This project contains the data files associated with the analyses presented in the research article entitled "What drives change? Characterizing scientific self-efficacy development in undergraduate research experiences." (2026-02-02)

ABSTRACT Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) and course-based UREs (CUREs) promote students' scientific self-efficacy growth. Yet, how self-efficacy develops during research is not understood. Furthermore, what students do during research varies in ways that likely affect self-efficacy development. We sought to address these knowledge gaps by collecting scientific self-efficacy data from CURE and URE students at nine universities at the beginning, middle, and end of a single term of research. We leveraged a theoretical advancement, latent state-trait theory-revised, to disaggregate the components of students' self-efficacy into stable or trait-like self-efficacy and dynamic or state-like self-efficacy. We determined that students' scientific self-efficacy was moderately stable during their research, with the most malleable component being beliefs in their abilities to figure out data collection and explain results. We also surveyed students ∼45 times throughout their research experience to test the extent to which research hours and types of research tasks contributed to self-efficacy development. We found that students who completed more analytic tasks experienced significantly more self-efficacy growth than students who completed other types of tasks, while time spent on research was not influential. Our results illustrate the importance of engaging students in analytic tasks during CUREs and UREs for fostering their self-efficacy development. Highlight for table of contents Using latent state-trait theory-revised, we found that students' scientific self-efficacy was more stable than malleable over one research term. Beliefs about data collection and explaining results were most dynamic. Conducting more analytic tasks fostered self-efficacy, while the time spent and completion of other tasks had no effect.

Background: Studying science identity has been useful for understanding students' continuation in science-related education and career paths. Yet knowledge and theory related to science identity among students on the path to becoming a professional science researcher, such as students engaged in research at the undergraduate, postbaccalaureate, and graduate level, is still developing. It is not yet clear from existing science identity theory how particular science contexts, such as research training experiences, influence students' science identities. Here we leverage existing science identity and professional identity theories to investigate how research training shapes science identity. We conducted a qualitative investigation of 30 early career researchers--undergraduates, postbaccalaureates, and doctoral students in a variety of natural science fields--to characterize how they recognized themselves as science researchers. Results: Early career researchers (ECRs) recognized themselves as either science students or science researchers, which they distinguished from being a career researcher. ECRs made judgments, which we refer to as "science identity assessments", in the context of interconnected work-learning and identity-learning cycles. Work-learning cycles referred to ECRs' conceptions of the work they did in their research training experience. ECRs weighed the extent to which they perceived the work they did in their research training to show authenticity, offer room for autonomy, and afford opportunities for epistemic involvement. Identity-learning cycles encompassed ECRs' conceptions of science researchers. ECRs considered the roles they fill in their research training experiences and if these roles aligned with their perceptions of the tasks and traits of perceived researchers. ECRs' identity-learning cycles were further shaped by recognition from others. ECRs spoke of how recognition from others embedded within their research training experiences and from others removed from their research training experiences influenced how they see themselves as science researchers. Conclusions: We synthesized our findings to form a revised conceptual model of science researcher identity, which offers enhanced theoretical precision to study science identity in the future. We hypothesize relationships among constructs related to science identity and professional identity development that can be tested in further research. Our results also offer practical implications to foster the science researcher identity of ECRs.