Abstract
Critical thinking is a key student learning outcome of undergraduate education in animal science. Undergraduate research is frequently encouraged as a way of growing critical thinking skills, but evidence of its influence is mostly anecdotal. Furthermore, diminishing resources may limit the number and quality of available experiences. The objective of this research was to evaluate how undergraduate research experiences impact critical thinking in animal science students. A total of 556 undergraduate students in the Department of Animal Sciences & Industry at Kansas State University took the online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts & Understanding Test (Foundation for Critical Thinking, Tomales, CA) in Fall 2017 (baseline) and again in Fall 2018 (end line). This online assessment is a 100-question test (1 point/question). Of these, 507 students consented to their scores being used for research purposes, and were classified into one of three categories: 1) never conducted undergraduate research (n = 435); 2) conducted a course-based undergraduate research experience during the time period (n = 60); or 3) conducted a traditional participant-based undergraduate research experience during the time period (n = 12). Baseline, end line, and growth in critical thinking (difference between baseline and end line) scores were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS (v.9.4, Cary, NC) as a nested design. There were no detected differences in baseline critical thinking scores among students (P = 0.195). Students conducting undergraduate research tended to have higher end line (P = 0.088) and had greater growth (P = 0.047) in critical thinking score than those not conducting undergraduate research. The type of undergraduate research experience did not influence any measured criteria (P > 0.200). In summary, this research confirms that undergraduate research experiences increase animal science student critical thinking ability. Course-based undergraduate research experiences can be efficient ways to increase the quantity of students exposed to research without compromising critical thinking growth compared to conventional participant-based models.