36.5) | |
Fair | 17 (4.4) | 14 (6.6) | 3 (1.8) | <0.001 |
Poor | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | |
Very poor | 1 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.6) | |
(m) Better performance graduate studies | ||||
Totally agree | 281 (74.0) | 145 (68.1) | 136 (81.4) | |
Partially agree | 91 (23.9) | 62 (29.1) | 29 (17.4) | |
Indifferent | 6 (1.6) | 4 (1.9) | 2 (1.2) | 0.012 |
Partially disagree | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
Strongly disagree | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
(n) Acquisition of a more prestigious job | ||||
Totally agree | 207 (54.5) | 126 (59.2) | 81 (48.5) | |
Partially agree | 136 (35.8) | 65 (30.5) | 71 (42.5) | |
Indifferent | 21 (5.5) | 14 (6.6) | 7 (4.2) | 0.053 |
Partially disagree | 8 (2.1) | 5 (2.3) | 3 (1.8) | |
Strongly disagree | 8 (2.1) | 3 (1.4) | 5 (3.0) | |
(o) Encouragement to have contact with foreign languages | ||||
Totally agree | 131 (34.5) | 68 (31.9) | 63 (37.7) | |
Partially agree | 144 (37.9) | 69 (32.4) | 75 (44.9) | |
Indifferent | 64 (16.8) | 40 (18.8) | 24 (14.4) | <0.001 |
Partially disagree | 17 (4.5) | 13 (6.1) | 4 (2.4) | |
Strongly disagree | 24 (6.3) | 23 (10.8) | 1 (0.6) | |
(p) Institutional support for scientific research activities | ||||
Totally agree | 240 (63.2) | 146 (68.5) | 94 (56.3) | |
Partially agree | 120 (31.6) | 59 (27.7) | 61 (36.5) | |
Indifferent | 4 (1.0) | 2 (0.9) | 2 (1.2) | 0.036 |
Partially disagree | 12 (3.2) | 4 (1.8) | 8 (4.8) | |
Strongly disagree | 4 (1.0) | 2 (0.9) | 2 (1.2) | |
(q) Satisfaction level | ||||
Very satisfied | 135 (35.5) | 106 (49.8) | 29 (17.4) | |
Satisfied | 199 (52.4) | 86 (40.4) | 113 (67.7) | |
Reasonably satisfied | 38 (10.0) | 15 (7.0) | 23 (13.7) | <0.001 |
Dissatisfied | 6 (1.6) | 5 (2.3) | 1 (0.6) | |
Very unsatisfied | 2 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.6) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Melo, A.F.; da Costa, W.P.; Rodrigues, R.R.; Nunes, L.d.A.C.B.; Noll, P.R.E.S.; Noll, M. Panorama of Undergraduate Research in Brazil: Profile, Scientific Production, and Perceptions. Publications 2023, 11, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020030
Melo AF, da Costa WP, Rodrigues RR, Nunes LdACB, Noll PRES, Noll M. Panorama of Undergraduate Research in Brazil: Profile, Scientific Production, and Perceptions. Publications. 2023; 11(2):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020030
Chicago/Turabian StyleMelo, Angélica Ferreira, Woska Pires da Costa, Rhanya Rafaella Rodrigues, Lorena de Almeida Cavalcante Brandão Nunes, Priscilla Rayanne E Silva Noll, and Matias Noll. 2023. "Panorama of Undergraduate Research in Brazil: Profile, Scientific Production, and Perceptions" Publications 11, no. 2: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020030