Undergraduate Research at the Community College: Barriers and

Chapter 8

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 12, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1231.ch008

Undergraduate Research at the Community College: Barriers and Opportunities James A. Hewlett* Professor of Biology, Department of Science and Technology, Finger Lakes Community College, Canandaigua, New York 14424 *E-mail: [email protected]

From modest beginnings at Finger Lakes Community College in Canandaigua, NY, the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI) has grown into a nationwide network of over 50 institutions in 20 states. CCURI partner institutions collaborate on the development, implementation, and assessment of models for integrating an undergraduate research experience into their STEM programs. Community colleges face unique challenges with respect to embedding a research experience, but are poised to take a leadership position in addressing several National recommendations to develop opportunities for students to engage in authentic research experiences during the first two years of their education. The growth of the CCURI network has provided rich opportunities to study the barriers and opportunities that are specific to the community college. The results of that research are being used to inform a wider network of two-year institutions through focused workshops, professional meetings, and publications developed in collaboration with the Council on Undergraduate Research. With continued growth through new partnerships and affiliations, CCURI will begin to shift toward addressing institutional transformation level research and evaluation questions. Future work will focus on developing an understanding of how CCURI as an organization is changing the culture of community colleges such that research becomes an integral part of the learning experience.

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


Framework What follows is the story of the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI) and its mission to bring the undergraduate research experience to our Nation’s community colleges. From its headquarters at Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC) in Canandaigua, NY, 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 an undergraduate research (UR) experience into community college STEM programs. The project is aligned with recommendations from a variety of reports and publications, including Vision and Change in Undergraduate Education, A Call to Action (1) and The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report Engage to Excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (2). The characterization of the reform of undergraduate science education has been extensive, and reports from a variety of organizations have converged on some common features. At the core of this reform is the integration of inquiry-based methods of teaching and the inclusion of a UR experience. Conceptual understanding of scientific principles can be enhanced through inquiry-based instruction and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) strategies (3). The reform should involve the integration of a UR experience as early as is practical in the education of S&E students (4). In addition, the reform must have a well-defined strategy of assessment that involves a process of evaluation tailored to the specific mission and student demographic of the institution (5). A recent analysis of “high-impact” educational practices identified UR as one of the most powerful tools for promoting “deep learning” (6). Deep and integrative approaches to learning receive considerable attention in higher education because students who are exposed to these approaches have been shown to perform at higher levels (measured as higher grades) and retain, integrate, and transfer information with greater proficiency (7). The PCAST report challenges U.S. colleges and universities to prepare one million more STEM college undergraduates over the next decade. To meet this goal, the U.S. would need an additional 100,000 STEM graduates per year. This represents a 33% increase over current degree production - increasing the number of students graduating with associate’s and bachelor’s degrees from 300,000 to 400,000 per year. To meet this demand, colleges and universities must adopt pedagogies and curriculum reforms that are known to enhance student recruitment, achievement, and persistence in STEM degree programs. Numerous studies have now shown that the UR experience MUST be a significant component of any attempt to meet this National challenge (Table 1). Utilizing the latest available statistics (Fall 2014) the American Association of Community Colleges reported that an estimated 12.3 million students were enrolled at a community college. These numbers account for 45% of all U.S. undergraduates. These large enrollment numbers highlight the increasing impact that community colleges are having on the education of postsecondary students in the United States. The impact is equally dramatic when considering the 138 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


role that community colleges play in the education of Science and Engineering students. From 2001 to 2007, the percentage of science, engineering, and health (SHE) graduates who had ever attended community college has remained at approximately 50% (18). From these statistics, it is clear that the community college must take a leadership position in implementing reform efforts involving UR to ensure that any National comprehensive effort to enhance the STEM pipeline will be successful. This effort faces many barriers that are unique to the community college as an institution, and effective models of integration and implementation at this institution type are sparse and ill-defined. While evidence continues to mount regarding what needs to be accomplished, little is known about how to achieve the desired reform.

Table 1. Impact of the undergraduate research experience Demonstrated Effect

References

Persistence and completion in STEM

(8–14)

Shorter time to degree

(15)

Academic achievement

(11, 13, 15, 16)

Interest in post graduate STEM education

(9, 16, 17)

Beginnings The idea of creating a large network of community colleges collaborating to bring the research experience into the first two years of study had modest beginnings. I joined the faculty of Finger Lakes Community College (Canandaigua, NY) in 1998. Not long after, I was approached by Anne Schnell from the Department of Environmental Conservation and Horticulture. Professor Schnell asked if it would be possible to determine the sex of a Red-tail hawk from a blood sample. Juvenile Red-tails lack the sexual dimorphic character found in other hawks, and researchers working with these birds lacked the ability to determine the sex from any morphometric measures. Knowing very little about birds at the time, I replied that I would look into the problem. Seeing this as an educational opportunity, I asked two of my biotechnology students if they would be interested in working on the problem with me. For the next three months, the three of us worked tirelessly on the problem for no money, no credit, and limited time and space. The experience was transformative for all three of us. The students became energized by the ownership of their work and the excitement of discovery, and I became convinced that the research experience was the most powerful pedagogical tool available to me as an instructor. The scalability of the experience immediately came into question, but I was convinced that undergraduate research would need to become part of our educational culture. Around the same time, the National Academies released BIO 2010 (4). This report has been the topic of numerous articles and conferences, and the driving force behind countless curriculum reform projects. The fifth recommendation in 139 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


the report suggested that students should be encouraged to pursue independent research as early as possible in their education. The BIO 2010 report sparked a self-study at Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC) using Root Cause Analysis (RCA) tools in an attempt to understand the barriers associated with developing research experiences for students in the first two years of their education. The use of RCA led to some very interesting outcomes that were not associated with financial barriers or the ill-prepared student (two often cited barriers). Not surprisingly, the results of the RCA analysis suggested that what was required was a paradigm shift from a culture of research OR teaching, to one where research IS teaching. This led to the construction of a comprehensive model for changing the culture of a community college STEM program. This model incorporates five central themes that emerged from the RCA analysis. These themes formed the foundation for all of our reform efforts as we continued to expand our undergraduate research opportunities across our campus and eventually across the Nation. The adoption of active learning instructional strategies. The research experience should be aligned with other widely accepted instructional pedagogies, including case-based learning, problem-based learning, and teaching with data. The creation of opportunities for advanced exploration of student research questions. A core feature of the model includes the creation credit-bearing, transferable programs or courses that provide opportunities for students to explore research questions independently. The incorporation of a customized faculty development program. A strong faculty development program should be designed to help faculty build a set of research and instructional skills (active learning). The adoption of a compatible Community College faculty model. A critical need involves the development of a sustainable solution that addresses the issue of teaching loads. Heavy teaching loads are often cited as a barrier to the development of a UR program at a Community College. The establishment of sustainable networks committed to STEM reform. Sustainable undergraduate research programs require access to networks of institutions focused on UR and STEM reform. Dissemination and networking activities help institutions expand access to primary research questions and build a network of mentors. Connections to networks are also known to be a critical component of organizational culture change and can help spawn innovation (19, 20). The model constructed from these outcomes was initially piloted at FLCC in 2004. The pilot consisted of a modification to a single section of a freshman General Biology course (BIO 121) and the creation of a sophomore level independent study. The Red-tail hawk project became the foundation for the experimental reforms. The introductory course reform included the creation of a classroom teaching case study and a sequence of connected laboratory experiences. A critical component of the pilot was that classroom instruction and laboratory experiences would be connected in a meaningful and constructive way to the Red-tail hawk project. In addition, students would have opportunities to use the laboratory experience to explore questions generated in the classroom. To accomplish this, we adopted a case-based method of instruction. A properly 140 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


designed case study contains all of the elements of inquiry, process thinking, and experimental design theory that are essential for any student of science. The classroom teaching case was then connected to a sequence of three labs in which students were engaged in determining the sex of Red-tails that had been trapped, banded, and released during the previous summer. The experience generated student interest in the sophomore-level independent study. This 200-level course provided students with opportunities to engage in an advanced exploration of the study questions and a forum in which they could generate their own independent research projects. Example of the CCURI model - The CCURI research project involving Agrobacterium tumefaciens represents an excellent example of the CCURI model. At Finger Lakes Community College, Professor Kellie Aitchison received training on the case study method of teaching and developed a case study based on the work of Dr. T.R. Muth at CUNY Brooklyn. Professor Aitchison participated in a “shadowing” of Dr. Muth in order to develop a better understanding of the research on this pathogen. A component of Dr. Muth’s research project was then integrated into the Research Methods course at Finger Lakes Community College. The case study was aligned with the existing Introductory Biology course outline and implemented as an instructional module. A laboratory activity was developed and added to the module. Students also worked on UR projects exploring natural soil-based inhibitors of this pathogen as part of a sophomore-level research course. To test the efficacy of the model, students in the experimental section were compared to students enrolled in another section that lacked the reform effort. Scores on an objective exam showed no significant difference between the two sections with respect to their understanding of DNA structure and function (the section of the course where the pilot was implemented). While these data were disappointing, self-reported measures of engagement and perceived learning showed dramatic differences—students were significantly more engaged in the course section that employed the model of reform. Several weeks later I was discussing the results with a colleague at a local conference and a suggestion was made to re-test the students at a later date. While the sample size was small (N=18), the experimental group exhibited significantly higher learning gains (as measured by the objective exam) eight months out from the initial classroom intervention. The results from the pilot became the motivation to test the model at other institutions. FLCC partnered with Delaware Technical Community College (Newark, DE), Jamestown Community College (Jamestown, NY), Tompkins-Cortland Community College (Dryden, NY), and Genesee Community College (Batavia, NY). This regional partnership was developed not only to test the replicability of the FLCC model, but also to begin to address the need for the establishment of networks of community colleges focused on undergraduate research and STEM reform—a need identified from the aforementioned FLCC self-study. This regional effort was made possible with support from the National Science Foundation as a Type II Course Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement project (NSF#0816515, Community College Undergraduate Research: A Model of Integration). The results from the regional effort allowed us to expand 141 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


our network as a National Type III Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM project (NSF#1118679 Collaborative Research: Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative). While the evaluation of student impact was considered the critical component of the model’s effectiveness, equally important metrics were developed to measure the potential for the model to increase institutional capacity to implement a UR program. This focus was considered unique to community colleges that often lack critical infrastructural characteristics found at institutions that have successfully launched UR initiatives (21). As the network continued to expand, opportunities arose for the implementation of meta-analyses that would help us better understand best practices, barriers, and unique opportunities that could be identified and shared with community colleges who remained outside of the funded network.

Barriers From 2005 to 2012, the CCURI network grew from the original 5 partners to a consortium of 32 institutions from Key West to Seattle, and Boston to Honolulu. In March 2013, the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI) hosted a National Conference in Bethesda, MD. The conference focus was on best practices for developing undergraduate research programs at a community college. Participants from across the country attended the event. As part of the conference, CCURI conducted a study of the barriers that exist with respect to undergraduate research at a community college. Previous studies of this type were conducted with surveys that did not necessarily target faculty engaged in research. This type of approach can lead to “perceived” barriers, which have value with respect to faculty perspectives, but may not translate to efforts to implement an undergraduate research program. To avoid the “perceived” phenomenon, faculty enrolled in the study were recruited from the CCURI partner portfolio. All of the CCURI partners were currently developing and/or sustaining an undergraduate research program with support from CCURI funding. The participants were grouped according to the undergraduate research model they were adopting and categorized as: Modified CURE - Modifying an existing course to create a Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) New CURE - Creating a new course to create a Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) SURE - Creating a Summer-based Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE) where students would be engaged in research over some period of time during the summer PURE - Creating a Program-based Undergraduate Research Experience (PURE) where students would engage in research across multiple courses within a degree program. 142 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


The participants were initially asked to brainstorm all of the key steps and tasks that are required in order to create their assigned model (CURE, SURE, PURE). They were then asked to brainstorm all of the potential and realized barriers that they have faced in developing their model. The results of this brainstorm activity were collected and assembled on a matrix, with the tasks forming the rows and the barriers as columns. On the final day of the conference, faculty were handed the matrix and first asked to look at each of the tasks listed for the various research models and weigh the level of importance of that task with respect to developing the CURE, SURE or PURE. In weighing the task, they were asked to consider what the impact would be on the overall process of development if the task had not been completed or were absent. The following scale was used to add the weight values: Weight Score 1 2 3 4 5

Task impact statement Not at all important. Absence (skipping) would not impact development. Minimally important. Absence would slow development. Somewhat important. Absence could stop development. Very important. Absence would likely stop development. Critically important. Absence would definitely stop development.

The participants were then asked to measure (rate) the strength of the specific barriers to conducting undergraduate research at the community college level. All participants were asked to complete the first matrix (Fig 1). Faculty were then asked to complete any of the other matrices that correspond to models currently being implemented at their institution. The tasks and barriers from the initial brainstorm activity were used to populate the matrices. At each intersection of a task and barrier, faculty were asked to rate the barrier with respect to the associated task (Fig 2). Faculty were asked to use the following scale to rate the barriers: Barrier Score 1 2 3 4 5

Barrier statement Not at all important. Barrier has not impacted development. Minimally important. Barrier has slowed development slightly. Somewhat important. Barrier has slowed development moderately. Very important. Barrier has slowed development to a great extent. Critically important. Barrier stopped development (for a period of time or to this day).

For each matrix, a ROW TOTAL was calculated for each task (sum total from all participants). This value is a reflection of the overall level of barriers that exist for a given task. The row total was then multiplied by the average WEIGHT given to that task. In this way, while a task may be associated with a large number of highly rated barriers, the importance with respect to development of a research 143 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


program can only be realized through the WEIGHTED TOTAL. For each model, the three most critically important barriers were obtained and associated with the tasks that are associated with those barriers. The results of this initial analysis for are given in Table 2.

Figure 1. Barrier matrix for Undergraduate research as pedagogy

Figure 2. Portion of the CURE-Modifying an existing course matrix used in the barriers study

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


Table 2. Barrier Analysis of CCURI UR models. Model

Top 3 Tasks (weighted)

Top 3 Barriers associated with task

Modified CURE

Identify a course and obtain approvals

Lack of time, No release time, Lack of faculty buy-in

Identify a research project

Lack of time, No release time to conduct research, No release time to work on course

Obtain Funding for supplies and equipment

Inadequate funding, Lack of time, Lack of Admin support

Gain Administrative Support

Lack of Funding, lack of help from administrators and staff, curriculum approval process

Gain Departmental Support

Faculty pushback, lack of help from faculty and staff, curriculum approval process

Recruit Students

Financial aid restrictions, lack of help from administrators and staff, credit limit regulations

Recruit Students

Complexity of student lives, lack of student incentives, financial aid regulations

Obtain Funding

Budget and financial policies and procedures, lack of administrative support, faculty load and compensation

Develop Budget

Budget and financial policies and procedures, lack of administrative support, enrollment policies and procedures

Gain Administrative Support

High cost for low numbers, lack of administrative support, high program cost

Gain Departmental Support

Faculty pushback, lack of release time for program development, high cost for low numbers

Develop Sustainability Plan

Lack of administrative support, lack of faculty support, high cost for low numbers

New CURE

SURE

PURE



While there was considerable overlap with respect to the tasks and barriers identified in the study, some interesting patterns emerged that were subsequently used to help new CCURI partners better understand the barriers that would need to be addressed as part of any effort to launch a sustainable undergraduate research program. The analysis of the barriers for creating a new course (New CURE) or a summer program (SURE) revealed barriers that could be attributed to issues related to the community college student. A large number of community college students rely heavily on financial aid, and very often, the aid package restricts support to coursework directly related to a specific degree program. The creation of novel credit-bearing programs is often done outside of the degree requirements. In addition, many states have moved toward capping academic credits that can be transferred from the two-year to the four-year institution. In light of these regulations, it is not surprising to find barriers that focus on the student perspective. In contrast, the barriers that were found to be associated with modifying a course (modified CURE) or degree program (PURE) were focused more on faculty, administration, and institutional issues.

Opportunities While a solid understanding of the barriers was critical to expanding the CCURI model, it quickly became evident that what were needed were sustainable solutions to overcoming those barriers. Based on this understanding, CCURI developed a suite of recommendations that a community college could adopt and adapt as part of their program development efforts. In following these recommendations, it was believed that a community college would not only face the least amount of resistance, but it would maximize the chance for success and optimize the probability of remaining sustainable over time. The designation of the recommendations reflects the suggested hierarchy when considering programmatic priorities. Recommendation Alpha: Align with Institutional Priorities The most successful and clearly most sustainable programs within the CCURI portfolio are housed at institutions where investments and drivers are top-down, with a significant level of administrative support. For new programs, sustainability and success is maximized when program goals and outcomes can be aligned with institutional priorities. These priorities are often clearly laid out in mission and vision statements, institutional strategic plans, and evaluation and assessment programs. This understanding led CCURI to include in its workshop design the requirement that teams include an administrative level decision maker. Recommendation Beta: Develop a Strategic Plan When we are approached by an institution interested in developing an undergraduate research program, our first recommendation is to have a plan and begin by asking “why?” CCURI has designed and can deliver a three day 146 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


workshop for new partners where individual institutions send a team of 4-6 professionals with at least one administrative level representative. At these workshops we first task the teams with developing a statement that would explain their primary outcome. In some instances, partners look to address issues with retention and completion. In other cases, the focus is placed squarely on improving student learning outcomes. In any scenario, it is critical that everyone on the team understands the primary driving force behind their efforts. That force will ultimately become the centerpiece of their research and evaluation plan. Recommendation Gamma: Embed the Research Experience Based on the barrier analysis, CCURI recommends that institutions embed the research experience into credit-bearing, transferable coursework. In addition, sustainability of the experience can be improved if the coursework is a required component of a degree program (or several programs). Recommendation Delta: Include a Faculty Development Plan Many community college faculty have limited experience in modern research techniques (22), and pedagogical reforms often require extensive training and experience. CCURI recommends that institutions provide faculty development opportunities to their faculty and staff as part of their strategic plan and program development. Recommendation Epsilon: Connect to External and Internal Networks An analysis of the CCURI partner portfolio revealed that the most successful and most sustainable undergraduate research programs are housed at institutions that are heavily engaged in the CCURI network and in their own local and regional partnerships (government agencies, industry, professional societies). The need for network development was identified in the original self-study at FLCC and can now be validated through replication within the much larger CCURI. Recommendation Zeta: Scaffold the Experience Engaging and retaining students in the undergraduate research experience not only helps support the sustainability of a specific program, but it addresses the barriers associated with student recruitment. Reports have shown that entering community college freshman face significant barriers that impede their ability to be successful in a STEM program (23) and a significant percentage require some level of developmental or remedial coursework (24). With this understanding, CCURI recommends utilizing pedagogical interventions in the first year that help prepare students for the research experience, but can also act as a “hook” to encourage further study. Taken together, the model helps prepare students for their UR experience and helps retain them in that experience as they move through the first two years of their education. In addition, students who are retained become 147 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

ambassadors of the program and can contribute to the recruitment process as the program grows.


The Volunteer State Community College Story In October 2014, three students from Volunteer State Community College (Gallatin, TN) attended the Southeastern Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society (SERMACS) in Nashville, TN. As part of their organic chemistry course, these students had been working on an investigation focused on microscale methods for synthesizing flavones. At the conference, the students submitted a poster in the Organic Chemistry Division and took top honors among eighty other colleges and universities from across the southeast. The Volunteer State team was the only community college representative in the competition. Volunteer State is one of the most successful CCURI partners, and their program is in perfect alignment with the CCURI recommendations. Their program is strongly supported from an administrative level and is part of a long-term strategic plan. Their faculty have participated in extensive faculty development, and the program is embedded in required coursework. Finally, the institution has partnered not only with other institutions within the CCURI network, but with colleges, government agencies, and private sector organizations in their local region.

Student Impacts Despite the numerous studies touting the impact of the undergraduate research experience on students, there is currently a considerable debate within the educational community regarding the quality of the evidence and the ability of educational researchers to make legitimate causal claims about the impact of the UR experience on students. A significant percentage of CCURI partner programs are directed by professionals with a background in basic or applied research in a STEM field, and many lack a strong background in designing effective educational research studies inclusive of the robust statistical analyses that accompany those studies. For many programs, the solution to addressing this weakness is to partner with professionals that have this critical expertise, often at a significant cost. Most CCURI partner programs are relatively small and are supported with modest budgets that are unable to support resource intensive educational research studies. In light of this, much of what CCURI has been able to capture has relied on qualitative data generated from instruments such as structured interviews, surveys, and online data collection tools which include modified versions of the SUSSI (25) and SURE (26) surveys. The students were most likely to report “very large gains” in their learning as a result of analyzing data (54%) and collecting data (43%). When considering the benefits they gained from their research experiences, students also indicated that they received very large gains in their confidence (82%), learning laboratory techniques (37%), understanding that scientific assertions require supporting evidence (33%), and understanding the research process in their field (33%). 148 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


They reported that their experience involved a project entirely of student design (41%), or a project in which students have some input into the research process and/or what is being studied (41%). Students also reported that the undergraduate research experience had a significant impact on their educational decisions. For example 41% of students reported that their research experience was the motivating factor behind their decision to enroll in additional science courses, and 36% reported that the experience led to their decision to transfer into a STEM degree program at a four year institution after graduation. Prior to the initial expansion of the CCURI model from the pilot at Finger Lakes Community College, tracking data were used to find that approximately 4% of STEM students at the partner institutions submitted an application to a STEM graduate degree program as part of their educational pathway. Post implementation data showed that this number increased to 13%. While it is clear that there are multiple factors interacting within this pre-post comparison, the data are suggestive of an effect that enhances the STEM pipeline coming out of the community college.

Future Directions The Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative continues to expand with the addition of new partners, an affiliate program, and through partnerships with other educational initiatives focused on STEM reform and undergraduate research. CCURI has expanded to the point where it has become possible to ask institutional transformation level research and evaluation questions. Specifically, we are interested in understanding if CCURI is changing the culture of community colleges such that research becomes an integral part of the learning experience. We have intentionally integrated research and evaluation activities in order to contribute to the broader body of knowledge about institutional change (research) and inform decision-making about CCURI operations (evaluation). There are two main questions that now guide the CCURI research and evaluation program: 1.

2.

How does an institution move from a culture of “no research” to a culture of “research as the norm,” with research as an integral part of the student experience? What factors promote or constrain culture change from “no research” to “research as the norm”?

We believe that the future growth and sustainability of the undergraduate research experience at the two-year institution will require a better understanding of institutional-level change and a significant paradigm shift with respect to how we view the role of the community college in STEM education. We hope that the CCURI partners will be able to inform the broader community as our programs continue to thrive.


References 1.


2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

AAAS. Vision and Change: A Call to Action; AAAS: Washington, DC [Online], 2010. www.visionandchange.org/VC_report.pdf (accessed 15 November 2014). Olson, S.; Riordan, D. G. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; Report to the President; Executive Office of the President: Washington, DC, 2012. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Eds. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school: Expanded edition; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2000. NRC, National Research Council (US) Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century. BIO 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2003. Fox, M. A., Hackerman, N., Eds. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2003. Kuh G. D.; O’Donnell K.; Reed S. Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale; Association of American Colleges and Universities: Washington, DC, 2013. Laird, T. F. N.; Shoup, R.; Kuh, G. D.; Schwarz, M. J. Res. Higher Educ. 2008, 49, 469–494. Barlow, A. E. L.; Villarejo, M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 861–881. Carter, F. D.; Mandell, M.; Maton, K. I. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2009, 31, 441–462. Espinosa, L. L. Harv. Educ. Rev. 2011, 81, 209–241. Gilmer, T. C. J. STEM Educ. 2007, 8, 11–21. Graham, M. J.; Frederick, J.; Byars-Winston, A.; Hunter, A. B.; Handelsman, J. Science 2013, 34, 1455–1456. Jones, M. T.; Barlow, A. E.; Villarejo, M. J. Higher Educ. 2010, 81, 82–115. Nagda, B. A.; Gregerman, S. R.; Jonides, J.; von Hippel, W.; Lerner, J. S. Rev. Higher Educ. 1998, 22, 55–72. Kinkel, D. H.; Henke, S. E. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 2006, 35, 194–201. Junge, B.; Quiñones, C.; Kakietek, J.; Teodorescu, D.; Marsteller, P. CBELife Sci. Educ. 2010, 9, 119–132. Lopatto, D. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2007, 6, 297–306. Mooney, G. M.; Foley, D. J. NSF InfoBrief, NSF 2011, 11, 317. Inkpen, A. C.; Tsang, E. W. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2005, 30, 146–165. Ritter, T.; Gemünden, H. G. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 745–755. Malachowski, M. R; Nelson, M. E. Lessons from the CUR Institutes on Institutionalizing Undergraduate Research. In Developing, Promoting, & Sustaining the Undergraduate Research Experience in Psychology; Miller, R. M., Rycek, R. F., Balcetis, E., Barney, S. T., Beins, B. C., Burns, S. 150 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

22.


23. 24.

25.

26.

R., Smith, R., Ware, M. E., Eds.; Society for the Teaching of Psychology: Syracuse, NY, 2008; pp 38−42. Provasnik S.; Planty M. Community Colleges: Special Supplement to the Condition of Education 2008. Statistical Analysis Report; NCES 2008-033; National Center for Education Statistics: Washington, DC, 2008. Lloyd, P. M.; Eckhardt, R. A. Sci. Educ. 2010, 19, 33–41. Zeidenberg, M.; Jenkins, P. D.; Calcagno, J. C. Do Student Success Courses Actually Help Community College Students Succeed? CCRC Brief; Columbia University Academic Commons: New York, NY, 2007. Liang, L. L.; Chen, S.; Chen, X.; Kaya, O. N.; Adams, A. D.; Macklin, M.; Ebenezer, J. Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry (SUSSI): revision and further validation of an assessment instrument. Presented at Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST): San Francisco, CA, 2006. Lopatto, D. Cell Biol. Educ. 2004, 3, 270–277.


Undergraduate Research at the Community College: Barriers and

Recommend Documents