Contextualizing Undergraduate Research: A Within-Subject Comparison of Student Learning Gains

This study contextualizes undergraduate research (UR) by comparing students’ perceived learning from UR and discipline-specific courses (Courses) using a within-subject, paired-sample design and construct-based measures: Academic Learning Gains (AG), Practical Learning Gains (PG), and a new Comprehensive Learning Outcomes (CO) construct. Survey responses were collected from 294 students who presented at a university-wide UR Symposium. Students rated matched items for UR and Courses side-by-side, enabling direct comparison while controlling for individual differences. Across all constructs, UR received higher mean ratings than Courses, and paired-samples tests indicated statistically significant differences with medium to large effect sizes. These results provide a context-specific benchmark for interpreting UR’s perceived contribution relative to disciplinary coursework among students who participate in research. Findings are descriptive and reflect self-reports from students who self-selected into UR at a single institution. The study is not designed to establish causality or to generalize beyond similar HIP-quality UR contexts. Even so, the study provides a replicable framework for UR-Course comparisons and introduces the CO construct to capture integrative growth. Future research is needed to validate these patterns across diverse settings, incorporate direct indicators of learning, and employ designs that yield more generalizable samples.