Implementing Best Practices to Advance Undergraduate Research in

Chapter 20

Downloaded by UNIV OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR on May 12, 2018 | https://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): May 2, 2018 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2018-1275.ch020

Implementing Best Practices to Advance Undergraduate Research in Chemistry Rebecca M. Jones* Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, 22030, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

This symposium series volume captures contemporary best practices related to supporting and expanding undergraduate research in chemistry. The chapters presented here describe specific and timely examples of course-embedded research experiences, supported first-year experiences, and full curriculum revisions to expand participation in this high-impact practice. Authors in this volume presented in three separate symposia organized by the editors at spring meetings: the 249th ACS National Meeting in Denver, CO (2015), the 251st ACS National Meeting in San Diego, CA (2016), and the 253rd ACS National Meeting in San Francisco, CA (2017). This concluding chapter begins with a view of the relevant and recent literature related to undergraduate research and then highlights the volume’s chapters, which are organized by common themes. The editors intend this summary to increase the usefulness of the volume and encourage readers to use the ideas herein to advance undergraduate research in chemistry at their own institutions.

Introduction Beginning in 1997, works such as the National Science Foundation’s Shaping the Future (1), the Boyer Commission’s Reinventing Undergraduate Education (2), and the National Research Council’s Science Teaching Reconsidered (3) identified discovery and inquiry as key in promoting student learning and highlighted the importance of active undergraduate participation in research. © 2018 American Chemical Society Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.


Further, these reports illustrated ways in which research experiences better prepare students for the workforce. A decade later, using data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (4), Kuh showed how high-impact practices, such as undergraduate research, benefit all students (5). Kuh’s landmark report also showed that these practices seem to benefit underserved students even more than their more advantaged peers and, on average, under-represented minority students are the least likely students to have access to these practices. Since these reports, colleges and universities around the country have increased the focus and number of research experiences available to undergraduate students. Undergraduate research experiences (URE) have been shown to better prepare students for their future careers and graduate study, notably, but not exclusively, in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (6–19). Additionally, undergraduate scholars are able to experience exactly what the research process entails; particularly that it requires hard work and dedication and is recursive, with the researcher often returning to and revising previous stages of the study before moving forward and drawing conclusions (7, 11, 16, 20). Healey and Jenkins (9) wrote that “engaging students in undergraduate research and inquiry is one of the most effective ways to help students begin to think like a chemist, a historian, or engineer…” (p. 49). URE are outstanding avenues to train future scholars, granting exposure to innovative methods to address challenges and providing a pathway to STEM careers, both in the academy and beyond. URE has been documented as an integral part of the process of students becoming professionals (9, 10, 14, 17, 18). Experts on URE have described this critical transformation as a form of disciplinary socialization, wherein students learn the habits of mind and are welcomed into the community of scholars in their field (21–25). Chapman described this a form of role-playing, in that “undergraduates can learn the conventions of research through imitation and practice (26).” He further suggests that engaging undergraduates in scholarship is “an essential part of the internal transformation that takes place as a student begins to understand what it means to be a scholar and a researcher (26).” Through URE, students learn the skills necessary to succeed after graduation (10, 24, 27). The apprenticeship model of research is one very familiar to chemists, as most faculty participated in mentored research during their graduate and/or undergraduate years. Success as an undergraduate researcher requires guidance from an experienced and committed faculty mentor (28, 29) who plays a key role in shaping the quality of students’ URE. An effective mentor can help socialize students into the research process and provide insights into their personal dispositions (e.g., open-mindedness), problem solving skills, knowledge of the components of scientific inquiry, and research ethics needed for high quality scientific thinking and inquiry (30–33). Further, effective active mentoring has been shown to improve student perceived research competency (34). Effective mentoring requires consistent behavioral practices that support student learning (35, 36); fortunately, these are skills that can be learned (37). Mentoring excellence in URE often involves the provision of social support, assistance in goal-setting, opportunities for competency development, and listening (6, 38–40), as well as modeling research practices and ethics (36, 41). The benefits associated with positive faculty-student mentoring relationships are 336 Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.


particularly salient for under-represented minority undergraduate students (40, 42) and women (28), who, as a group, have been found to be less confident in their academic abilities and less likely than their counterparts to engage faculty both inside and outside of the classroom (43). For example, under-represented minority students, who have URE and formal mentoring partnerships with a faculty member, rate their learning gains higher than their counterparts (33). Chemists have been discussing best practices to support undergraduate research for many years (44–46). The value of this form of teaching is undeniable and chemistry faculty have been diligent in pursing better and more effective means of engaging students (47, 48). Additionally, an NSF funded summit report from 2003, Enhancing Research in the Chemical Sciences at Predominately Undergraduate Institutions (49), identified departmental and institutional support needed to fully realize benefits of this high impact practice. The Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) has also published two separate volumes, Developing and Sustaining a Research Supportive Curriculum (50) and Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research (COEUR) (51), describing the support needed across all disciplines and all types of institutions. Returning to chemistry, this volume adds to the resources provided in an earlier collection of best practice examples in the ACS Symposium Series Volume 1159, edited by Chapp and Benvenuto, in 2013 (52). This current volume features authors who presented in three separate symposia organized by the editors at spring meetings: the 249th ACS National Meeting in Denver, CO (2015), the 251st ACS National Meeting in San Diego, CA (2016), and the 253rd ACS National Meeting in San Francisco, CA (2017). Ideas found in these chapters will provide utility to individuals seeking to improve their mentoring of individual students as well as departments and institutions looking for programmatic modules that couple be adapted and implemented. The chapters are thematically organized, first presenting four examples of best practices in support of early career experiences. The next six chapters focus on upper division opportunities, after which four chapters to a focus on programs and curricular reform. Finally, four chapters address the topics of mentoring and assessment. The remainder of this concluding chapter thematically discusses the chapters in this volume and synthesize the common best practices described herein.

Early Career Experiences In the first chapter of this volume, Reig et al. describe a fellowship program at Ursinus College in Pennsylvania that specifically engages underserved populations in an intensive 4-week research experience. With robust evaluation data included in this chapter, this program highlights best practices in supporting URE, including a one-credit seminar that provides professional development skills required to be a successful researcher and specific training for research mentors. With the acronym FYRE, for first-year-research-experience, the University of Oklahoma created a comprehensive and scaffolded program to support research. This multi-year program described in chapter 2 expands beyond the first-year to include professional development, which increases the retention of STEM majors 337 Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.


and supports future success in STEM careers. The innovative use of coffee as a research topic makes scholarly work more accessible and represents an interesting model for other programs. Working at a community college, Silvestri has developed an exciting partnership with a local business to create research opportunities for his students. In his chapter, Silvestri describes the three “rounds” of research projects that have evolved from this partnership and continue to excite students. This story includes engaged community college students and offers evidence that advanced training is not always required for successful and enthusiastic research. Furthermore, connecting with a local community business brings research “out of the ivory tower” and facilitates unique opportunities to communicate results. Finally, two chapters describe course-based research experiences within their organic chemistry courses. Gould et al. and Silverberg et al. have both successfully embedded synthetic organic chemistry research into the laboratory portions of their second-year curricula. Both note the importance of advanced planning and selecting a topic. Readers will appreciate the logic employed by these professors to hone and refine the syntheses pursued by their students. Additionally, the inclusion of literature reviews and disseminating the results in the form of a journal article further add to the experience of their students.

Upper-Division Opportunities The chapters related to upper division students and courses encompass innovative lab experiences, an interdisciplinary collaborative, and capstone projects. Bachman and Gourley each describe successful integration of research into their upper-division laboratories, for inorganic and physical chemistry, respectively. Bachman chronicles how his current course has changed over time to reflect new research interests and to better assure student success. Employing an interesting round robin experiment rotation and embedded peer and self-evaluations, Gourley offers fresh perspective to teaching her challenging subject. Both of these chapters illustrate that approaching labs from a creative perspective can yield significant student gains. Three chapters detail inventive approaches to biochemistry lab classes. Focusing on keeping costs at a minimum, Hati and Bhattacharyya describe a project-based biophysical chemistry laboratory which introduces students to computational techniques as they explore protein dynamics. From the College of New Jersey, Guarracino writes about the incorporation of research into an Advanced Topics Chemical Biology course, using in-class group work and peer assessment. Finally, Konkle et al. employed chemical modification of proteins to reinforce lecture topics such as enzymatic activity. Emerging from the challenges of being at a new college, Pursell formed an interdisciplinary collaboration with three colleagues to create an “environmental research cluster.” This collaborative mentoring method facilitates sharing of resources and expertise. Students are emboldened to select projects of personal interest, which has led to community-based projects of public interest. The 338 Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

chapter describes three projects from this cluster, which may serve as models for other faculty, particularly those at primarily undergraduate institutions.


Programs and Curriculum Reform This volume includes three examples of chemistry departments that have revised their curricula to better support research experiences. First, Gourley details the flexible curriculum devised at DePauw University, which provides multiple pathways through the major and increased opportunities for critical thinking. Historical data shows growth in the number of students involved in research after the curriculum change. Covering two decades of history, Holmes et al. contribute a story about the comprehensive changes made at University of North Carolina Asheville to expand and support undergraduate research. These changes, including early career research classes and scaffolded curricular revisions, led to significant increases in the number of chemistry majors. Two chapters describe programs and initiatives, which came to fruition by leveraging external funds and engaging partner organizations. Cousins et al. describe combining NSF grant funding, a materials science research center, and multiple on-campus resources to increase the opportunities for undergraduate research. Specific emphasis is made on how their program increased research capacity and maintained productive relationships with external partners. Evaluation and assessment shows positive learning gains for the students involved. Malachowski et al. describe NSF funded programs with the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) that aimed to assist faculty and universities in their efforts to institutionalize undergraduate research. Advancing a culture of scholarship and building networks of scholars, these programs have changed the landscape of higher education in the United States. I can personally affirm that attending the CUR Institute on “Initiating and Sustaining Undergraduate Research Programs” transformed my outlook on undergraduate research and had a significant impact on my professional career. The chapter concludes by describing an ongoing study related to accessing URE and the persistent equity gap.

Mentoring and Assessment Mentoring and assessment are two critical components of undergraduate research experiences. As mentioned in the literature review, effective mentoring is the keystone for a successful research experience and has been linked to specific student outcomes, such as perceived research competency (34). This volume includes two chapters offering best practices for mentoring. Hayes depicts a tiered mentoring model, where faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students form a mentor hierarchy through both introduction to research and graduate-level mentoring courses. Evaluation showed positive gains in scientific research skills 339 Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.


and establishing stable mentoring relationships among the participating students. Goeltz and Duran offer recommendations for mentoring students toward and through an international research experience, which effectively combines two high-impact practices, URE and study abroad (5). The final two chapters of this volume contain assessment methodology and tools. In my own contribution to this volume, I describe a survey project of peer faculty that revealed the need for tailored tools to evaluate student researchers and their research products. This chapter also includes two rubrics, adapted from published sources and designed to be used with students of all academic levels, to evaluate the process as well as the products of research. At Florida Southern College, the senior undergraduate research course is the capstone of the chemistry major. In their chapter, Broomfield-Lee and Le describe this capstone course as well as the assessment tools used by all faculty to evaluate the projects, including weekly progress reports and presentation rubrics. With thorough assessment instruments, such as the examples presented here, students can receive a clear template for success and faculty gain useful, efficient, and consistent means of evaluation.

Conclusions Chemists have a long history with undergraduate research. In 1978, a group of chemists met to discuss how they could best support undergraduate research at private liberal arts colleges. One year later, they came together again to form the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR). Nearly forty years later, CUR has grown to become the premier national interdisciplinary organization for this highimpact practice and includes over 10,000 individual members and over 650 college and university members (53). Therefore, it is fitting that chemists are leading the movement toward best practices in undergraduate research; we have cared about it since the beginning. The chapters in this volume represent some of the most current and resourceful approaches to advancing undergraduate research in chemistry. Considering the volume as a whole, there are some common themes that emerge. Holding regular meetings with students and providing on-going feedback is very important along with careful and strategic topic selection – and if faculty can make the topic meaningful to the students, all the better. Engaging with primary literature, while always a challenge, is worthwhile for developing skills such as critical thinking and analysis. When possible, external funding can be useful in attracting students to research, especially if projects are extracurricular. Additionally, partnering with other research groups, community organizations or businesses is an effective strategy for engaging more students and potentially compensating for institutional deficits. Most successful research-based courses (often referred to as CUREs) include a solid plan for dissemination of student work, such as a written paper in the form of a journal article or an oral presentation. The ultimate aim should be to publish the research in peer-reviewed journals with students as the primary authors. Providing templates and rubrics for students can make every step of this process easier, while also facilitating faculty assessment of students’ contribution 340 Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

and growth. Finally, if a chemistry department wants to significantly increase their number of majors, implementing curriculum changes to better integrate and support URE is a worthy strategy with precedent.


Acknowledgments The editors extend our sincere thanks to the reviewers of this volume; without your time and energy, this book would not be possible. We are grateful to the Division of Chemical Education in the American Chemical Society for allowing us to organize symposia on the topic of undergraduate research in chemistry. We thank our colleagues, friends, and fellow Councilors from the Council on Undergraduate Research for their support and inspiring attitudes. Thanks go out to the staffs of ACS Books and Technica Editorial for their hard work in bringing this collection to life. The editors also thank our home departments at George Mason University and DePauw University for their encouragement. Finally, we are grateful for our families and their enduring patience as we edited this volume.

References 1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology; National Science Foundation NSF 96-139; 1996. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities; ED 424 840; State University of New York at Stony Brook for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Stony Brook, NY, 1998. National Research Council Staff. Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1997. Indiana University. National survey of student engagement; The College Student Report: Bloomington, IN, 2013. Kuh, G. High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter; American Association of American Colleges & Universities: Washington, DC, 2008. Behar‐Horenstein, L. S.; Roberts, K. W.; Dix, A. C. Mentoring undergraduate researchers: An exploratory study of students’ and professors’ perceptions. Mentor. Tutoring Partnersh. Learn. 2010, 1, 269–291. Craney, C.; McKay, T.; Mazzeo, A.; Morris, J.; Prigodich, C.; De Groot, R. Cross-discipline perceptions of the undergraduate research experience. J. High. Educ. 2011, 82, 92–113. Felder, R. M.; Brent, R. The National Effective Teaching Institute: Assessment of impact and implications for faculty development. Res. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 122–134. Healey, M.; Jenkins, A. Developing undergraduate research and inquiry; The Higher Education Academy: York, United Kingdom, 2009. 341

Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.


10. Hu, S.; Kuh, G. D.; Gayles, J. G. Engaging undergraduate students in research activities: Are research universities doing a better job? Innov. High. Educ. 2007, 32, 167–177. 11. Hunter, A.-B.; Laursen, S. L.; Seymour, E. Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Sci. Educ. 2007, 91, 36–74. 12. Laursen, S. Undergraduate research in the sciences: Engaging students in real science, 1st ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2010. 13. Laursen, S.; Seymour, E.; Hunter, A.-B. Learning, teaching and scholarship: Fundamental tensions of undergraduate research. Change Mag. High. Learn. 2012, 44, 30–37. 14. Lei, S. A.; Chuang, N.-K. Undergraduate research assistantship: A comparison of benefits and costs from faculty and students’ perspectives. Education 2009, 130, 232–240. 15. Levenson, C. W. Enhancing undergraduate research in the arts and the humanities. Peer Rev. 2010, 12, 13–15. 16. Lopatto, D. Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience. Peer Rev. 2010, 12, 27–30. 17. Karukstis, K. K. Broadening participation in undergraduate research. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 1474. 18. Potter, S.; Abrams, E.; Townson, L.; Williams, L. Mentoring undergraduate researchers: Faculty mentors’ perceptions of the challenges and benefits of the research relationship. Coll. Teach. Learn. 2009, 6.6, 17–30. 19. Seymour, E.; Hunter, A.-B.; Laursen, S. L.; DeAntoni, T. Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 493–534. 20. 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. 21. Boyer, E. L.; Braxton, J. M.; Ream, T. C.; Moser, D. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2016. 22. Chubin, D. E.; Ward, W. E. Building on the BEST principles and evidence: A framework for broadening participation. In Broadening participation in undergraduate research: Fostering excellence and enhancing the impact; Boyd, M. K., Wesemann, J. L., Eds.; Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2009; pp 21–30. 23. Gentile, J. Undergraduate research programs: Is there a magic bullet for success? In Developing and sustaining a research-supportive curriculum: A compendium of successful practices; Karukstis, K. K., Elgren, T. E., Eds.; Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2007; pp 271–284. 24. Merkel, C. A. Undergraduate research at the research universities. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2003, 2003, 39. 25. Merkel, C. A.; Baker, S. M. How to mentor undergraduate researchers; Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2002; Vol. 93. 342 Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.


26. Chapman, D. W. Undergraduate research: Showcasing young scholars. The Chronicle of Higher Education 2003September12. 27. Crowe, M. Creative scholarship through undergraduate research. Peer Rev. 2006, 8, 16–18. 28. Kardash, C. M. Evaluation of undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. J. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 92, 191–201. 29. Linn, M. C.; Palmer, E.; Baranger, A.; Gerard, E.; Stone, E. Undergraduate research experiences impacts and opportunities. Science 2015, 347. 30. Korver, B. Differing teacher and student perceptions of feedback during mentoring sessions about internship performance. Master’s Thesis, University Leiden, 2012. 31. Lampert, J. N. The relationship of self-efficacy and self-concept to academic performance in a college sample: Testing competing models and measures. Master’s Thesis, Pacific University, 2007. 32. Lev, E. L.; Kolassa, J.; Bakken, L. L. Faculty mentors’ and students’ perceptions of students’ research self-efficacy. Nurse Educ. Today 2010, 30, 169–174. 33. Lopatto, D. Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2007, 6, 297–306. 34. Davis, S. N.; Jones, R. M. Understanding the role of the mentor in developing research competency among undergraduate researchers. Mentor. Tutoring Partnersh. Learn. 2017, 25, 455–465. 35. Andrews, M.; Chilton, F. Student and mentor perceptions of mentoring effectiveness. Nurse Educ. Today 2000, 20, 555–562. 36. Shanahan, J. O.; Ackley-Holbrook, E.; Hall, E.; Stewart, K.; Walkington, H. Ten salient practices of undergraduate research mentors: A review of the literature. Mentor. Tutoring Partnersh. Learn. 2015, 23, 359–376. 37. Entering mentoring: A seminar to train a new generation of scientists; Handelsman, J., Handelsman, H., Eds.; Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professors Program; Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System: Madison, WI, 2005. 38. Childress, H.; Cox, G.; Eve, S.; Orr, A.; Rivera, J. Mentoring as a socializing activity–supporting undergraduate research in the social sciences; The Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2009. 39. Eby, L. T.; Allen, T. D.; Evans, S. C.; Ng, T.; DuBois, D. L. Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and nonmentored individuals. J. Vocational Behav. 2008, 74, 254–267. 40. Gershenfeld, S. A Review of undergraduate mentoring programs. Rev. Educ. Res. 2014, 84, 365–391. 41. Hazel, S.; Usher. OSCAR student survey for individualized scholarly experience; George Mason University, 2013. 42. Blake-Beard, S.; Bayne, M. L.; Crosby, F. J.; Muller, C. B. Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. J. Soc. Issues 2011, 67, 622–643. 43. Soria, K. M.; Stebleton, M. J. First generation students academic engagement and retention. Teach. Higher Educ. 2012, 17, 673–685. 343 Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.


44. Brown, C. F. Undergraduate research. J. Chem. Educ. 1951, 28, 382–383. 45. Sanzone, G. Undergraduate research in chemistry. A liberal arts subject. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54, 566–568. 46. Halstead, J. A. What is undergraduate research? J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 1390–1391. 47. Kirk, L. L.; Hanne, L. F. An alternate approach to teaching undergraduate research. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 839–841. 48. Hurd, C. B. Some observations on undergraduate research in chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1944, 81–84. 49. Wenzel, T. J. Enhancing research in the chemical sciences at predominantly undergraduate institutions; A report from the Undergraduate Research Summit; Bates College: Lewiston, ME, 2003; p 64. 50. Developing and sustaining a research-supportive curriculum; Karukstis, K. K., Elgren, T. E., Eds.; Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2007. 51. Characteristics of excellence in undergraduate research; Hensel, N., Ed.; Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2012. 52. Developing and maintaining a successful undergraduate research program; Chapp, T. W., Benvenuto, M. A., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington DC, 2013; Vol. 1156. 53. The Council on Undergraduate Research - Learning Through Research; https://www.cur.org/ (accessed Jan 11, 2018).

344 Gourley and Jones; Best Practices for Supporting and Expanding Undergraduate Research in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Implementing Best Practices to Advance Undergraduate Research in

Recommend Documents