Early Research: A Strategy for Inclusion and Student Success - ACS

Chapter 1

Early Research: A Strategy for Inclusion and Student Success Downloaded by 80.82.78.170 on December 30, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1231.ch001

Desmond H. Murray,1,* Sherine Obare,2 and James Hageman3 1Building

Excellence in Science and Technology, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49103 2Department of Chemistry, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008-5413 3Office of the President, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48858 *E-mail: [email protected]

This introductory chapter defines early research and its organic relationship to human curiosity. It describes historic barriers to early research and distinguishes it from other forms of active learning. The chapter highlights promising trends, opportunities and resources for authentic early research. It establishes substantial and insightful connections between student participation in early research, inclusion and student success. It advocates for universal adoption of and support for early research as a foundational game-changer for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education. An overview of each book chapter is also presented. A key insight of this chapter emerging from our definition of early research is identification of age as an important, non-traditional demographic classification in STEM. We believe age subsumes the conventional nomenclature of race and gender inherent in historically underrepresented groups (HUG’s). We contend that early authentic research provides the means par excellence for all students to obtain a concrete understanding and rational view of the world, and to make advances for the benefit of all society.

© 2016 American Chemical Society Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

1.0. Importance of Early Research

Downloaded by 80.82.78.170 on December 30, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1231.ch001

1.1. Early Research Defined Etymologically, the word research comes from the Middle French word recerche which simply means to search or to go about seeking. At the core of our entire research enterprise is our innate human hunger to know. This is who we are. Seekers! With or without a degree, amateur or professional, apprentice or experienced, we “go about seeking” to understand our world; we research. Indeed, it can be argued that research is a human survival mechanism and that our curiosity is as fundamental a condition of being human as hunger and thirst. Zora Neale Hurston, an African-American novelist and anthropologist best known for her 1937 novel Their Eyes Were Watching God, stated, “Research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose.” For us, the bottom-line is that authentic research should start early, be conducted often, and engaged in by all students. By authentic we mean hands-on research in which students actively engage with original questions or problems, most usually with the guidance of a research mentor, and attempt to find unknown answers or solutions. The questions or problems can originate from the students themselves or from their mentors. The emphasis here being on generation of new knowledge and/or problem-solving as done by practicing scientists, engineers and mathematicians. The questions or problems posed may belong to basic or applied science domains; they may be fundamental curiosity-driven research or problem-based engineering projects. They can be lab or field based and their style can range from mostly observational to experimental to purely mathematical/theoretical. Furthermore, research may be conducted in curricular and/or non-curricular settings, as part of a formal class experience or a summer enrichment program. While studying published research or learning about other types of inquiry have their place and merits, our definition of research does not include purely literature searching, historical research, or journalistic investigations. This is not to discredit these in any way or to dissuade students from pursuing and mastering these lines of inquiry but merely to focus our discussion on what is traditionally understood as scientific research. We strongly suggest that consideration of the content (“what”) and context (“why”) of research ought not to blind us to the importance of the “when” and “who” of research. When should students begin conducting authentic research and who should those students be? These questions are often neither universally considered nor proactively addressed by the traditional research and development (R&D) enterprise and STEM education systems. We think they should be. Despite the impressive growth of traditional undergraduate research, current investments and efforts still largely ignores the early research niche. By early research we mean authentic research conducted sooner than traditionally done; specifically, we refer to high school and community college students, and college underclassmen participating in research. It is our view that in contrast to early research the term undergraduate research is limited by definition and in application. In our collective experiences the traditional practice of undergraduate research has often been restricted to upperclassmen or “bright” students. The 2 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


value of offering authentic research to such students is well documented (1), but there is now a growing sense of urgency that research should be early, often, and universal (2). While age generally correlates with academic class standing, our definition of early research has an interesting age demographic consequence for community colleges. Community college students, with an average age of 29, are generally older than traditional college students. This means that community college students will bring more life experiences to their early research engagement than traditional students. This is a relevant insight for design and implementation of early research programs given that 49% of U.S. graduates earning baccalaureates in science and engineering (S&E) attended a community college at some point in their education (3). We believe that our young men and women, 18-24, across the United States can contribute to finding scientific and technological solutions to societal challenges. We can enlist them to combat diseases and addictions, to find alternative energy solutions, to create new materials for new industries, or to address the scientific and technological challenges of, for example, urbanization, healthcare, security, privacy, resource scarcity, and climate change. We believe they will rise to, and even exceed, our expectations if we imagine research differently: early, often, and universal. 1.2. Curiosity and Early Research “I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.” – Albert Einstein We may be inclined to disagree with Einstein’s statement about not having any special talent but his self-image powerfully illustrates the value and importance he placed on curiosity. Yet, Einstein is not alone. Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, in a 1987 BBC Horizon interview about winning the Nobel Prize said “I’ve already got the prize, the prize is the pleasure of finding things out, the kick in the discovery” (4). Linus Pauling, 1954 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, reputedly observed, “Satisfaction of one’s curiosity is one of the greatest sources of happiness in life” (5). Similar sentiments about curiosity have also been expressed by Dudley Herschbach, 1986 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry in his State of Tomorrow You Tube video on the nature of science (6). In the book We Are All Stardust, science writer Stefan Klein asks 1981 Nobel Prize chemist Roald Hoffmann, “What sets scientists apart?” Hoffmann replied, “First, and foremost, curiosity.” This widespread nod to inquisitiveness as the starting point of science is also remarked on by Hope Jahren, American geoscientist, in her 2016 book, Lab Girl, in which she states “People will tell you that you have to know math to be a scientist, or physics or chemistry. They’re wrong ……. What comes first is a question.” Indeed, as the Skillshare YouTube ad says, “The Future Belongs to the Curious” (7). Today, education has become endlessly addicted to buzzwords, fads, and technology and has all too often ignored the very foundation of learning that we are already wired with internally – curiosity. Wide-ranging interdisciplinary research on curiosity continues unabated to provide an exhaustive and growing body of knowledge about this fundamental and fascinating human trait (8–11). For 3 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


example, at the molecular level it is known that a simple organic neurotransmitter, dopamine, is the causative agent that lies behind the “pleasure” and “happiness” of learning. In other words, we can get a natural high from learning new information and having new experiences (12)! Yet, much of education, including STEM education, is often conducted in a manner oblivious and sometimes antagonistic towards the body of knowledge about how humans learn (13–15). The evidence for this educational ineffectiveness (16) lies in the numbers of students who complain about “boring” content-driven lectures, who fail in math and science based courses, and who drop out or are weeded-out from STEM courses (17, 18). Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus of linguistics and philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the founders of cognitive science, remarked in an interview, “Children for example are naturally curious – they want to know about everything, they want to explore everything but that generally gets knocked out of their heads. They’re put into disciplined structures, things are organized for them to act in certain ways so it tends to get beaten out of you. That’s why school’s boring” (19). We believe that the current state of K-12 science education in the United States, as indicated by several international rankings, is partly the result of a legislative command and control system and an accompanying lack of full local autonomy that is all too common in American education (20). This system often privileges conformity over creativity and curiosity. We believe students should be immersed in curiosity-inspiring active learning and given early research opportunities to build upon their instinctual curiosity. Evidence presented by our chapter authors shows that curiosity, informal or formal, can help drive students to academic success, regardless to which demographic group they belong. Curiosity is cross-demographic and transcultural. 1.3. Human Brain Development and Early Research A vast, growing, and sound body of knowledge about human brain development and chemistry, neurosciences, cognitive, and learning sciences substantiates and validates our early research paradigm (21). It strongly suggests to us that delaying student engagement and experiences in authentic research is outmoded pedagogically, shortsighted economically, and wasteful of invaluable human potential and capital. For example, in the decades-long work of Alison Gopnik (22), some of which was featured in the 2012 Science article - Scientific Thinking in Young Children: Theoretical Advances, Empirical Research, and Policy Implications, can be found very revealing experimentally-based rationales for the universal adoption of early research. Findings in this field indicate that children naturally think and behave like scientists by (a) making observations, (b) proposing and testing hypotheses, (c) making causal inferences, (d) experimenting and learning from their experiments, (e) observing and learning from patterns of data, (f) creating theories about the world around them, (g) asking questions, and (h) using Bayesian statistical analysis (23). In her TED lecture “What Do Babies Think?” Gopnik, author of The Scientist in the Crib, commented “babies and young 4 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


children are like the research and development division of the human species,” and that “babies may be even better scientists than grown-ups often are” (24). In addition, the National Research Council assembled two distinguished panels of researchers, the Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning and the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, to prepare the 2000 monograph How People Learn with the subtitle Brain, Mind, Experience and School (25). The purpose of this expanded edition was to determine ”…how to better link the findings of research on the science of learning to actual practice in the classroom.” Our interpretation of these and numerous other studies and reports is that early research is fully consistent with current research-based models of learning and teaching, and of human brain development. We are natural born scientists. Even before we can read, write, and count, we research, we inquire, we question. Even before we learn about the scientific method, we observe, we experiment, we predict. Early research is an essential and universal part of what makes us human. We believe that knowing what we know now, yet continuing to teach science as we have always done, is educational malpractice. 1.4. Early Research and STEM Professionalization Consider this: William Henry Perkin, who without a degree and at the age of 18, during his Easter break in 1856, revolutionized academic and industrial chemistry (and social and legal norms) with the accidental discovery of mauveine - the first synthetic organic dye (26–28). Today, in our professionalized STEM culture, would he be allowed to conduct authentic research? It is worth noting that Perkin at the time of his research and seminal discovery belonged to the traditional high school senior – college freshman demographic. He began studying chemistry at the age of 15 at the Royal College of Chemistry in London under the tutelage of the German chemist August Wilhelm von Hofmann. Today, 160 years since Perkins discovery of mauveine, his achievement can perhaps be seen as a 15-year old completing a year of chemistry in Grade 10 then spending the next three years conducting college level research. By his or her college freshman year, he or she might have already made some kind of seminal game-changing contribution to the field of chemistry. Therein lies the promise and potential of students conducting early authentic research. Significant milestones in the professionalization of science in the United States occurred when Yale University granted the first science-engineering PhD to Josiah Willard Gibbs in 1863 and Harvard awarded its first chemistry PhD in 1877. In contrast to doctorates in medicine, these PhDs in the sciences and engineering were based, as they are today, on completing a substantial body of original, often publishable, research. By the 1880’s, the professionalization of chemistry was well on its way with the (a) establishment of the American Chemical Society in 1876, (b) launch of journals such as Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1879, (c) growth of chemistry departments across the United States, (d) founding of major universities such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and John Hopkins, and (e) signing of the Morrel Act by President Abraham Lincoln in 1862 to create Land Grant Universities. Generally, this period of 5 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


history contributed greatly to laying the foundation for the ascendancy and later dominance of American education, particularly in science and technology (29). However, concurrent with the professionalization of science, including chemistry, universities in the United States intentionally excluded women and blacks from even enrolling in classes, much less completing degrees. It was not until 1894 that the first PhDs were awarded to women (30) and not until 1916 to the first African-American, Saint Elmo Brady (31). On February 2, 2015, New York Times columnist Charles M Blow wrote about the lack of diversity in STEM as an area of continuing segregation in the American workforce. Clearly, this is a vexing issue recognized even by mainstream non-scientists and the general public. Objective evidence of this legacy of exclusion can also be found in the complete lack of ethnic diversity in the annual American Chemical Society awardees (32–34). We believe that historically the professionalization of STEM has carried undesirable strains of exclusion that continue to negatively impact full and equal participation, opportunity, and access of some demographic groups, based especially on gender and ethnicity. The implicit, yet unequivocal, message from the professional STEM class was that science is best done or can only be done by those permitted or privileged to do so. This policy and practice of inadvertent or deliberate exclusion contributed to the lack of diversity that we are now working to and must undo. We postulate that universal adoption of early research will help to reverse the limiting assumptions and shortsighted policies that still impact STEM education and workforce in 21st century America, and lead to greater democratization of science. Furthermore, the tradition of delaying authentic research until graduate school has its historical roots in the emerging professionalization of science. Here again the professional STEM establishment excluded persons from doing research based on degree and pedigree. In fact, even undergraduate research is a relatively recent development in American science education (35, 36). The model for undergraduate research was created in Germany in 1810 but it was not until 1969 that the first undergraduate research program was established in the United States at MIT. Later on, in 1978, the Council of Undergraduate Research (CUR) was organized and the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI) had its beginnings in 2007 (37). Another exclusionary aspect in the professionalization of STEM is the proactive use of “weed-out” classes (38). These are generally difficult freshman and/or sophomore level courses that many students drop out from and may cause them to change majors. Whatever one’s position on the educational and social value of such weed-out classes, especially in STEM introductory courses, all academic stakeholders - teachers and students - are aware of these classes as part of STEM educational culture. We are currently at a point in STEM education history where two seemingly opposite cultures are simultaneously in play: the exclusionary dogma of “weed-out” classes and the economic, democratic and social imperatives for demographic inclusion. It is a fact that so called “weed-out” courses disproportionately affect demographic groups that are often low income and more ill-prepared for college, which are precisely the latent and incipient talents targeted for greater inclusion in STEM (39–41). 6 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Several questions to be sorted out on this “weed-out” issue include:


(1) What exactly is the shared, objective culpability of the student, the teacher, the course material, and the instruction methods in the weeding-out process?, (2) Is “survival of the fittest” the best and only credible STEM educational strategy? Why or why not?, and (3) Are “weed-out” courses inherently antithetical to (a) the goal of a more scientifically literate citizenry?, (b) enhancing the intellectual curiosity of a democratic society, (c) preparing students/workers for a multi-career economy, that includes STEM?, and (d) increasing the diversity of the STEM workforce? Bringing clarity and resolution to these questions could potentially facilitate broadening participation in STEM education and building a diverse and dynamic workforce. It is our view, that early authentic research is the complete antithesis of “weed-out” courses. We posit that early research provides a sustainable, scalable and pedagogically credible option to attracting and retaining students from all backgrounds in the STEM fields. Rather than continuing a dead-end culture of blame regarding the high attrition rates of STEM majors, early research offers the promise and potential for building successful, seamless STEM collaborations between our nation’s high schools and colleges. In addition, it helps to achieve the goals of enhancing scientific literacy, intellectual curiosity and preparation of all students for the knowledge-innovation economy where they may change jobs three to four times during their professional lifetimes. Early research encompasses both the best pedagogy and the moral imagination needed to change the status quo. We believe that an all-hands-on-deck, all-systems-online approach is needed to re-imagine science education towards more inclusive policies and practices, such as, early research. This approach can indeed be a scalable and sustainable solution for the STEM pipeline problem, especially for historically underrepresented groups (HUGs). 1.5. Active Learning and Early Research What’s old is new again. The emergence of terms like active learning, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and even mentoring goes back, in some cases, to millennia-old methods of instructing and learning (42). Different elements of these “new” methods can be traced back historically to the apprenticeship system of the latter Middle Ages, the Socratic Method of asking and answering questions, the experiential education philosophy of American philosopher John Dewey (43) and others, and the heuristic method of British chemist Henry Armstrong (44). An interesting aspect in this history was the lively debate that occurred in the United States in the early to mid-19th century about the value of laboratory work in precollege and college science education (45). Many at that time considered labs inferior to, for example, a classical education, precisely for the fact it is 7 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


hands-on! While we now assume without question the symbiosis of research and teaching (46), and the importance and necessity of the hands-on laboratory method of teaching as part of best practices in high school and college science courses, it has not always been so. Today, with so many related terms in current usage, there is some degree of imprecision in how they are defined and distinguished from each other. However, it is important to establish a clear distinction between active learning, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and authentic research (47, 48). While authentic research involves active inquiry on a specific project, all active learning, inquirybased learning or project-based learning does not always reach nor have to reach the threshold standards of being authentic research. Inquiry-based learning has been classified into four types or levels: confirmation, structured, guided, and open (49). These show a progression from confirmation to open, in student ownership and independence, and in whether new knowledge is generated or an original solution obtained or designed. While open inquiry is the closest of the four to authentic research, the emphasis is mostly on teaching the nature and process of scientific inquiry and problem-solving and not on generating publishable original research. These levels of inquiry acquaint and assist students, especially in pre-secondary school, with some of the basics of the scientific method and process. They serve as a good entry before students engage in authentic research at the higher order levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (50). Some of these relationships are captured graphically in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Development of Independent Researchers (see color insert) Early research can be viewed as part of a continuum, as shown above in Figure 1, towards the goal of producing truly independent investigators (Principal 8 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Investigators or PI’s in the jargon of granting agencies). The traditional high school and college laboratory experiment is typically one that repeats a known procedure and may give the student insight into some methodology in which the outcome is already known and expected. These laboratory experiences are best described as confirmatory rather than discovery. In contrast, Early Researchers as depicted in Figure 1 are challenged to achieve a deeper level of scientific literacy – about the process – that is traditionally ignored. They must gain some knowledge of the field to be studied and begin to grasp what is known and unknown. Students are challenged to pose a question, work to determine how to answer the question, assemble materials, learn how to operate instruments, conduct experiments that might lead to an answer and work with a mentor to analyze and interpret results and determine what further work might be necessary. Further growth along the path of independence in Figure 1 represents greater sophistication in knowledge, technical skills, critical thinking, and an increasing ability to ask better and more original questions. Note that the rudiments to solving a problem at the higher levels are already present in the processes used by the Early Researcher. Students do not need to become graduate researchers or principal investigators to acquire the learning habits, critical thinking and marketable skills learned from engaging in early research, nor to gain a working appreciation for the research and development process (51). In addition, Figure 1 seeks to illustrate and clarify the similarities and differences in some of the imprecision in terms like inquiry-based learning and authentic research. Some of the major distinctions that we wish to enunciate are that: (a) inquiry-based learning is an all-inclusive term; authentic research is inquiry but not all inquiry is research. Inquiry-based learning can apply to both confirmatory as well as discovery experiments, whereas authentic research seeks to reveal the unknown and to add to the global human knowledge base not simply to one’s personal knowledge; (b) authentic research has a higher probability of leading to a new discovery, creating a novel insight, design, or development, and resulting in innovation; and (c) authentic research outcomes hold a greater likelihood of being publishable, patentable, or marketable.

To simplify, we reformulate the above points into three brief questions that can easily distinguish between an inquiry-based process and authentic research: (a) Does it add new or original knowledge to the field of study? (b) Does it have a high potential for discovery, development, or innovation? (c) Does it add academic, economic, or social value to human knowledge? If the answer to each of these questions is yes, then the activity is almost certainly an authentic research activity. 9 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


1.6. How Many Reports Does It Take? The realization that early intervention is needed in STEM education was the focus of the 2012 Engage to Excel Report to the President of the United States by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (52). This report is one of many over the last 30 years or so that has made very similar recommendations regarding the changes needed to address current and impending problems in the nation’s STEM workforce and education system. One of the major issues re-identified by the PCAST report is the very high attrition rate in STEM education: 60% of STEM majors fail to complete their coursework and or degree. One of the five overarching PCAST report recommendations, consistent with early research, is to “advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses.” The latter statement is precisely what was recommended 14 years earlier by the 1998 Boyer Commission report entitled Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities (53). In addition, the 2004 Building Engineering and Science Talent report by the Council on Competitiveness emphatically stated, “The thinning of the U.S. technical talent pool starts early.” The fabled Hart-Rudman pre-9/11 Commission offered very dire warnings in its report stating “…that the second greatest threat to American national security is the failure of math and science education.” It further stated that “…the inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine” (54). Additionally, 33 years ago, in 1983, in A Nation at Risk, the following broad critique of American education was given, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war” (55). The 152-page, 7-chapter report published in December 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences entitled Integrating Discovery Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum (56) continues the advocacy for and reinforces the idea of engaging college students in authentic research as early as possible. Part of the impetus for this report is the 2012 PCAST declaration that it should be a national policy and priority to “…advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses.” As does our book, this report provides quantitative evidence that early research increases STEM retention. However, in contrast, our book expands the nomenclature and scope of this discussion beyond undergraduate research to the idea of early research and its universal adoption seamlessly across the high school – college academic spectrum. We believe that the time for more reports, more studies and more high-powered panels is long past. What additional actionable intel do we seek? What are we doing with the verifiable insights we already have? Now is the time to work with focused urgency on implementation. There are many examples of best practices of early research happening right now across the United States. We, the editors, also know from our own professional experiences that significant authentic research can be done and is being done by early researchers. For 10 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


example, one of us has engaged close to 1,000 students, both high school and college, in early research over the last 18 years. Evidence presented in this book confirms that students do not need to jump through years of academic hoops in order to conduct real research. This book also chronicles the transformational impact that early research experiences have on the retention, performance, and future careers of students from all socioeconomic and ethnic groups in STEM disciplines. We believe that now is the time to re-imagine and redefine the “who” and “when” of research. Fortunately, this process is already underway at many high schools, community colleges, two-year, and four-year colleges across the country, where early researchers are conducting authentic and significant research. We strongly advocate for universal adoption of early research and envision a future that includes fully funded research community colleges and high schools thriving seamlessly alongside traditional colleges, research universities and institutes.

1.7. Early Research Trends, Resources, and Signs of the Changing Status Quo 1.7.1. Early Research Challenges We speculate that the still prevalent traditional mode of teaching science (57) by memorizing scientific facts and concepts while delaying maximal student engagement in STEM research and processes is based on an unfortunate alchemy of excuses including: they are too young, they lack knowledge, they lack skills, they lack maturity, there are no funds, it is time-consuming, it is difficult to grade, it is hard work, and it has minimal returns (that is, relatively few publications and patents) on investment. However, we are optimistic about and excited by the positive changes at all levels of science education towards greater emphasis generally on learning by doing and specifically on student research conducted years before graduate school (58–63). Presently, university science educators are not required to receive formal training in learning theories, classroom management, and best teaching practices (64). Most have only received advanced training in their very specialized field at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels. So, they very often rely on and continue to use teaching methods they are generally accustomed to - passive memorization of scientific facts. Minimal consideration is given to incorporating early research into lab courses or proactively recruiting early researchers into research groups. Frankly, we believe that the inordinate pressure on university faculty to “publish or perish” is a major disincentive to fully engaging students in mentored early research programs on a substantial scale (65–67). There is little or no incentive for university faculty to invest time and energy in mentoring precollege students and college underclassmen in authentic research. Fortunately, many exceptional and visionary individuals and institutions can be pointed to that contradict this general pattern. Some of these are chapter authors in this book, others are highlighted throughout this chapter. 11 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Interestingly, science teachers and instructors in middle schools and high schools are more likely to have received formal training and certification in the pedagogical sciences, but unfortunately they often face other issues such as: small budgets, lack of lab equipment and materials, roadblocks to assessing research-based courses within current curriculum structures and demands, requirements to teach to content-driven tests, and simply a lack of time to devote extra effort to research projects. These and other concerns and challenges of incorporating research-styled projects into the high school curriculum are discussed in the 2005 National Research Council’s America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (68). Also, reports in the mainstream media indicate a decrease in the number of students participating in science fairs and competitions. For example, a February 4, 2011, New York Times feature story reported on the declining numbers of high school students at science fairs across the United States (69). This trend is supporting evidence for the observation made by Potvin and Hasni and others that, around the world, interest in science and technology declined with school years and age (70). However, more recently, the American College Test (ACT) Association published a report entitled “The Condition of STEM 2015”. This report showed that there was a general interest in pursuing careers in STEM fields by about 49% of students who took the ACT. However, the data collected based on the ACT exams also showed that only 26% of the students who expressed interest had the required background to be successful at the undergraduate level (71).

1.7.2. Early Research Trends at the High School Level

Early research is also consistent with the objectives of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) for the high school level. NGSS, developed by a 26-state consortium, is based on the Framework for K – 12 Science Education developed by the National Research Council (72). One major expectation and objective of NGSS is for students to learn not just content but to understand and apply the methods and practices of scientists and engineers. To date, over 40 states have shown interest in NGSS and 16 states had adopted the standards as of February 2016 (73). There are also books and other resources for high school teachers and students interested in conducting original research. For example, in 1999, Krieger wrote a small, detailed monograph for high schools How to Create an Independent Research Program (74), which was the basis for engaging a large number of high school students in independent and innovative research projects in a range of subjects. In 2011, Harland published the STEM Student Research Handbook (75) that guides high school students and teachers through the various stages of the entire research process in good detail: from idea generation to project development and design to proposal writing to conducting experiments to interpreting results and finally to effective presentation of data. 12 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Also, important organizations such as the National Consortium of Secondary STEM Schools (http://ncsss.org/), that are dedicated to fostering early research at the high school level, are currently very active. NCSSS, established in 1988, consists of about 100 STEM-Specialty Schools with nearly 40,000 students and holds an annual student research conference. The term “STEM-Specialty School” was recently defined and established in American law in December 2015 by the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act (76) (ESSA; http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn) congressional legislation which states, “a school, or dedicated program within a school, that engages students in rigorous, relevant, and integrated learning experiences focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, including computer science, which include authentic school wide research.” Furthermore, ESSA provides funding to support both state and district level initiatives that expand high-quality STEM courses and increases access to STEM for underserved and at risk student populations. Early researchers and young innovators have been given a much more prominent national profile over the last six years through the White House Science Fair as part of President Obama’s Educate to Innovate public-private partnership campaign (77). The White House Science Fair recognizes and celebrates student winners from a broad diversity of STEM competitions across the United States. Students from elementary, middle, and high schools, representing more than 40 different STEM competitions and organizations, display their projects ranging from breakthrough basic science research to “cool” engineering inventions. A key element of the White House Science Fair features private-public partnerships and commitments that create and support national initiatives to inspire and prepare more young students, especially those from underrepresented ethnic and gender groups, to excel in STEM fields. The level of involvement of business and industry in the human development aspects of STEM is telling given that historically their participation in STEM has been narrowly focused on research and development of products and processes. Change the Equation (CTEq; http://www.meetchangetheequation.org/#about) is an example of private sector leadership bringing new perspectives and emphases to STEM education. CTEq brings together CEOs of 40-50 of the top Fortune 500 U.S. companies “to ensure that all students are STEM literate by collaborating with schools, communities, and states to adopt and implement excellent STEM policies and programs.” CTEq has members representing more than 20 different industries and has committed more than $750 million and millions of employee volunteer hours each year to STEM learning initiatives. Since 1997 Intel Corporation has sponsored the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF; https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef), a high profile nongovernmental event committed to early research. It is the largest precollege scientific research gathering in the world with more than 1500 students from roughly 70 countries and prizes totaling over $4 million. Mention must also be made of the many university-centered, local and regional science fairs and competitions held across the United States. While all science fair projects are by no means the result of authentic research, they have served as a gateway for many high school students to pursue their curiosity further and enter into STEM or STEM related fields. A directory of science fairs and 13 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

competitions across the United States and internationally can be viewed online at: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/scifair.shtml.


1.7.3. Early Research Trends at the College Level At the tertiary level, national organizations focused on undergraduate research have been established. One of the premiere organizations, the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR; http://www.cur.org/) was established in 1978 and represents over 900 colleges and universities across the United States. The National Conferences on Undergraduate Research (NCUR; http://www.cur.org/conferences_and_events/student_events/ncur/), was formed as a separate organization in 1987 but joined together with CUR in 2010 and has become the flagship national event for undergraduate student research. It regularly hosts 3,000 students and faculty mentors to present research from all disciplines through posters, oral presentations, visual arts and performances. More recently in 2007, the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI; http://www.ccuri.org/) was organized to promote research at the community college level. CCURI network consists of 38 partner institutions, affiliate institutions and collaborators. It receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to facilitate and support its research agenda at community colleges across the United States. At the federal level, the NSF actively funds a number of programs with direct bearing on early research. These include: Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs), Research Experiences for Teachers (RET), and Research Assistantships for High School Students (RAHSS). Participating REU students are generally compensated with a stipend for ten weeks of summer research. In FY2013 NSF anticipated investing about $68.4 million in approximately 180 new REU Site awards and 1,600 new Supplement awards. The RET program is designed to engage K-12 science teachers and community college professors in hands-on research experiences. The RAHSS program seeks to broaden participation of high school students in research in the biological sciences. In all these programs, participation by individuals from underrepresented groups is strongly encouraged. Similarly, the National Institutes of Health offers well-funded bridge programs which support early research. For example, The Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program provides support to institutions to help students make transitions from 2-year junior or community colleges to full 4-year baccalaureate programs. Also, the Ruth Kirschstein National Research Service Awards, Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC), and Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research (U-STAR) all support undergraduate academic and research training in the behavioral and health sciences. Many four-year colleges and PhD-granting universities across the country have on-campus departments and administrative bodies focused on promoting and supporting undergraduate research from freshman through senior year. Some institutions hold annual undergraduate research symposia and several 14 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


have student-run research associations that provide invaluable information and connections about research opportunities on and off campus. The annual National Collegiate Research Conference (NCRC) at Harvard University that started in 2012 is an example of this student-initiated movement to promote undergraduate research. NCRC brings together 200 of the most accomplished undergraduates, generally juniors and seniors, from over 60 universities across the nation to present their research to leading researchers in their fields and learn from these leaders through an array of talks, panels and workshops. It is also an opportunity for job and internship recruitment. An assortment of university-based, student-involved, online social media sites are also dedicated to creating networks of early researchers. Examples include: the course-based undergraduate research network (CUREnet; https:// curenet.cns.utexas.edu/), which is a network of people and programs creating CUREs (course-based undergraduate research experiences) in biology; and the Student Opportunity Center (https://www.studentopportunitycenter.com/#/), which connects undergraduates to student conferences, publications, internships, scholarships, and experiential learning opportunities, including research experiences. A growing number of journals are exclusively dedicated to publishing work conducted by early researchers. Some examples are: The National High School Journal of Science, Journal of Emerging Investigators, Journal of Experimental Secondary Science, International High School Journal of Science, Journal of Student Research, and American Journal of Undergraduate Research. An extensive list of university-based journals for early researchers can be viewed at http://www.cur.org/ugjournal.html. In addition, The Society for Science & the Public publishes a free online magazine – Science News for Students that connects students, parents, and teachers to the latest in scientific research (https://student.societyforscience.org/sciencenews-students). Last, but by no means least, is the relatively recent and growing trend, consistent with early research, of incorporating authentic research experiences into university STEM courses, including introductory ones. What began across the United States as a slow trickle is now a fast-moving stream of freshmen-level to senior-level lab courses that incorporate undergraduate research experiences. Under the acronym CUREs there has been a tremendous gush of papers describing this “new” approach in undergraduate STEM lab instruction for both small and large classes (78–83). One of us has been involved in designing and conducting CURE-styled labs for both college and high school students since 1998, before it became fashionable to do so. CUREs are explicitly being touted as an effective and sustainable way to engage students in doing research early in their college careers. As a number of our authors report, students’ successes, in multiple disciplines, in introductory classes and upper division courses, in large and small classes, confirm that early research is scalable and sustainable. Multiple reports indicate that student participation in CUREs often lead to increases in content knowledge, analytical skills, self-efficacy, technical skills, collaboration skills, communication skills, faculty mentoring opportunities, understanding the nature of science and the processes of discovery, and more (84). 15 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


In 2015 Marcia Linn and colleagues published a meta study (85) based on a large number of reports describing undergraduate research experiences and its impact on students. They argue convincingly, and we agree, for the need to develop better and more integrated metrics for determining the effectiveness of CUREs and other kinds of undergraduate research experiences. We do, however, want to stress and caution that the metrics should be relevant and tied to the stated goals of the research experience. Linn et al also expressed skepticism in studies that involve self-selection and self-reporting by students of their research experience. While there is some merit to this, we observe that: (a) the highly significant increases in graduation rates of students from HUGs as demonstrated in 20 and 10 year studies (Chapters 9 and 10, respectively) serve as an integrated proxy for several of the metrics suggested by Linn et al., (b) students’ personal, early research narratives such as those found in this volume, particularly in Chapter 12, cannot be entirely disregarded or dismissed especially since several of them actually started out disinterested in science and/or research, and (c) operationally CUREs are no more “self-selecting” than traditional labs. Students are required to take the lab course, as part of their major, regardless of how its’ conducted. We strongly believe that CUREs at the college level and variants at the high school level hold enormous promise, only beginning to be tapped, as pathways to universal adoption of early research. To date, adoption of CUREs unequivocally demonstrates that early research is scalable, and we believe that with proper implementation, evaluation, and funding it can be a sustainable game-changer in STEM education across the all-important high school-college spectrum. 1.8. Funding Early Research To expand and maintain the above-mentioned encouraging trends in authentic early research, as with all educational practices, will require some new and sustained public funding. Taxpayer funded support of academic STEM and research and development (R&D) is a social contract between American universities and the U.S. government that mainly grew out of national security concerns in the historical context of winning World War II. It has been argued that this facilitated the rise of the uniquely American version of research universities. Public R&D funds provided the knowledge, basic and applied, needed to address societal concerns and develop entirely new technologies and industries and have yielded well-documented returns on the public investment. Prescriptively, in this context, a new social contract between taxpayers and academia is needed not just for institutions of higher learning but system-wide to create seamless early research initiatives and interconnectivities throughout the entire education enterprise. This will require refocusing some of the current financial resources that are now heavily weighted towards graduate and postgraduate research support. The new focus ought to intentionally and significantly include substantial funding of early research, including for early researchers themselves, and for the necessary personnel and infrastructure. In fiscal year 2014, the National Science Foundation (NSF) reported university’s total expenditures were $67.1 billion for research and development (86). This was based on reports from the 895 degree-granting institutions that 16 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

spent at least $150,000 for the previous year. To determine an appropriate reallocation of funds, it is important to find answers to the following:


(1) what percentage of these funds was used for early research compared to graduate and postgraduate level research?, (2) what is or is not an appropriate level of funding for early research? and, (3) what are the continuing costs of under-investment in early research? Given the importance of R&D to American competitiveness in the global innovation economy, and the critical role played by a large STEM workforce, we strongly suggest that very significant increased investments be made to support early research. Further, funding for early research should be a sustained and strategic part of both education and domestic economic policy and action, at both federal and state governmental levels. William J. Bernstein’s book, The Birth of Plenty (87) points out that one of four prerequisites for economic growth is “A systematic procedure for examining and interpreting the world – the scientific method” or in other terms a rational view of the world. We believe that the universal adoption of early research holds the power and promise of being an unmatched strategy to achieve both education and economic ends.

2. Early Research and Inclusion 2.1. Early Matters: Traditional Inclusion and Diversity A review of the literature and of existing programs focused on increasing diversity in STEM indicates that early intervention is a common key element or best practice (88–92). For example, in an excellent 2007 article entitled Effective Strategies to Increase Diversity in STEM Fields: A Review of the Research Literature published in the Journal of Negro Education, the following key elements were described: pre-college summer bridge programs, mentoring, hands-on research experiences, tutoring, career counseling and awareness, learning centers, workshops and seminars, academic advising, financial support, and curriculum and instructional reform. Furthermore, it emphasized “that STEM intervention programs for underrepresented students work best if they employ an integrated approach” (93). Some of these key elements are inherent to early research and others can be seamlessly linked to it. There are several organizations, programs and strategies dedicated to providing early STEM exposure, experiences, and mentoring to historically underrepresented groups. These include, for example, the National Organization of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE; http://www.nobcche.org/), Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS; http://sacnas.org/), the Meyerhoff Scholars Program (http://meyerhoff.umbc.edu/) based at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; the Professors Hierarchical Mentoring Program (94), a brainchild of Professor Isiah Warner of Louisiana State University, the National Institutes of Health Minority Research and Training Programs, and the 17 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


recently announced NSF INCLUDES program which seeks “to support, over the next ten years, innovative models, networks, partnerships, and research that enable the U.S. science and engineering workforce to thrive by ensuring that women, blacks, Hispanics, and people with disabilities are represented in percentages comparable to their representation in the U.S. population.” The Institute for Broadening Participation (IBP; http://www. ibparticipation.org/) is an organization funded by NASA and the NSF that seeks to increase diversity in the STEM workforce. It designs and implements strategies to increase access to STEM education, funding, and careers, with special emphasis on diverse underrepresented groups. One of its very valuable resources called Pathways To Science (http://www.pathwaystoscience.org/) is a searchable online database of research programs available for both high school and college students. It connects underrepresented groups with STEM programs, funding, mentoring, and resources, such as, undergraduate summer research opportunities, graduate fellowships, postdoctoral positions, and materials about recruitment and retention. Several colleges and universities across the United States have established and maintain STEM Diversity departments, centers and programs. Examples include: the STEM Diversity Programs at the University of California, Santa Cruz (http://stemdiv.ucsc.edu/), the Center for STEM Diversity at Tufts University (http://stemdiversity.tufts.edu/), the North Star STEM Alliance in Minnesota (http://northstarstem.org/), the Center for Leadership and Diversity in STEM at West Point (http://www.usma.edu/cldstem/SitePages/Home.aspx), the Washington University Diversity Programs Consortium – Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (http://diversity.wustl.edu/), and the $18 million NIH funded STEM BUILD program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore (http://stembuild.umbc.edu/). There are also several organizations dedicated to promoting and supporting women (95, 96) in STEM generally, and in research specifically: the National Girls Collaborative Project (http://ngcproject.org/), National Math and Science Initiative (https://www.nms.org/), Women in Engineering Proactive Network (https://www.wepan.org/), Million Women Mentors (http:// www.millionwomenmentors.org/), American Association of University Women (http://www.aauw.org/), Scientista (http://www.scientistafoundation.com/), Society of Women Engineers (http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/), and the Association for Women in Science (http://www.awis.org/). The above programs or organizations in which early intervention has played a key role have experienced documented successes in engaging historically underrepresented groups (HUGs) in STEM education and careers. There really is no question that, when done correctly, early research is effective and scalable. It works (97).

2.2. Inclusion Redefined We propose here that there is a clear, organic, and implicit connection between early research and inclusion. However, this connection does not involve 18 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


the conventional meaning given in STEM to inclusion, which is typically and historically interpreted by race, gender, socioeconomics, or a disability. Rather, our working definition of early research holds within it the all-inclusive, cross-demographic categorization by age. Compared to the relative attention, resources and funding allocated within STEM programs to include HUGs, we argue that young (early) researchers are the most underrepresented group with respect to STEM funding. We further stress that failure to provide significant funding to early researchers underfunds American high school and community college students, in general, and historically underrepresented students, in particular. This situation perpetuates the status quo and legacy of unequal opportunity and access at all levels of the STEM workforce. Our proposed re-definition and early research strategy targets underrepresented age groups in STEM and views the more traditional demographic classifications through this perspective. The advantage of addressing research from an “age” perspective is that it potentially cuts across all demographics equitably, without minimizing the historic particularities, identities and challenges of traditional demographic groups. If early research is universally adopted and conducted with intentionality, integrity, and full accountability, we believe that its potential impact on science education curricula, pedagogical philosophy, and classroom practice can be a game-changer with domino effects throughout the nation’s education system. It is important to emphasize that inclusion of any kind will not be achieved by happenstance or laissez-faire approaches. Inclusion requires intentionality in planning and implementation and must be inextricably coupled to full opportunity and complete access for underrepresented groups across the entire STEM education, workforce, and economic sectors (98). Consider the following demographic breakdown that underscores the urgency and necessity of nurturing a diverse STEM workforce: in American public high schools in 2012 the enrollment of all ethnic/racial HUG’s was 49% of the population and is projected to be 54% by 2024. In community colleges currently, the demographic makeup is about 57% female, 43% male, 36% first generation to attend college, 49% white, 22% Hispanic, 14% Black, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander and 1% Native American (99). Furthermore, imagine for a moment, the impact of universal adoption of early research in the United States: it would provide authentic research opportunities for just over 16 million high school (public and private) students and about 21 million college and university students. Also, with roughly 45% of all undergraduates attending community colleges (100), the impact of early research can be enormously game-changing and paradigm-shifting in this education market. The potential impact of early research participation would almost certainly lead to more scientifically literate citizens, a larger STEM workforce, and greater diversity in the STEM workforce, even if 0.1 - 1% of these students were engaged in authentic early research annually. Early research intentionally and inevitably includes the very populations that are historically underrepresented but it does so in a potentially more inclusive, cross-demographic way that could ideally level the playing field and clog the leaky STEM pipeline (101, 102). 19 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


2.3. Prioritizing Local STEM Capacity Another very important demographic aspect of investing in and building up early research is the fact that it would have a significant impact on nurturing and maintaining a local, native-born American STEM workforce. Data over many years from the National Science Foundation clearly indicates that the fraction of foreign-born students in the United States (as is the case in most advanced Western democracies) increases with the level of education from primary, secondary, to tertiary (103). For example, in 2009 only 3%-4% of science and engineering (S&E) degrees at the bachelor’s level were earned by foreign students, while 27% and 33% of S&E master’s degrees and doctorate degrees, respectively, were earned by foreign students. Over the 2005 to 2011 time period, on average about 30% of S&E graduate students were foreign citizens; while foreign S&E postdoctoral students ranged between 50% – 60%. In contrast, generally, only about 7% of community college students are foreign students. At the undergraduate level, US-born students constitute upwards of 90-95% of engineering majors. These demographics run parallel to the percentage of public and private investment and funding in STEM education and research. Funding of graduate and postgraduate level research benefits a far higher percentage of foreign-born students than funding for research at the bachelors and high school levels. Early researchers are more likely to be homegrown American citizens and more likely to be from HUGs compared to graduate and postgraduate researchers. It becomes quickly apparent that increased investment in early research and early researchers is a direct, and almost exclusive, investment in building a local American STEM labor force at the levels of local school districts, community colleges, and traditional four-year universities. Funding early research prioritizes, empowers and enlists American students for the global innovation economy.

3.0. Overview and Summary of Book Chapters 3.1. Overview of Contents The singular purpose of The Power and Promise of Early Research is to inspire by example. It is the intent of the editors to promote universal adoption, or mainstreaming of early research, as defined in the preceding sections. Each chapter provides a close-up on how early research was done and can be potentially duplicated. This book features a diverse cross-section of authors from (a) high school, two-year, and four-year college settings, (b) varying demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds, (c) professional roles as disparate as research mentor and newspaper publisher, and (d) varying geographical locations, including rural, urban, and suburban. This book consists of 13 chapters written by professionals who have successfully engaged students in early research across the high school-research university academic spectrum. There are four chapters (2-5) about early research at the high school level; three chapters describing research at the community college and two-year college level (6-8); and two chapters in a university setting (9, 20 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


10). There are three chapters (5, 9, 10) in which the socioeconomic demographic groupings of the participating students are generally underrepresented in STEM. Chapter 11 describes an international science education prize with global reach. The prize is aimed at promoting innovative inquiry-based learning at all levels of STEM education and in highlighting educators who actively involve their students in it. Chapter 12 includes testimonials by students who have actively participated in early research. The book closes with Chapter 13 which highlights opportunities in and offers recommendations for The Future of Early Research. The chapters that describe early research at the precollege level represent high schools or programs with different socioeconomic, ethnic and geographical diversity. One of them, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, in Fairfax, Virginia regularly ranks as one of the top high schools in America. Chapter 5 on the Project SEED program describes a 48-year old successful and nationwide early research initiative by the American Chemical Society that provides talented high school students from low-income households to have summer research experiences in academic and industrial settings. Project SEED is a perfect example of a scaled and sustained early research program. Another theme that comes out of this book is the demonstrated fact that early research works. Authentic research increases student interest in science and science careers, improves academic performance and can demonstrably be done by precollege and early college students. This book clearly shows that early research can be and has been used as an intervention strategy to minimize STEM attrition rates and maximize academic success. Research can be done by all students regardless of their socioeconomic or academic standing. It should not be reserved just for A students, rather it should be the birthright of every student without regard to any demographic classification. Early research pays off in real and substantial ways that will only lead to a more diverse STEM workforce, higher productivity, and greater innovation in the STEM-based sector of the economy. With specific attention to the impact of early research on HUGs, Chapters 5, 9, and 10, leave no doubt about the dramatic and proven ways that engaging these students early in research can have. Early engagement has the potential to create counter narratives of success for underrepresented groups, where once there was a dominant narrative of failure. These chapter authors provide convincing evidence of the unique and powerful educational and interventional value of properly organized early research, especially in underserved populations. Each chapter provides practical strategies and examples for introducing early research to high school and community college students and university underclassmen. The models presented conclusively demonstrate that students do not require four years of high school and four years of college before the benefits of participating in authentic research can be reaped. This book is intended to open our collective eyes to both the inherent deficits of teaching STEM labs in traditional ways and the short-term and long-term benefits of institutionalizing early research across our systems of education. In the short term early research strongly motivates student learning in STEM disciplines and in the long term these same students will lead the research enterprise for the discovery of new products and services. 21 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Given the dimensions of the American education enterprise, its incomparable size and scale, its institutional and demographic diversity, its higher education dominance and its enormous global influence and reach, we are confident that were the movement towards universal adoption of early research to gain further momentum, it would be one of the most far-reaching and consequential educational reforms of our times. We believe there is a growing critical mass pushing this movement forward to engage students in research early, often and universally. The promise, opportunity, and work of early research lay before us.


3.2. Chapter Summaries Chapter 2, written by Steve Sogo, describes The Advanced Chemical Research program (ACR), a senior course offering at Laguna Beach High School. This course engages twenty to twenty-eight 12th graders in cutting-edge research projects, utilizing instrumentation such as UV-Vis spectroscopy, HPLC, NMR, and mass spectrometry. Students engage in three 6-week training projects during the fall semester, in which they learn techniques suitable for the synthesis and analysis of organic and biomolecules. During the spring semester, students embark upon a single 18-20 week original research project. In each project, students are grouped in teams of four, encouraging the development of leadership and collaborative skills. Instructional videos that demonstrate laboratory techniques and the sharing of data through a class Dropbox are key innovations that have enhanced the success of the ACR program. Survey data shows that ACR alumni are highly successful in college chemistry classes, and many ACR alumni have won awards for their achievements in STEM fields. Chapter 3, written by Mark Hannum, shares early research experiences at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJHSST). Founded in 1985, TJHSST has served as a national leader in providing opportunities for high school students to conduct authentic research in science, technology, and engineering related fields. The chapter provides an overview of the research options at TJHSST for students and the observed benefits of participating in this research. Socioeconomically, TJHSST, with about 1700 students, is located in and publicly funded by Fairfax County, Northern Virginia, one of the wealthiest counties in the United States. Demographically, based on 2014 – 2015 data, TJHSST is made up of 41% female, 59% male, 60% Asian, 29% White, 8% other, 2% Hispanic and 1% Black. Chapter 4, written by Erin Wasserman, describes the research program at Fox Lane High School, a public school in Westchester County, New York. The average three-year class demographics at Fox Lane High School and in their research program is: 61% white, 27% Hispanic, 5.9% Asian, and 4.6% Black. The socioeconomic diversity of students who choose to participate in this research course ranges from English language learners to the affluent. A key feature of this program is the collaborative process that allow students to select academic, industrial, or other laboratory sites to conduct their original research project. Last year, the region of Westchester County, New York City, and Long Island hosted over 1500 high school science projects, team and individual, in regional science fairs. From these highly competitive fairs, over 50 projects qualified for 22 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


and competed in prestigious international science fairs, where many placed well against their peers. Chapter 5, written by Cecilia Hernandez, describes Project SEED, established in 1968, as an American Chemical Society program for high school students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who have an interest in science. The program provides an opportunity for students to participate in research and learn what it is like to work in science-related fields through a hands-on experience. Students conduct research under the supervision of a volunteer scientist-mentor in academic, industrial, and government research laboratories for 8-to-10 weeks during the summer months. In the summer of 2015 Project SEED supported research programs in 39 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico with a budget of nearly $1.1 million for more than 400 high school students. In 2015, the demographic composition of students in Project SEED was as follows: 62% female, 38% male, 19% Asian, 30% African-American, 31% Hispanic, 14% White, 5% other and 1% Native American students. The chapter weaves together personal success stories of Project SEED students and an excellent description of what the program offers. Chapter 6, written by Lee Silverberg, John Tierney, and Kevin Cannon, discusses undergraduate research conducted at three Penn State University satellite campuses which do not offer a chemistry degree. An overview of both the challenges and the strategies associated with conducting research, most of it collaborative, on these two-year campuses is presented. Included is a summary of the varied undergraduate projects that provide students an opportunity to obtain valuable research experience which provides a solid foundation when they transfer to a degree-granting campus. Among the three authors, 29, 200+, and 43 undergraduates from the Abington, Brandywine, and Schuylkill campuses, respectively, have participated in research. The projects described, most of which are ongoing, have resulted in peer-reviewed publications with undergraduate co-authors from the Abington(6), Brandywine(35), and Schuylkill(25) campuses. Undergraduate co-authors have reported that their published work has been a major topic in their interviews at professional schools or jobs that sets them apart from their peers. The majority of the students at these three campus locations are from low to middle-income socioeconomic backgrounds, many of whom are first-generation college students. About 20% of the students conducting research and approximately 14% of the undergraduate co-authors come from historically underrepresented groups. The projects, which range in focus from synthetic organic chemistry, pedagogical methodologies, and chemical history, have proven useful to the students in furthering their career goals while enabling faculty to meet research expectations at these two-year campuses. Chapter 7, written by Nichole Powell and Brenda Harmon, recounts their incorporation of a CURE at Oxford College. Oxford is a small liberal-arts intensive division of Emory University where approximately 950 students complete their freshman and sophomore years in an intimate community that considers campus diversity one of its greatest assets. The fall 2015 student body at Oxford College was comprised of 57% female and 43% male, 27% Asian, 8% African-American, 7% Hispanic, 33% White, 16% Non US Citizen, and 4% self-identifying as multiethnic with a total minority enrollment of 47%. Oxford 23 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


students finish their junior and senior years in the larger and more challenging environment of a major research university - an experience that truly offers the best of both worlds. In this setting at Oxford College, CUREs are inherently inclusive as they involve whole classes of students in addressing a research question or problem and serve all students who enroll in the course—not only self-selecting students who seek out research internships or individuals who participate in specialized programs. However, engaging a wide variety of students with differing levels of preparation in an early research experience can also present numerous challenges. An overview is presented about use of backward course design and inquiry-based pedagogies as ways to equip first and second year students with the habits of mind and laboratory research “toolkit” necessary to participate in a CURE. The course is strategically designed so that students learn to plan experiments, analyze and evaluate the data they obtain, and to embrace the inherent uncertainty associated with the authentic research process. Chapter 8, written by James Hewlett, highlights the story of the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI) and its mission to bring the early research experience to community colleges, which have traditionally not been actively focused or engaged in authentic research. From its headquarters at Finger Lakes Community College in Canandaigua, New York, CCURI operates as a national consortium of community colleges, four-year schools, government agencies, and private organizations dedicated to the development, implementation, and assessment of sustainable models for integrating student research experiences into community college STEM programs. Given that about 13 million students, accounting for approximately 45% of all U.S. undergraduates, are enrolled at community colleges, the mission, work and impact of CCURI in promoting early research is predicted to have an enormous national impact. It is clear that community colleges must take a leadership position in implementing early research that will ensure and enhance national efforts to maintain a dynamic and productive STEM workforce. Chapter 9, written by Glenn Kuehn, at New Mexico State University, details the overall design of a twenty-year project that recruited American Indian students from two-year community colleges at or near tribal nations in Southwest USA into summer research experiences. These experiences hosted at a research-intensive, four-year university focused on biomedical and related sciences, such as, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, computer science, microbiology, molecular biology, and genetics. The project included an integrated plan of individual and institutional activities that were successful in advancing these students from the community college level to subsequent completion of baccalaureate degrees in science disciplines at four-year institutions. The chapter also reports on outcomes of the program and provides practical insights for potential directors who are contemplating similar programs with American Indian students in the physical and biological sciences. Chapter 10, written by Joseph Dunbar and Julie O’Connor, spotlights the use of early mentored research at Wayne State University (WSU) as an intervention strategy for college students, particularly underrepresented minorities (URM) to maximize academic success and minimize dropout. This approach also minimized the number of students who changed from STEM majors to non-STEM 24 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


majors. WSU, located in the heart of Detroit, has a student makeup of about 26% African-American, 5% Hispanic and 69% White or other. Fewer than 10% of WSU underrepresented minorities complete degrees in STEM majors. This chapter documents the remarkable success of mentored early research as an intervention strategy. For example, over a six-year period, early research participants had a 70% higher graduation rate than other WSU-URM STEM or biomedical science students. About 58% of early research students went on to graduate school or medical school. The WSU model of early research as an intervention strategy is one that can be emulated, adopted, and sustained at urban universities across the nation, that not only improves student success but enhances the community impact of the university. This model is vitally important for the future of the nations’ STEM workforce and global competitiveness. Chapter 11, written by Melissa McCartney, features a science education prize awarded by Science in 2012 and 2013 to recognize outstanding inquiry-based science and design-based engineering instructional modules. The competition targeted advanced high school and introductory level college courses. However, applicants came from diverse professional levels and science disciplines, from tenured university faculty to high school teachers to graduate students. Entries came from India, China, Canada, and The Netherlands, in addition to the United States. The Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction is an example of a cost-efficient model for promoting active learning in high school and introductory college courses. This sort of recognition and proactive involvement from a highly regarded scientific journal could incentivize more teaching scientists to transition from more passive and traditional ways of transmitting information towards more active learning approaches, including early research, that engage students’ natural curiosity about the world around them. The sooner and more widespread this occurs the better for science education and society. Chapter 12, introduced, compiled and edited by Desmond Murray and Princella Tobias, is a collection of stories, called LabTales, that are written by students about their early research experiences and the impact on their careers. These personal stories illustrate the power of sharing the subjective experiences of researchers with the general tax-paying public. It is a different form of science communication that is not steeped in dense jargon, de-animated prose or secluded in specialized journals. Rather, it seeks to “re-animate” science communication, and to make the highs and lows of research accessible to the public, opening up the heart as well as the head of the researcher and the general reader. This is public science of a different kind, whose paramount and explicit objective is to pull readers in and leave them more inspired. The stories in this penultimate chapter are a perfect way to close the book, inspiring its readers to get engaged with research …. early. We hope that teachers and students, administrators and researchers, from high school to university, will all think: “If they can do it, so can I. Game on!”

25 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

References 1. 2. 3.

4.


5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19.

Lopatto, D. Undergraduate Research as a High-Impact Student Experience. Peer Review 2010, 12, 27–30. Griffard, P. B.; Golkowska, K. Early Exposure to Research: Outcomes of the ASTER Certification Program. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 2013, 43, 36–42. American Association of Community Colleges. 2016 Community College Fact Sheet. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfacts factsheet.aspx [accessed on May 20, 2016]. Richard Feynman on Prizes and Honors. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=pB5oHuCV3Mc [accessed on May 20, 2016]. The original source for this statement was not found but Linus Pauling wrote extensively about the role of curiosity in his life and career. For example, in the book Linus Pauling In His Own Words, “My early interest in learning comes from an extreme curiosity about many things … possibly I am a scientist because I was curious when I was young.” State of Tomorrow - Dudley R. Herschbach. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=0ehHVpIiK9w [accessed on May 20, 2016]. Skillshare, The Future Belongs to the Curious. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=r_yOzJqdXFQ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. Loewenstein, G. The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation. Psychol. Bull. 1994, 116, 75–98. Kang, M. J.; Hsu, M.; Krajbich, I. M.; Loewenstein, G.; McClure, S. M.; Wang, J. T.; Camerer, C. F. The Wick in the Candle of Learning: Epistemic Curiosity Activates Reward Circuitry and Enhances Memory. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20, 963–973. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity [accessed on May 20, 2016]. Kourt, A. The Curiosity Gene; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: North Charleston, SC, 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine [accessed on May 20, 2016]. http://www.radteach.com/ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. Murray, D. The Myths of Teaching Science and their Consequences. Benton-Michiana Spirit Newspaper; August 15, 2013, p 7. http://bentonspirit news.com/clients/bentonspiritnews/DrDesmondMurrayRESEARCH.pdf [accessed on May 20, 2016]. Murray, D. Early Matters. J. Exp.Second. Sci. 2012, 2, http://www.jes2s. com/murray_editorial.html [accessed on May 20, 2016]. Robinson, K. TED Talks. How To Escape Education’s Death Valley. http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_how_to_escape_education_s_ death_valley#t-461565 [accessed on May 20, 2016]. http://sheilatobias.com/ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. Shakerdge, K. High Failure Rates Spur Universities To Overhaul Math Class. http://hechingerreport.org/high-failure-rates-spur-universities-overhaulmath-class/ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. Chomsky, N.; Kasenbacher, M. Work, Learning and Freedom. New Left Project, 2012. http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_ comments/work_learning_and_freedom [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 26 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


20. DeSilver, D. U.S. Students Improving – Slowly – in Math and Science, but Still Lagging Internationally. FactTank 2015. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improvingslowly-in-math-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 21. The New Brain Science of Learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ahSYwchh-QM [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 22. http://www.alisongopnik.com/ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 23. Gopnik, A. Scientific Thinking in Young Children: Theoretical Advances, Empirical Research, and Policy Implications. Science 2012, 337, 1623–1627. 24. Gopnik, A. TED Talks. What Do Babies Think? https://www.ted.com/talks/ alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think?language=en, July 2011 [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 25. Brandsford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., Pelligrino, J. W., Eds. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000. http:// www.nap.edu/catalog/9853/how-people-learn-brain-mind-experience-andschool-expanded-edition [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 26. William Henry Perkin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Perkin [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 27. Barbieri, A. The Invention of the Color Purple. The Guardian, March 12, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/12/the-inventionof-the-colour-purple [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 28. Finlay, V. Violet. Color – A Natural History of the Palette; Ballantine Publishing Group: New York, 2002; Chapter 10. 29. Hale, H. The History of Chemical Education in the United States from 1870 to 1914. J. Chem. Educ. 1932, 9, 729–744. 30. Reinstein, G. ‘Brilliant rebel’: Portrait of Yale’s first women Ph.D’s to be unveiled. Yale News, March 30, 2016. http://news.yale.edu/2016/03/30/ brilliant-rebels-portrait-yale-s-first-women-phd-s-be-unveiled [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 31. St. Elmo Brady. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo_Brady [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 32. Jacobs, M. ACS’s Work Is Not Done. Chem. Eng. News 2016, 94 (5), 39. 33. STEM Women. Same Auld Lang Syne: Dearth of Diversity in 2016 American Chemical Society Awards. 5 Jan 2016. http://www.stemwomen.net/american-chemical-society-awards/ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 34. Fitts, A. S. A Good Woman (or Minority) Chemist Is Apparently Hard to Find. Undark Magazine, March 31, 2016. http://undark.org/2016/03/31/ research-problem-thats-holding-back-womens-careers/ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 35. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergraduate_research [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 36. Kinkead, J. What’s In A Name? A Brief History of Undergraduate Research. CURQ on the Web 2012 (Fall). 27 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


37. Cejda, B. D., Hensel, H., Eds. Undergraduate Research at Community Colleges; 2009. http://www.cur.org/urcc/ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 38. Sherrer, K. The College “Weed-Out” Approach Stifles Students’ Intellectual Curiosity. The Huffington Post; February 3, 2014. 39. Gray, S. Supporting the Dream. The Role of Faculty Members at Historically Black Colleges and Universities in Promoting STEM PhD Education. In Fostering Success of Ethnic and Racial Minorities in STEM: The Role of Minority Serving Institutions; Palmer, R. T.; Maramba, D. C.; Gasman, M., Eds.; Routledge: 2013. 40. Seymour, E.; Hewitt, N. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1997. 41. Ma, Y.; Liu, Y. Race and STEM Degree Attainment. Sociology Compass 2015, 9, 609–618. 42. Romey, W. D. Inquiry Techniques for Teaching Science; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968; pp 264−270. 43. Dewey, J. Experience and Education, Kappa Delta Pi, 1938. 44. Rayner-Canham, G.; Rayner-Canham, M. The Heuristic Method, Precursor of Guided Inquiry: Henry Armstrong and British Girls’ Schools, 1890 to 1920. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 463–466. 45. Sheppard, K.; Horowitz, G. From Justus von Liebig to Charles W. Eliot: The Establishment of Laboratory Work in U.S. High Schools and Colleges. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 566–570. 46. Hoffmann, R. Teach to Search. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, A202–A209. 47. Spronken-Smith, R. Undergraduate Research and Inquiry-based Learning: Is There a Difference? Insights from Research in New Zealand. Council Undergraduate Res. Q. 2010, 30, 28–35. 48. Kyle, W. C., Jr. The Distinction Between Inquiry and Scientific Inquiry and Why High School Students Should be Cognizant of the Distinction. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1980, 17, 123–130. 49. Banchi, H.; Bell, R. The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and Children 2008 (October), 26–29. 50. Hoffmann, R.; McGuire, S. Y. Learning and Teaching Strategies. Am. Sci. 2010, 98, 378. 51. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 8410–8415. 52. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. 2012. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcastengage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 53. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities; 1998.



54. Hart-Rudman Commission Report on National Security https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/U.S._Commission_on_National_Security/21st_Century#cite_ note-roadmap_ix-14 [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 55. National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk; Washington, D.C., 1983. 56. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum: Report of a Convocation; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2015. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21851/integrating-discovery-based-researchinto-the-undergraduate-curriculum-report-of [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 57. Alberts, B. Redefining Science Education. Science 2009, 323, 437. 58. Flowers, S. K.; Beyer, K. M. Early Entry into Ecology: Authentic Field Research Experiences for High School Youth. Bull. Ecol. Soci. Am. 2016, 97, 111–122. 59. Drosback, M. Engaging First-Year Students in STEM Research; May 12, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/05/12/engaging-first-yearstudents-stem-research [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 60. Hoke, K.; Gentile, L. Early Involvement in Undergraduate Research at the University of Richmond. Council Undergraduate Res. Q. 2008, 29, 18–23. 61. Quardokus, K.; Lasher-Trapp, S.; Riggs, E. M. A Successful Introduction of Authentic Research Early in an Undergraduate Atmospheric Science Program. Bull. Amr. Meteor. Soc. 2012, 93, 1641–1649. 62. Murray, D. H. Expect Amazing. Benton-Michiana Spirit Newspaper; 18 April, 2013; p 5. http://bentonspiritnews.com/clients/bentonspiritnews/ BESTearlySymposium2013DrDesmondMurray.pdf [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 63. Murray, D. H. Imagine Different. Benton-Michiana Spirit Newspaper; 17 April, 2014; p 3. http://bentonspiritnews.com/clients/bentonspiritnews/ 17April2014BestEarlySpiritNews.pdf [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 64. Seethaler, S. Five Things Chemists (and Other Science Faculty) Should Know about the Education Research Literature. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 9–12. 65. Rawat, S.; Meena, S. Publish or Perish: Where Are We Heading? J. Res. Med. Sci. 2014, 19, 87–89. 66. Johnson, W. B.; Behling, L. L.; Miller, P.; Vandermaas-Peeler, M. Undergraduate Research Mentoring: Obstacles and Opportunities. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 2015, 23, 441–453. 67. Baker, V. L.; Pifer, M. J.; Lunsford, L. G.; Greer, J.; Ihas, D. Undergraduate Research Mentoring: Obstacles and Opportunities. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 2015, 23, 394–410. 68. Schweingruber, H. A., Hilton, M. L., Singer, S. R., Eds. America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science; National Academies Press: 2005. 69. Harmon, A. It May Be a Sputnik Moment, but Science Fairs Are Lagging The New York Times; February, 4, 2011.



70. Potvin, P.; Hasni, A. Analysis of the Decline in Interest towards School Science and Technology from Grades 5 through 11. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2014, 23, 784–802. 71. American College Test Association. The Condition of STEM 2015. http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/National-STEMReport-2015.pdf [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 72. http://www.nextgenscience.org/ [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 73. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Science_Standards [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 74. Krieger, M. J. How to Create an Independent Research Program; ASCD: 1999. 75. Harland, D. J. STEM Student Research Handbook; National Science Teachers Association - NSTA Press: 2011. 76. United States Congress. Every Student Succeeds Act. https://www.congress. gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 77. The White House. Educate to Innovate. https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ education/k-12/educate-innovate [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 78. Davis, D. S.; Hargrove, R. J.; Hugdahl, J. D. A Research-Based Sophomore Organic Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1127–1130. 79. Newton, T. A.; Tracy, H. J.; Prudente, C. A Research-Based Course in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1844–1849. 80. Harrison, M.; Dunbar, D.; Ratmansky, L.; Boyd, K.; Lopatto, D. Classroom-Based Science Research at the Introductory Level: Changes in Career Choices and Attitude. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2011, 10, 279–286. 81. Bangera, G.; Brownell, S. E. Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Can Make Scientific Research More Inclusive. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 602–606. 82. Corwin, L. A.; Laursen, S. L.; Branchaw, J. L.; Eagan, K.; Graham, M.; Hanauer, D. I.; Lawrie, G.; McLinn, C. M.; Pelaez, N.; Rowland, S.; Towns, M.; Trautmann, N. M.; Varma-Nelson, P.; Weston, T. J.; Dolan, E. L. Modeling Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 29–40. 83. Clark, T. M.; Ricciardo, R.; Weaver, T. Transitioning from Expository Laboratory Experiments to Course-Based Undergraduate Research in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 56–63. 84. Corwin, L. A.; Graham, M. J.; Dolan, E. L. Assessment of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: An Agenda for Future Research and Evaluation. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, 1–13. 85. Linn, M. C.; Palmer, E.; Baranger, A.; Gerard, E.; Stone, E. Undergraduate Research Experiences: Impacts and Opportunities. Science 2015, 347, 1261757. 86. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation. Rankings By Total R & D Expenditures. https:// ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 87. Bernstein, W. J. The Birth of Plenty: How the Modern World of Prosperity was Created; McGraw-Hill Education: 2004. 30 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


88. Hurtado, S.; Cabrera, N. L.; Lin, M. H.; Arellano, L.; Espinosa, L. L. Diversifying Science: Underrepresented Student Experiences in Structured Research Programs. Res. High. Educ. 2009, 50, 189–214. 89. National Institutes of Health. ACD Working Group on Diversity in the Biomedical Research Workforce Draft Report; 2012. 90. Dierker, L.; Alexander, J.; Cooper, J. L.; Selya, A.; Rose, J.; Dasgupta, N. Engaging Diverse Students in Statistical Inquiry: A Comparison of Learning Experiences and Outcomes of Under-Represented and Non-Represented Enrolled in a Multidisciplinary Project-Based Statistics Course. Int. J. Scholarship Teaching Learning 2016, 10, 1–9. 91. Howard-Brown, B.; Martinez, D.; Times, C. Engaging Diverse Learners Through the Provision of STEM Education Opportunities: Southeast Comprehensive Center Briefing Paper; 2012. http://secc.sedl.org/resources/ briefs/diverse_learners_STEM/Diverse_Learners_through_STEM.pdf [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 92. Harkavy, I.; Cantor, N.; Burnett, M. Realizing STEM Equity and Diversity through Higher Education-Community Engagement; 2015. 93. Tsui, L. Effective Strategies to Increase Diversity in STEM Fields: A Review of the Research Literature. J. Negro Educ. 2007, 76, 555–581. 94. Wilson, Z. S.; Holmes, L.; deGravelles, K.; Sylvain, M. R.; Batiste, L.; Johnson, M.; McGuire, S. Y.; Pang, S. S.; Warner, I. M. Hierarchical Mentoring: A Transformative Strategy for Improving Diversity and Retention in Undergraduate STEM Disciplines. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2012, 21, 148–156. 95. Knight, D. B.; Mappen, E. F.; Knight, S. L. A Review of the Literature on Increasing the Representation of Women Undergraduates in STEM Disciplines through Civic Engagement Pedagogies. Sci. Educ. Civic Engage. 2011, 3, 36–47. 96. Committee on Gender Differences in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty, Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Committee on National Statistics, Policy and Global Affairs, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty; National Academies Press: 2010. 97. 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 (3), 260–272. 98. Based on personal communication with Dr. Walter B. T. Douglas of Douglas Diversity & Associates. http://www.betances.com/content.cfm?id=107. 99. National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ indicator_cga.asp [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 100. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfactsfactsheet.aspx [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 101. The Hechinger Report. The Biggest Hole in STEM Pipeline Starts Before Kindergarten. U.S. News & World Report; February 29, 2016. 31 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-29/the-biggest-hole-instem-pipeline-starts-before-kindergarten [accessed on May 20, 2016]. 102. Chesloff, J. D. STEM Education Must Start in Early Childhood. Education Week; March 6 ,2013. 103. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation. Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2011; 2013.


Early Research: A Strategy for Inclusion and Student Success - ACS

Recommend Documents