How Does the Duration of an Undergraduate Research Training Program Impact the Development of Professional Research Skills, Student Engagement, Sense of Belonging, and Academic Outcomes?

Formal undergraduate research training programs are typically two years in length to support student development over time. However, some evidence suggests that many benefits of research participation can be achieved in a shorter duration, raising the question of whether shorter models can be as effective. This prospective study compared outcomes for two concurrent cohort-based research training models: a two-year Scholars Program and an accelerated one-year Fellows Program. The Fellows Program was designed for advanced students who joined the training program later than their peers for a variety of reasons. Both programs provided students with financial support, faculty-mentored research, a Learning Community, and other resources for professional development. The longer duration allowed Scholars to report significantly higher levels of research skills and produce more publications and professional presentations than Fellows by the end of their respective training programs. In contrast, the programs did not differ on graduation GPA, number of awards, or graduate school enrollment. Fellows also did not significantly differ from Scholars on psychosocial measures, including science/researcher identity, belongingness, cultural compatibility, family support, or time management. Findings suggest that a high-intensity, one-year model can deliver many broad academic and social benefits associated with the two-year model, while a longer two-year model provides students with more time and additional research opportunities to be more productive. We conclude that both types of programs should be available to best meet students' needs and to make the most effective use of program resources.