Overview of Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs - ACS

2 Jul 2018 - Overview of Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ... nation with information they need to design more thoughtful and beneficial coll...
0 downloads 0 Views 575KB Size
Download PDF
Downloaded via 185.223.160.238 on August 3, 2018 at 11:20:23 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Chapter 1

Overview of Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs Mark A. Griep*,1 and Linette Watkins*,2 1Department

of Chemistry, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0304, United States 2Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, United States *E-mails: [email protected] (M.A. Griep); [email protected] (L.W.).

This book was conceived as a way to disseminate information about successful NSF-sponsored Chemistry Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Sites. Eleven chapters describe specific REU sites and one chapter describes the Chemistry REU Leadership Group. The authors have shared the expertise they acquired from a broad range of approaches, multi-disciplinary collaborations, and multi-institutional collaborations. Each author contributes distinctive and partially overlapping perspectives into the complex factors that result in running a successful summer research program. Half of the authors participated in a symposium titled “Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs” at the spring 2017 national meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS). Each described their program’s distinctive features in the context of their overall summer experience, such as the integration of deaf and hearing impaired, coordination of an international program, and multi-institutional programs. The other half of the authors participated in one of the symposia hosted by the Chemistry REU Leadership Group at spring ACS national meetings between 2013 and 2016. Each of these symposia focused on a different aspect of successful REU programs. These authors describe excellent models for professional development and mentor training workshops among many others. This book hopes to provide undergraduate research advisors at universities © 2018 American Chemical Society Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

across the nation with information they need to design more thoughtful and beneficial college undergraduate research programs for their majors, and to provide investigators with useful information to write more effective proposals that will fund more summer research programs.

Introduction This book was conceived as a way to disseminate information about successful Chemistry Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) programs. Most chapters are written by REU program coordinators and administrators whose REU Site grants were renewed at least once (Table 1). These chapters are based on presentations given at one of the following spring ACS national meetings: 2013 New Orleans; 2016 San Diego; and 2017 San Francisco. Many of the useful principles described in this book are the result of experience in managing the myriad factors that lead to a summer experience with few hiccups. That is, the chapters describe how their activities and workshops achieve program goals while also offering tips for dealing with any potentially detrimental features they experienced in previous years. It is our hope that the information in these chapters will help others develop and improve undergraduate research programs at their institutions.

A Brief History of Chemistry REU Sites The world’s future depends on creative chemical ideas, which means there is a need to train more chemists. One of the most effective externally funded programs for training students for future careers as chemists is the NSF-funded REU Program (1, 2). According to the Program Solicitation (3), “REU Sites are based on independent proposals to initiate and conduct projects that engage a number of students in research. REU Sites may be based in a single discipline or academic department, or on interdisciplinary or multi-department research opportunities with a coherent intellectual theme.” Every discipline supported by NSF is eligible for this grant program. The REU program began at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1987 when it was re-established after a five-year hiatus (4). In fact, two of the programs described in this book (University of Alabama, Texas A&M) have been funded almost continuously since 1987. From 1958 to 1982, the NSF program was called Undergraduate Research Participation Program. Given the longevity of this program, it is surprising that this is the first book on the subject of Chemistry REU Programs.

2 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Table 1. Chemistry REU programs described in this book Chapter

Funded Unit

Program Distinguishing Feature

First Funded

2.

University of Alabama

Ties to Local Schools with Limited Research Opportunities

1987

3.

Texas A&M University

Professional Development Programs

1987

4.

James Madison University

Integration of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students

1990

5.

The Theoretically Interesting Molecule (TIM) Consortiuma

Collaboration of Primarily Undergraduate Institutions

2002

6.

Chemistry REU Leadership Group

Support and Improve Chemistry REU Programs

2002

7.

West Virginia University

Chemistry of Health and Catalysis

2007

8.

University of North Carolina Greensboro & Guilford College

Ties to Local Schools for International Research Experiences

2010

9.

University of WisconsinMadison

Mentor Training Workshops

2011

10.

University of NebraskaLincoln

Communicating Science Workshops

2011

11.

University of Mississippi

Strengthening the Department’s Physical Chemistry Program

2013

12.

South Dakota State Universityb

Collaboration with Primarily Undergraduate Institutions

2015

a The current TIM Consortium members are University of San Diego, Grand Valley State University, Northern Kentucky University, University of Richmond, and Colby College. b The collaborating institutions are Black Hills State University and Northern State University.

Proven Effectiveness of Chemistry REU Sites Prior to this book, there were no publications about Chemistry REU programs that a principal investigator could use as a reference while writing a proposal. On the other hand, the following four journal articles and a book document the effectiveness of other types of STEM undergraduate research programs. A highly-cited paper (5) (934 citations on Google Scholar) from 2004 provides an analysis of student-identified gains following research experiences in a range of disciplines at four private colleges in Summer 2000. Specifically, the authors compared responses from 76 participants with 63 students who applied but had not been accepted into their program. The strongest conclusions were that the students who did research were more confident in their ability to do research, 3 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

and to understand what it means to work like a scientist. This study is cited because it indicates that undergraduate research experiences are effective learning experiences. Another highly-cited paper (6) (762 citations) from 2007 provides evidence from an even broader analysis of approximately 4500 undergraduates and 3600 faculty, graduate student, and postdoc mentors who participated in undergraduate research opportunities. The NSF-funded research experiences took place in 2002 or 2003 during both the summer and academic year. There was also a follow-up survey of about 3300 undergraduates who had participated in the initial survey. The strongest conclusions were that the experience helped students clarify their interest in research careers, raised their awareness of graduate school, and increased their understanding of their major. These gains were independent of gender and ethnicity and appeared to suggest that introducing research as early as the Freshman year would be even more beneficial. This study is usually cited to justify the inclusion of graduate preparation workshops. A paper and a book offer a more detailed analysis about the relative importance of the steps involved in undergraduate research (7, 8). The results are derived from surveys of thousands of students participating in summer or academic year undergraduate research programs. One of the key findings is that the single most effective experience is when students design their own projects. The most recent paper that demonstrates the effective of undergraduate research programs is from 2011 and was managed by an NSF Program Officer for REU Sites in Biology (9). This paper analyzes the descriptive metrics (number of applications, acceptance rates, race and ethnicity, sex, types of enrichment activities, and how programs measure their success) relating to REU Sites funded or co-funded by the NSF’s Directorate for Biological Sciences during Summer 2006 through 2009. Although this paper does not describe the goals of individual REU Site programs, it provides a set of metrics and activities that proposal writers could use to establish a baseline for quantifying success.

Characteristics of Recently Funded Chemistry REU Sites Before summarizing the various Chemistry REU Sites described in this book, it is useful to provide an overview of currently funded Chemistry REU Sites so it becomes clear how these programs are representative of the larger whole. Since the NSF Chemistry REU website maintains a list of its currently funded grants (10), visitors to the site can learn about such characteristics as average funding levels, average terms, typical start dates, and research foci. However, keep in mind that the website is maintained irregularly and appears to include expired grants and to capture only about three quarters of currently funded grants. Therefore, we limited our analysis to those grants from the website that were funded as of 25 February 2018 and that started between 2014 and 2017. Nearly all of those funded in 2014 appear to cover four summer terms. Since then, all grants have covered three summer terms. The average funding per REU Site has increased roughly with inflation. It was 296 ± 58 thousand dollars in 2014 and has increased to 333 ± 72 in 2017 (Figure 1). On the NSF Chemistry REU website 4 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

(10), the number of total funded grants was 13 in 2014, 21 in 2015, 15 in 2016, and 14 in 2017. If, instead, one uses the NSF search engine, you will find that the number of total funded REU grants by the Chemistry division was 20 in 2014, 23 in 2015, 19 in 2016, and 20 in 2017.

Figure 1. Average grant size for Chemistry REU Sites, 2014-2017. The research foci of the funded programs (Figure 2) were discerned from the program title, the “Research Topics/Keywords” field, and “Comments” field on the NSF Chemistry REU website (10). The largest percentage of programs, 44%, have a materials focus as do all but one of the multi-disciplinary programs. Approximately half of these mention specific materials such as liquid crystals, nanomaterials, polymers, and sensors. Another quarter of these programs mention computational chemistry in combination with synthesis. The last quarter of the materials programs have an environmental focus with some of them specifically mentioning agricultural chemistry or renewable energy.

Figure 2. Research Foci of Chemistry REU Site Funded from 2014 to 2017. Approximately one-third of the Chemistry REU Sites have a classical chemistry focus (Figure 2). Most of these programs list opportunities in four or five traditional areas of chemical research: analytical, biochemistry, inorganic, organic, and physical. Although choosing a chemistry focus may not seem innovative, chemistry is a broad discipline with a vast array of research opportunities at the boundaries between its five areas. About one-sixth, actually 16%, of Sites have a biochemistry focus. Most of these programs are funded by the Biology Division and co-funded by the Chemistry Division. The competition for REU Sites is strong in every NSF Division and the proposals are primarily funded based on the strength of external reviews. 5 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

The number of grants that can be awarded is determined by the size of the appropriation to each Division’s REU program, which is, in turn, determined by the Congressional appropriation to NSF. The result of the federal appropriations cycle is that the start dates for REU Sites from the Chemistry Division occur between March and September (Figure 3). Unfortunately, these award dates are not in good synchrony with launching an REU program because a February or early March start date would be ideal for the timely vetting of applicants for a summer program. Nevertheless, if an REU Site Coordinator receives notice of funding in late March to early May, it will likely be possible to find excellent students who could start in early or middle June simply because the student demand far exceeds the supply of research opportunities. If funding begins during the summer months, however, it appears that many coordinators request a September start date to set up a funding cycle that ends a month after their next year’s summer program ends so they will have information for their annual report.

Figure 3. Funding Start Month for Chemistry REU Sites, 2014-2017.

The Chemistry REU Leadership Group The Chemistry REU Leadership Group is supported by a special grant from NSF “to improve the REU program through workshops, travel grants, symposia, and other innovative activities” and to “provide guidance to current and prospective REU Site PIs (11).” The Leadership Group was formed after a fruitful NSF-funded “Workshop for Chemistry REU Site Directors” in 2001. Every year, the Leadership Group hosts a symposium with a different theme at the Spring meeting of the American Chemical Society. Every three years, they host a PI Workshop. The Workshops are also open to prospective REU Site PIs to help them develop their plans. Over half of the currently funded PIs have attended at least one of these meetings. The Chemistry REU Leadership Group hosts a website (11) that provides a great deal of useful information for anyone running or planning an REU Site. The information encompasses a wide range of factors to consider, including thoughts about leveraging resources, different mechanisms to pay participants, thoughts about the use of volunteers, and a typical timeline for running a program. They also 6 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

provide ideas for addressing the nuts and bolts issues like broadening participation through recruitment, selection, and inclusion ideas, the online application form, assessment metrics, and post-program tracking ideas. All of these components of a good program are mentioned in several chapters and often from different perspectives.

Choosing a Program Theme At NSF, all proposals are evaluated for intellectual merit and broader impacts. The REU program is no different except that it is perhaps more challenging to incorporate innovation in the intellectual merit of the program components with elements of existing successful models. This means the principal investigator will need to choose which components to innovate and which components can be considered reliable enough to use as a scaffold for the innovative components. One possibility for determining areas for innovation is to consider the strengths of the institution that will be hosting the REU Site and applying existing strengths of the department or university to the REU Site. One of the very first considerations when planning an REU Site is how your group of research advisors will define themselves. It has to be inclusive enough that the program coordinator will be able to find advisors for six to ten REU students. In several of the chapters, the authors indicate that it is useful to have a slight excess of potential research advisors to accommodate faculty leaves and so forth. Among the authors in this book, the most common choice is to have a chemistry theme, in which case the research advisors are a subset of faculty from a single department. These faculty already know each other and have many common departmental goals. It also means the students will be working within one (or perhaps two) campus buildings, making it easier to assemble formally and informally. A departmental focus also makes it easier to leverage departmental resources for things ranging from a welcome picnic to the occasional pizza party. James Madison University is an example of a program that used a chemistry theme to innovate by recruiting participants who are deaf or hearing impaired. This group of students is very underrepresented in the sciences. Planning for their summer experiences includes very specific recruitment outreach and the need to embed a cohort of communication intermediaries. The Theoretically Interesting Molecules (TIM) Consortium provides an example of a narrow thematic focus. Their organic chemistry focus allows them to bring together faculty and students from five Primarily Undergraduate Institutions: Colby College, Grand Valley State University, Northern Kentucky University, University of Richmond, and University of San Diego. Each collaborating institution pairs a research advisor and local undergraduate with a summer participant. Coherence occurs when the everyone gathers twice each summer for shared research mentorship activities. Only two of the Sites described in this book have a mostly materials research focus. The University of Mississippi has an REU Site in Physical Chemistry that includes training in “computational chemistry, theory, spectroscopy, 7 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

nanomaterials, energy, and biophysics.” South Dakota State University leads a consortium REU Site in Environmental and Green Chemistry with Northern State University and Black Hills State University. Their research topics include “green materials, geochemistry, solar energy, photovoltaics, and nanomaterials.” They create programmatic coherence with weekly meetings, some of which are by video teleconferencing and others of which are in person.

Broadening Participation All REU Sites are open to U.S. Citizens or Residents regardless of gender, age, disability, race, color, religion, marital status, veteran’s status, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. Even so, it is common to recruit specific types of participants to meet the broader impacts component of the proposal. The most common participant goals are females and underrepresented minorities although James Madison University has developed a program for participants who are deaf or hearing impaired. In each proposal, target choices are justified by citing the relevant statistics. For instance, information about STEM bachelor and graduate degrees can be obtained in the latest NSF Science and Engineering Degrees, by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients Report (12). These degree-earning percentages can then be compared to the relevant subpopulation percentage in the U.S. Census estimates (13) to establish that particular targets are underrepresented. Participant Recruitment To enhance the number of targeted students in the application pool, most programs send emails to thousands of other colleges and universities including the 106 Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU) (14), 239 Hispanic-serving institutions (15), and 37 Tribal Colleges (16). Several programs described in this book have a regional focus. The benefits of this approach is increased awareness about your REU program and your graduate program, if applicable, as more regional students participate. Some programs also visit regional schools to recruit students. For instance, the University of Alabama recruits at regional HBCUs. Many programs recruit at the regional ACS meetings, and conferences that target underrepresented groups, such as the national meetings of the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES), National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE), and the Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS). Participant Selection Applications are typically accepted from November until early February or March. There is no uniformity to the applications but they often include some combination of the following: a resume, demographic information, a statement of interest in research, a transcript, and one or two letters of reference. Selection of 8 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

participants should include both subjective evaluations aligned with the specific program goals along with systematic ranking helps ensure a diverse group of participants in the programs. Building a Strong Sense of Community It is a friendly gesture for research advisors to send an email to the students shortly after they are selected to welcome them into their lab. The notes usually include attachments or links to papers related to the student’s future research project. This helps the students develop a sense of belonging to the program even before they step onto the campus. The most extensive pre-summer community-building exercise in this book takes place as part of the International REU program run by the University of North Carolina - Greensboro. Their REU Site draws participants primarily from schools centered around Greensboro but then sends the students to two schools in the United Kingdom – University of Bristol and University of Bath. Their program is a combination of two highly impactful experiences – Travel Abroad and REU. Since the students don’t spend time at the host institution, it is necessary to meet in advance to foster the creation of a group identity, which is achieved with online video conferences. Once they are in the UK, everyone gathers for a biweekly group meeting that switch between the two institutions.

Mentor Training Most REU programs in this book describe the importance of mentor training. Mentor training is important for anyone who will act in a supervisory capacity. Mentorship has a long history whereby an apprentice learns a trade or skill from a master. An important consideration for research mentors is the complexity of the endeavor (17–19). Research has no established path, only a direction, and there are many ways the skills can be taught. In essence, the research mentor trains the apprentice how to think about the research problem. In addition, as a consequence of close proximity and experience, the research mentor usually offers advice about graduate schools, work/life balance, and how to navigate a successful career in science. There is considerable evidence in the literature that mentors are critical for shaping positive research experiences. One early study from 2001 concerning the responses from 107 undergraduate STEM researchers at the University of California-Davis reported a strong correlation between satisfying research experiences and mentoring (18). Specifically, 57% were satisfied with their experience and said their mentor was helpful. Among those who were somewhat satisfied or unsatisfied, two-thirds indicated that they were mentored by someone other than a faculty member. This result strongly indicates the need for mentor training if you are going to rely on non-faculty mentors. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has developed an eight-hour mentor training program that can be easily incorporated into any research program (20–22). It is most helpful for those that are new at mentoring, such as graduate students or post docs, but includes many features that are useful for experienced 9 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

mentors. The program begins with selecting an appropriate research project and defining expectations and ends with the development of a personal mentoring philosophy. One of the issues is acknowledging that students need a great deal of help at the beginning of the experiences but at some unpredictable point along the way they become more independent. Mentor training is also a critical juncture at which a discussion of how to broaden participation and promote inclusion should take place.

Nuts and Bolts Program Elements First Day and First Week From the moment the students gather for the first time, participants should feel they are welcome and that they will gain the experiences they are expecting – how to do chemical research. What incoming participants don’t often realize is that benchwork is part of a larger conglomeration of activities. Therefore, it should be clear from the first meeting that there is a formal schedule in place to introduce them to the wider research world. You should communicate which activities are required and which are optional. This is a balancing act because social activities help form the bonds that build relationships, but are not informal if they are required. The first informal gathering should take place within the first few days of the summer program when students feel the most like an outsider. This first social activity is an excellent opportunity for a group photo, which rasies the issue of gathering photo permissions in advance of participant arrival. Safety Workshops The chemical sciences place the greatest emphasis on safety training among the science and engineering fields. In fact, the American Chemical Society (ACS) published the following statement in 2016: “[The ACS] believes recognition of the obligations to the safety and health of both individuals and the environment is essential for those working with chemicals (23).” It is no surprise then that every REU Site requires participants to complete safety training before they can begin research. Many institutions require researchers to complete their own online safety training protocols prior to their arrival on campus. After they arrive, chemistry departments often host a chemistry-safety-specific seminar that REU students must take. An interesting alternative is that the American Chemical Society (ACS) has created an 11-module online program in chemical and laboratory safety. Individuals who successfully complete the program receive an ACS certificate (24). This is part of the movement to infuse safety thinking into the culture of chemical research. Responsible Conduct of Research Workshops To infuse ethical thinking into the culture of the research experience, the REU Program Solicitation (3) requires students to be trained in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). To help meet this requirement, the Program Solicitation (3) 10 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

directs attention to a NSF-funded Online Ethics Center (25) without specifically prescribing its use. It provides case studies and tips on how to design activities that will introduce students to the responsible conduct of research. Two programs in this book (Texas A&M and West Virginia University) require students to complete the comprehensive online Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative RCR training (26) before they arrive on campus. Most other programs in this book introduce an ethics workshop during the first week. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln program also has a follow-up discussion in the third week about authorship order and what type of contributions merit authorship. The University of Alabama has weekly noon hour ethics seminars given by university administrators, local and state politicians, and even the head football coaches. Finally, the TIM Consortium introduces its participants to specific case studies at its first gathering and then has students revisit and report on those same case studies at their end-of-summer meeting.

Informal Social Activities Most universities offer a range of social activities throughout the summer. It is important to provide participants with a schedule and a map in advance so they can plan. Some programs have developed signature activities such as the University of Mississippi program, which uses basketball as a unifying activity for the participants, mentors, and research advisors.

Training Exercises for Instrumentation and Computer Skills The types of training exercises for REU participants depends on the nature of the research theme. The nature of these training sessions varies widely – online exercises, group tours, and/or individualized sessions. Most programs have instrument tours or training for NMR, X-ray diffractors, and mass spectrometers. Several programs teach students how to keep a research notebook, use SciFinder, and/or use LINUX. West Virginia University also teaches how to use ChemDraw.

Workshops for Graduate School Preparation The bread-and-butter workshops for every program are the ones associated with measurable outcomes. Therefore, the graduate school preparation workshop is likely to have the greatest influence on the future choices of your participants because it was noted earlier that the REU experience has been shown to be very useful in helping participants decide to enter graduate school (6). It is no surprise that all the REU Sites in this book have workshops with presentations (or panels) by faculty and graduate students on the admissions criteria used by graduate programs, how to apply to graduate school, and possible future career opportunities. 11 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Science Communication Workshops The other bread-and-butter workshops for training future scientists are related to science communication skills (posters, reports, and oral presentations). These skills are also associated with measurable outcomes that take place sooner than when particpants earn their bachelor’s degrees, enter a graduate program, or accept a STEM job. For instance, students who present a poster at a regional or national meeting usually do so within a year of their REU experience. Once again, it is no surprise then that all the programs in this book have workshops in science communication. Although these science communication programs vary widely in their approach, each chapter describes how goals and assessments are related to outcomes. Here we will describe just two examples. The International REU program hosted by University of North Carolina Greensboro ends with a symposium where every student gives the same short presentation twice, once at Bristol and and once at Bath. The program coordinators use these presentations to determine academic grades for the UNCG Study Abroad course in which the students are enrolled. Communication is the focus of the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing program at James Madison University. Throughout the summer, students discuss journal articles related to science communication, attend weekly group meetings, weekly signing lunches, and several speed-communication events presenting two slides in two minutes with as many partners as possible. All students in the program work with interpretors to facilitate communication between deaf and hearing students and the summer ends with a symposium of posters and presentations where students demonstrate both their science and effective communication skills with deaf students. Most programs also encourage students to present their poster or oral at their home institution as further dissemination. It is also a way to raise awareness about the REU program. All reports, posters, presentations, and publications generated by participants should acknowledge the REU grant number. Without the grant number, the NSF program officer won’t accept them with the annual report or post them on the NSF grant webpage. Since renewals take place every three years, coordinators would be wise to remind everyone (research advisors, mentors, and participants) repeatedly about the importance of including the REU number on their products.

Assessment Metrics and Post-Participation Tracking Ideas Assessment is the only way to ensure a program is meeting its goals and gathering information for timely corrections. Formative Evaluation and Regular Meetings Nearly all of the programs describe the value of weekly or biweekly cohort meetings to help create group cohesion, provide students with opportunities to demonstrate learning gains, and to provide the program coordinator with information about issues that should be dealt with sooner rather than later. In 12 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

this regard, the University of Mississippi chapter includes a detailed list of the formative goals and evaluation. The first few weeks are perhaps the most critical because that is when students and mentors are interacting the most. Therefore, coordinators should be listening for hiccups during the meetings in the first, second, and/or third week to make sure students know where their project is headed when they give their short orals, written reports, or poster abstract drafts.

Summative Evaluation After students complete their summer program, you can begin to assess program quality through participation surveys. The NSF REU Program Solicitation (3) directs attention to the NSF-funded Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) (27). It is an online survey that can be sent to students after they complete their summer program. None of the programs in this book indicate that they use the URSSA. Instead, four programs (James Madison University, South Dakota State University, The TIM Consortium, and West Virginia University) mention that they have used or are using the HHMI-funded Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE) survey created in 2003 (28). An advantage to using the SURE survey is that you can compare the performance of your students with thousands of students in other programs (7, 8). Most of the programs in this book have developed their own pre- and post-surveys to address their specific goals.

Post-Participation Tracking Your program’s impacts are assessed by tracking longer range outcomes. One of the more common outcomes described in this book is for students to present a research poster at a regional or national ACS meeting. Some programs mention that they have travel funds set aside for this purpose. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln summer program is set up as a competition whereby half of the participants will receive travel funds. Those students who ranked in the bottom half are encouraged to seek travel funds from their home institution’s ACS Local Section. Since about one-fifth of the non-awardees find a different source for travel funds, over half of the UNL participants have attended a national or regional meeting. For longer term tracking, half of the programs describe how they help students create LinkedIn accounts. This professional online resource allows former participants to update their information when they earn degrees, enter graduate programs, and embark upon careers. Some programs contact students by email or phone every year despite ever-changing email addresses and phone numbers because it allows them to interact their former participants on a personal level on a regular basis.

13 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Conclusion Since 1987, over 180 different institutions have hosted REU Sites funded by the NSF Chemistry Division. This book documents eleven successful and innovative Chemistry REU Sites, highlighting commonalities as well as unique aspects of the programs. Each chapter demonstrates how the programs described have managed to balance innovation with the elements necessary for running successful summer research experiences. Although the benefits of mentored research experiences is well documented, the demand for summer research opportunities is approximately ten times the number of funded opportunities. The students, and the scientific endeavor as a whole, would benefit greatly if more research opportunities were available for students. The editors hope that the information in this book will encourage others to develop summer research programs and to submit proposals for REU program support.

Acknowledgments We thank all of the chapter authors for sharing information about their programs so that everyone can benefit from their experience. We acknowledge funding from NSF grants 1156560, 1460829.

References 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

Kuh, G. D. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter; AAC&U: Washington, DC, 2008 [cited 2250 times according to Google Scholar on 3/1/2018]. Laursen, S.; Hunter, A.-B.; Seymour, E.; Thiry, H.; Melton, G. Undergraduate Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2010. Chemistry Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program Solicitation NSF 13-542; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm (accessed 02/17/2018). Kinkead, J. What’s in a name? A brief history of undergraduate research. CUR Quarterly 2012, 33, 20–29. 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. Science Education 2003, 88, 493–534 [cited 934 times according to Google Scholar on 3/1/2018]. Russell, S. H.; Hancock, M. P.; McCullough, J. Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science 2007, 316, 548–549 [cited 762 times according to Google Scholar on 3/1/2018]. Lopatto, D. Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE - Life Science Education 2007, 6, 297–306 [cited 503 times according to Google Scholar on 3/1/2018]. 14 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24.

Lopatto, D. Science in Solution: The Impact of Undergraduate Research on Students Learning; Research Corporation for Science Advancement: Tucson, AZ, 2009. Beninson, L. A.; Koski, J.; Villa, E.; Faram, R.; O’Connor, S. E. Evaluation of the research experiences for undergraduates (REU) sites program. CUR Quarterly 2011, 32, 43–48. REU Sites: Chemistry; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC. https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/list_result.jsp?unitid=5048 (accessed 02/17/2018). Chemistry REU Leadership Group Website. https://chemnsfreu.com (accessed 02/17/2018). Science and Engineering Degrees, By Race/Ethnicity of Recipients: 2002–12 Detailed Statistical Tables; NSF 15-321; May 2015; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/ nsf15321/ (accessed 02/17/2018). U.S. Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/ quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216 (accessed 02/17/2018). U.S. Department of Education List of HBCUs, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Washington DC. https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/files/2014/09/HBCU-Directory.pdf (accessed 02/17/2018). Hispanic Association of Colleges & Universities. https://www.hacu.net/assnfe/CompanyDirectory.asp?style=2& company_type=1,5&search_type=0 (accessed 02/17/2018). American Indian Higher Education Consortium. http://www.aihec.org/whowe-serve/TCUroster-profiles.htm (accessed 02/17/2018). Hakim, T. Soft Assessment of undergraduate research: reactions and student perceptions. CUR Quarterly 1998, 18, 189–192. Shellito, C.; Shea, K.; Weissmann, G.; Mueller-Solger, A.; Davis, W. Successful mentoring of undergraduate researchers: Tips for creating positive student research experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching 2001, 30, 460–465. Gafney, L. The role of the research mentor/teacher: student and faculty views. Journal of College Science Teaching 2005, 34, 52–57. Branchaw, J., Greenberg, A., Yoon, T. Chemistry Research Mentor Training Seminar, 2011. http://www.cimerprojec.org (accessed 02/01/2018). Pfund, C., Branchaw, J., Handelsman, J. Entering Mentoring; W.H. Freeman & Company: New York, 2014. Byars-Winston, A.; Branchaw, J.; Pfund, C.; Leverett, P.; Newton, J. Culturally diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education 2016, 37, 2533–2554. American Chemical Society. Safety in the Chemistry Enterprise Public Policy Statement, 2016−2019. American Chemical Society. Chemical and Laboratory Safety Website. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/chemical-safety.html (accessed 02/17/2018). 15 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

25. Online Ethics Center. http://www.onlineethics.org/ (accessed 02/17/2018). 26. Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. Responsible Conduct of Research Statement. https://about.citiprogram.org/en/course/responsibleconduct-of-research-basic/ (accessed 02/17/2018). 27. Evaluation Tools for Undergraduate Research. Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) Website; University of Colorado: Boulder, CO. http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/undergradtools.html (accessed 02/17/2018). 28. Lopatto, D. Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings. Cell Biology Education 2004, 3, 270–277.

16 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.