In the Classroom
Teaching Research: A Curriculum Model That Works Nancy E. Carpenter* and Ted M. Pappenfus Division of Science and Mathematics, University of Minnesota, Morris, Morris, MN 56267; *
[email protected] I say research and teaching are, quite literally, inseparable. And they are symbiotic. Roald Hoffmann, 1996 George C. Pimentel Award Address (1)
In the late 1990s several themes were becoming increasingly evident with regard to curriculum development in chemistry. First, the trend toward interdisciplinarity—most apparent in the fading boundary between biology and chemistry (2)—suggested that traditional course boundaries in chemistry were becoming more porous. Second, the value of undergraduate research continued to be recognized (3) and is now well established, as noted in the final report of the NSF-supported 2003 Undergraduate Research Summit: “research activities at predominantly undergraduate institutions benefit the discipline, the student and faculty participants, and the institution” (4). Third, collaborative skills were acknowledged as key in enhancing learning and preparing students for productive careers beyond college (5). As a result, at the University of Minnesota, Morris (UMM), a small, public, undergraduate liberal arts institution where faculty are deeply committed to both scholarly research and undergraduate teaching, these themes were combined in the creation of a new laboratory course, Introduction to Research (ItR). The course has evolved since its introduction in academic year 1999–2000 into a productive and successful “research pipeline”. This paper presents the key features and an assessment of the course (6). In 1999, a legislatively mandated switch from a quarter system to semesters provided the impetus for curriculum reform at UMM. Although the Morris campus is relatively young, the curriculum up to this point was traditional and compartmentalized into the standard four areas of inorganic, organic, analytical, and physical chemistry. However, in the general and organic chemistry laboratory courses, the success of student-run, research-like projects (a “do-it-yourself ” lab in general chemistry, and the “pet molecule” project in the third quarter of organic
List 1. Course Objectives •
Learn how to find, assess, and interpret information in the chemical literature (online and offline)
•
Develop laboratory techniques via advanced, research-like experiments
•
Learn how to use modern instrumentation (FT–IR, FT–NMR, GC–MS, UV–vis) in the solution of chemical problems
•
Utilize computation to solve chemical problems
•
Hone scientific communication skills in several forms: Prepare a research proposal; Keep a laboratory notebook; Present oral progress reports; Prepare a poster presentation of a research project; Prepare a formal final report on a research project
•
Develop a research project, and then carry out that research in a small group with guidance from one or more of the professors assisting in the course
940
chemistry lab) provided strong motivation to incorporate a similar, student-directed, independent research option in the switch to semesters. Funding from the NSF-CCLI program1 was obtained to support a major overhaul of the chemistry curriculum with a more interdisciplinary approach, and with the ItR course as a centerpiece. Description of the Course ItR is a two-credit laboratory course required of all chemistry and biochemistry majors with several specific objectives as shown in List 1. Students are strongly encouraged to take ItR in the spring semester of their second year unless extenuating circumstances prevent this. ItR meets twice per week in two, three-hour lab sessions and is team-taught by two faculty coordinators (NEC and TMP) who are responsible for organization and oversight. During the first half of the course, four experiments are assigned. These experiments are purposefully interdisciplinary and designed to introduce advanced techniques and instrumentation (i.e., beyond the first semester of introductory organic chemistry lab) in the context of open-ended problems similar to the many inquiry-based experiments that have been published in this Journal. In addition to teaching advanced techniques and emulating the research experience, these initial experiments provide the opportunity for review of standard lab techniques and build confidence while exposing the students to collaborative work as they are assigned to research groups based on their choice of faculty mentor. The student’s choice of research group is made on the basis of a brief presentation of a current research project by each of six chemistry faculty members. Research group assignments are made by the ItR coordinators by taking into account not only the student’s choice but also group size and makeup. Given that the total enrollment for the course is typically eight to ten students in each of two sections, each faculty member works with one or two groups of two to three students each. Once the research groups have been created (at the end of the first week of the semester), the students in each group work together with their research advisor to develop their research proposal.2 This work takes place concurrently with the introductory experiments during the first half of the semester and provides an ideal entry to the topic of searching the chemical literature. Thus offline and online literature searching techniques are taught both in the context of searching for background information in the development of the research proposal, and also in providing supporting information for the four initial experiments. Additional instruction in scientific writing takes place during the first half of the course as students write up the initial experiments in a variety of formats. The second half of the course is exclusively focused on carrying out research as described in the proposal written by the group in the first part of the semester. It is important to note that this is faculty-guided original scholarship in the chemical sciences (authentic science practice) and not a “research-like” experience. Each student group meets regularly with their fac-
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 86 No. 8 August 2009 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
In the Classroom
ulty research advisor for ongoing support and direction, but the actual lab work is carried out during the regularly scheduled lab time. Weekly “group meetings” are also held at the beginning of each lab session for informal oral presentation of research results, thereby introducing all ItR students to the breadth of research in the chemical sciences. The research portion of the course wraps up with a poster session and completion of a formal written report based on the ACS-recommended guidelines for preparing a research report (7). The research projects from spring 2008 are shown in List 2. The impact of the ItR research experience on both students and their faculty mentors has been strong and positive. Research generated in the ItR course has resulted in publications in highquality, peer-reviewed journals (8) and many presentations by both students and research mentors at national meetings. Perhaps more significantly, the fact that this research experience is built into the regular curriculum has led to the continual development and refining of each faculty member’s research program. The value of the involvement of undergraduates in faculty research is embedded in the discipline and faculty cohesiveness and camaraderie have been enhanced as a result. Other Approaches Numerous other models have been proposed to address the objective of involving undergraduates in a curricular-based approach to research (9). Some provide “research-like” experience (10) or, for example, involve undergraduates in a carefully partitioned, single faculty research project as part of a course (11). In other models (and where feasible), undergraduates have been given the opportunity to participate in research at a nearby center (12) or have been paired with a graduate student working on a research project (13). Still other examples have focused strictly on organic (14) or inorganic chemistry (15). A recent report describes the introduction of a research curriculum into the general chemistry curriculum (16). However, many are optional experiences, not a required part of the curriculum. What makes the Introduction to Research course at UMM different is a result, in part, of both our location and our mission. UMM is a strictly undergraduate institution with a relatively small student population (approximately 15 chemistry–biochemistry majors per year). As a result, we are able to require ItR of all second-
List 2. Research Project Topics, Spring 2008 •
Applications of the valency interaction formula (VIF) to carbene insertion reactions
•
Hydrogen bonding in methanol analyzed through 1H FT–NMR
•
Fabrication and classification of inorganic–organic hybrids and their components
•
Enantioselectivity of yeast alcohol dehydrogenase in the reduction of ketone derivatives
•
Reactivity of β-ketoacylferrocene
•
Theoretical analysis of the stability of carboxylic acid dimers
year chemistry and biochemistry majors at UMM as part of the regular curriculum. This course replaces the second semester of organic chemistry lab with an interdisciplinary emphasis: both the initial experiments and the research carried out by the students in ItR are far-ranging and continually evolving, from theoretical investigations of the nature of chemical bonding to synthesis of conjugated organic materials for electronics applications. Elements of analytical, organic, biochemical, inorganic, and physical chemistry infuse the course, and our majors are exposed to a wide breadth of research options and approaches in chemistry. Initial Experiments In developing this second-year-level course our first concern was for the students who will have had only three semesters of college chemistry laboratory before entering ItR. Thus the course was purposefully designed so that the four initial experiments were more structured and stepwise while still being open-ended and requiring development of the critical thinking skills necessary for authentic contribution to the research process. The schedule and brief descriptions of these experiments are given in Table 1. The first two experiments provide an element of the unknown while teaching some vitally important skills: flash column chromatography, GC–MS and FT–NMR. These serve as a transition to the more extensive final two experiments:
Table 1. Initial Experiments and Scheduling Week
Activities
Additional Student Tasks
1
Presentation of research projects
Research choices made; Groups assigned
2
Experiment 1: Separation of a pair of unknowns (TLC, column chromatography, FT–IR, melting point); Instruction on the chemical literature
Continuing work on: Research proposal; Searching the literature
3–4
Experiment 2: Electrophilic addition to an unknown alkene (Computational chemistry, GC–MS, FT–NMR)
4–5
Experiment 3: Synthesis and investigation of a conducting polymer (Syringe techniques, synthesis of a nickel catalyst, Grignard metathesis, computational chemistry, GC–MS, solid state and solution UV–vis, FT–NMR); Instruction on scientific communication
6
Experiment 4: The mystery reaction
7–13
Research
14
Poster session
15
Submit research notebook and final project report
Continuing work on: Progress reports (oral and written); Initial drafts of final report
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 86 No. 8 August 2009 • Journal of Chemical Education
941
In the Classroom
(i) regiochemistry of poly(3-hexylthiophene), and synthesis and investigation of a conducting polymer; and (ii) the mystery reaction. The poly(3-hexylthiophene) experiment is a three-labperiod collaborative project that incorporates advanced synthesis techniques (working under a nitrogen atmosphere, using syringes) with an in-depth look at how spectroscopy can be used to elucidate regiochemistry of a conducting polymer. Theoretical methods (DFT) are used to deepen the students’ understanding and complement experimentally obtained spectroscopic data in interpreting the electronic properties of the regioisomers of poly(3-hexylthiophene).3 The Mystery Reaction has been a part of the second-yearlevel chemistry lab at UMM since the early 1990s (17). In this experiment, the student is artificially put into the typical scenario of the research chemist, albeit under controlled circumstances. Starting materials (whose identities are known) are combined following a clear and specific procedure, but with the expected product left unspecified. As a result, the student produces a true mystery compound. The mystery reaction is carefully chosen so that the procedure is straightforward and provides an easily recrystallizable solid within one lab period. The real effort is devoted to data collection and identification of the mystery product. Previous choices for mystery reactions include rearrangements (e.g., the Ritter reaction, or the Baeyer– Villiger reaction) or unexpected variations on condensation reactions (18). It is beneficial to form a product that has somewhat complex 1H NMR coupling to allow the introduction of advanced NMR analysis. Scientific Communication Throughout the semester students are being instructed in the basics of both written and oral scientific communication. Specific goals include:
• Making the transition from keeping a good student lab notebook to keeping a good research lab notebook
• Writing a variety of scientific reports
• Presenting scientific information orally in both informal (weekly “group-meeting” format) and formal (end-ofsemester poster session) settings
Students receive guidelines to follow with regard to writing up a chemistry lab experiment in the organic chemistry laboratory I course, a format that is rigorously adhered to in the first part of the ItR course during the initial experiments. Nonetheless, just as it is difficult to make the leap from a lab manual “recipe” to the more unstructured work of a research project, the transition to writing a research notebook is daunting. General information, suggestions, and recommended resources are given in the lab manual with specific requirements provided and monitored by the research mentor as the research work progresses. The importance of the research notebook is reflected in the grading, as it accounts for 35% of the final grade. It is important to ensure that students are capable of communicating their scientific work in formats appropriate for the industrial or the academic setting. Hence, early in the semester we have required each student to write up his or her results in the form of a memo to a fictional lab supervisor, thus requiring an unusual commitment to focus on salient information. Another challenge presented to the students is to write a truly concise progress report midway through the research portion of the 942
course. More formal scientific writing is required in both the initial research proposal and the final research report. A critical component of both the research proposal and the final report is extensive revision and feedback as the works evolve. Several preliminary drafts are required and, in the case of the final report, peer review is required. In addition, the students are instructed in the use of Chemdraw chemical drawing software and required to use it on several occasions throughout the course. In addition to the heavy emphasis on written communication, students are given the opportunity to practice presenting their results in front of their peers. A schedule is set up so that each research group presents their results once per week. Given that there are two–three students in each research group and that the presentations are made by individual group members, each student has the opportunity to give a five-minute “chalk talk” two or three times over the duration of the research portion of the course. Just as in graduate school, these talks are brief and informal with an opportunity for questions and discussion. During the 14th week of the semester a poster session is held in which each group must prepare and present a poster of their results following the format detailed in the ACS Style Guide (19). While this poster session was initially limited to the chemistry discipline it has since evolved to include students in the biology discipline with the result that, in the spring of 2008, 27 posters were on display. Chemical Information Resources Students entering the ItR course are familiar with basic aspects of the chemical literature and should be able to find infrared spectral data, physical properties, and safety information. In the ItR course we continue instruction in chemical information resources by adding a basic introduction to searching:
• For mass and NMR spectral data
• For various methods (analytical, biochemical, synthetic)
• By citation
• The patent literature
• For CAS registry number (and using the registry number in subsequent searches)
• The primary literature (including searching for specific types of articles)
While valiant efforts are made to inculcate in students the virtues of offline information sources, virtually all students rely on online sources. Hence, one future objective will be geared more toward helping students determine whether the information they can so readily find on the Internet is actually reliable. Students are taught how to make use of SciFinder Scholar as the primary reliable online search tool. Instruction in the area of wise use of chemical information is accessed in several ways. First, to help students learn how to approach the primary literature, we assign a short, current literature article and have them make use of other resources to decipher the information contained within in a “guided tour” of the article. For example, if reference to a generic type of structure (e.g., “pyrroles”) is made, the students must find an offline tertiary source that shows this structure and cite the source accordingly. Several questions in the assignment are centered on the experimental section, including the supplemental information. Additionally, the students use this article to lead
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 86 No. 8 August 2009 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
In the Classroom
them back to previous references by the main author and to cite other related works. A central integration of the literature is through the students’ preparation as they write the research proposal. Again, instruction is provided in a stepwise, guided fashion, requiring the students to first provide keywords for a background search of the primary literature for manuscripts useful to their research. After instruction on the use of SciFinder Scholar and discussion and vetting of the keywords with the research advisor, the students are turned loose to search for relevant background information in the primary literature. Collaboration In the ACS Presidential Symposium “Envisioning Undergraduate Chemistry Education in 2015”, Marye Anne Fox commented on the importance of chemists’ need to collaborate in teams (20). Furthermore, collaborative learning enhances critical thinking and problem-solving skills (5). Therefore an essential component of the ItR course is to encourage development of those interpersonal skills that allow students to work productively together. Students are placed into groups according to their choice of research project, in general receiving their first or second choice of research project. Careful attention is paid to the makeup of the group in terms of skill sets and personalities. Group sizes of two or three are optimal. Because a significant portion of the coursework is carried out in this group, grading peer effort can be a challenge. To lend weight to the importance of working well together, each ItR student is required to submit an anonymous “peer teamwork evaluation” at the end of the semester that factors into the grade at 5%. While dysfunction within a group has occasionally arisen, in general the aspect of working together on a research project has been viewed positively, as summarized by this ItR alumnus’ comment: One of the most important things I got from this class was to be able to work in a team with people regardless of differences you have with them.
Evaluation of the Course The spring semester of 2008 was the ninth offering of the course. Initial feedback was mainly positive, but one early ItR alumnus summed it up as follows: “I would liken the class to an immunization: it hurts like hell when you’re in it, but in the long run it pays off. It really does.” Several recurring themes helped us modify subsequent offerings. The course schedule was modified so that the work was more evenly distributed across the semester and standards were developed to ensure more consistent effort among groups. An important lesson learned early in the course’s evolution was the importance of conveying to the students that this is an introduction to research and that, while they may make valuable inroads on their research project, they may not complete it. It has proven to be very important to give the students repeated encouragement as they struggle with the realities of research: reactions that don’t work, results that don’t make sense, and so on. This is a message best delivered by the peer mentors who are the teaching assistants for the course. Subsequent assessment of the course has been obtained through (i) required student evaluation of teaching forms, ad-
ministered at the end of every semester, (ii) surveys administered to alumni, and (iii) examination of data monitoring the involvement of our chemistry and biochemistry majors in subsequent research experiences. The student evaluation of teaching data allow comparison of the “amount learned” in the ItR course to other chemistry lab courses at UMM. As can be seen by examination of Table 2, the self-reported assessment of learning in the ItR course is significantly higher than either lower-level (general chemistry II and organic chemistry I) lab courses or the upper-level physical chemistry lab course. Chemistry and biochemistry graduates from 2004–2006 were surveyed as well, with a 26% response rate. These alumni were asked to rate the course with respect to the learning objectives shown in List 1. The quantitative results are shown in Figure 1. With the exception of instruction in the use of modern instrumentation, the responses were all equal to or greater than 4, with 5 being the highest possible rating. Thus, self-reported data shows that the learning objectives are being successfully met in the ItR course.
Table 2. Comparison of Students’ Self-Reported Learning Assessmenta Average Scores by Courseb Year
GC
IIc
OC Ic
ItR
P-Chem d
2000
4.2
5.5
6.0
2001
4.9
5.4
5.9
d
2002
5.0
5.6
6.2
d
2003
d
5.3
6.1
d
2004
d
5.8
6.5
d
2005
4.8
5.5
6.0
4.7
2006
d
5.8
6.6
5.5
2007
5.2
5.8
6.4
4.3
Average
4.8
5.6
6.2
4.8
aQuestion
considered was “How much did you learn in this course?” is 1–7, with 1 = “almost nothing” and 7 = “exceptional amount” cGC II is general chemistry II; OC I is organic chemistry I dData not available for this question in this year’s course offering bScale
How well did this course help you with... collaboration preparation for research scientific communication instrumentation laboratory technique information searching 1 “not at all”
2
3
4
Response
5 “very well”
Figure 1. Distribution of responses to the learning objectives survey of ItR course alumni.
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 86 No. 8 August 2009 • Journal of Chemical Education
943
In the Classroom
The written comments from the alumni survey confirm the notion that the ItR course prepared them well for future research: It really prepared me for the research that I have been doing outside of the field of chemistry. It was nice to have a semi-intensive course geared toward a final goal. Going through the process of conducting research and then presenting it in a clear concise manner was an excellent step to begin a more serious scientific career. In terms of the general skill set (finding information, structuring time to work independently and in a group, experiment planning), ItR was quite helpful. I especially noticed in subsequent research endeavors that ItR taught me how to problem solve and plan experiments as a group… In general, I thought ItR did a great job of transitioning me from professor-guided, undergraduate labs to the experience of working in a graduate school lab. The literature search, structure of projects, and self-directed nature of ItR has been very helpful for general laboratory and research skills, and combined with the rest of the UMM Chemistry program, I have found that the habits I formed with respect to lab technique, notebook procedures, and the overall approach to take with a research project are very good habits to have acquired so early. I expect to use these skills for the rest of my life, no matter what field I am working in.
The self-reported data clearly support the success of the ItR class in enhancing undergraduate chemistry and biochemistry students’ preparation for research. But is it a “research pipeline”? Figure 2 presents data showing the total enrollment of students in the course versus the number who go on to graduate school
total (count)
fraction of total in grad school (%)
fraction of total in post-ItR research (%)
50
Enrollment
40
30
20
10
0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year Figure 2. ItR enrollments and research trends. “Total” refers to total enrollment in two sections of ItR. “Grad school” refers to the percentage of the same cohort that continue into graduate school in a chemistry or chemistry-related field upon graduation. “Research experience post-ItR” refers to the percentage of the same cohort that carried out undergraduate research at any time after taking the ItR course, but prior to graduation.
944
and who have a subsequent (post-ItR) research experience. While reliable background data are not available, a significant percentage (≈50%) of students typically go on to continue research of some type after ItR. These research experiences in chemistry or a chemistry-related field are both internal to UMM and external, and include both summer and academic-year research. Fortuitously, there have been many instances where the ItR student decides to continue research with his or her ItR research mentor, leading to a two-year (and longer) tenure on a single research project as an undergraduate, with significant progress being made as a result. The impact of ItR on a student’s decision to go to graduate school is not clear; it is worth noting that the ItR experience can both positively and negatively influence a student with respect to his or her decision to continue to do research or pursue graduate studies. In other words, a student may decide that a research career is not a good match—valuable experience regardless, and useful to find out early in one’s undergraduate career. Summary and Conclusions Over the almost ten years that the ItR course has been in existence the course has proven to be an excellent preparation for students and a good “pipeline” for those who wish to continue research beyond the regular requirements. Not only do the students report that they are well prepared in the various areas relevant to research work, they also note additional benefits after having completed the course. Many note that they gained valuable experience in learning how to work well on a collaborative research team. The course brings together the chemistry and biochemistry students early in their undergraduate career and forges positive attitudes about helping each other learn. In addition, several cite the confidence-boosting aspect of the course. Students are not the only ones who profit from the ItR course—faculty benefit as well. Participation in the course, although voluntary, is expected of all chemistry faculty members and is taken into account in their workload.4 Most importantly, participation in ItR keeps each faculty member—probationary or tenured—“on track” with regard to his or her scholarly activity. A steady supply of well-prepared undergraduate research students is available and productivity is enhanced. The worth of undergraduate research has been enhanced and embraced by chemistry and biochemistry students and faculty alike as a result of this course. The challenges associated with the course are typical of those faced by anyone who teaches at a small liberal arts college: it is a workload-intensive course, the success of which is directly related to the amount of time and effort the faculty research mentor devotes to the project team. However, it is an introduction to research: the students are not expected to completely master all of the objectives of the course, nor are the faculty expected to present a publishable manuscript, at the end of the semester. The key is that the students have been introduced to research and are well prepared at the end of the course to continue their research journeys. Other challenges include concerns about consistency in grading, and effort put toward the project, which are challenges in any team-taught course. The fact that the course has succeeded is primarily a result of good communication among the faculty members involved, who must work closely together to ensure fairness.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 86 No. 8 August 2009 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
In the Classroom
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the chemistry discipline faculty for their continuing support of this course, and Jim Olson for his enduring encouragement and support. We are grateful to the NSF CCLI program for funds to support this curriculum development and to the ItR alumni for providing candid feedback about the course. Notes 1. DUE-9950715 2. The format for the research proposal and other curricular materials are available in the supplemental materials. 3. A detailed manuscript on this experiment is in preparation for publication to this Journal, and development of this experiment was supported through NSF funding (CCLI DUE-0535763). 4. Instructional workload credit for ItR research mentors is currently acknowledged informally by the administration. In order to formalize workload credit, future offerings of the course have specific sections for all faculty members, so that each is recorded individual workload credit.
9. 10.
11. 12. 13.
14. 15.
Literature Cited
16.
1. Hoffmann, R. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, A202–A209. 2. Breslow, R. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 705–718. 3. The value of undergraduate research was noted in this Journal as early as 1932: Smith, G. B. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1932, 9, 285–290. 4. Enhancing Research in the Chemical Sciences at Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions. A Report from the Undergraduate Research Summit; Undergraduate Research Summit Home Page. http://abacus.bates.edu/acad/depts/chemistry/twenzel/summit. html (accessed Apr 2009). See also: Karukstis, K. K; Wenzel, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 468–469. 5. See, for example: Kirk, L. L.; Hanne, L. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 839–841; Browne, L. M.; Blackburn, E. V. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1104–1107; Gokhale, A. A. J. Tech. Educ. 1995, 7, 22–30. 6. Preliminary material in this manuscript was presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (Orlando, April 2002) and published: Carpenter, N. E. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly 2004, 24, 179. 7. Guidelines for Preparing a Research Report. American Chemical Society Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs page. http://portal.acs.org:80/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_ pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1584&use_ sec=false&sec_url_var=region1 (accessed Apr 2009). 8. See, for example: Lofgren, S. M.; Mahling, P. R.; Togeas, J. B. J. Phys. Chem. A 2005, 109, 5430–5437; Pappenfus, T. M.; Melby,
17.
18. 19.
20.
J. H.; Hansen, B. B.; Sumption, D. M.; Hubers, S. A.; Janzen, D. E.; Ewbank, P. C.; McGee, K. A.; Burand, M. W.; Mann, K. R. Org. Lett. 2007, 9, 3721–3724. 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. Reinvigorating the Undergraduate Experience: Successful Models Supported by NSF’s AIRE/RAIRE Program, Kauffman, L., Stocks, J., Eds.; Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2004. Lindsay, H. A.; McIntosh, M. C. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1174–1175. Kharas, G. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 829–831. Baum, M. M.; Krider, E. S.; Moss, J. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1784–1787. Hollenbeck, J. J.; Wixson, E. N.; Geske, G. D.; Dodge, M. W.; Tseng, T. A.; Clauss, A. D.; Blackwell, H. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1835–1843; Henry, C. M. Getting a Head Start. In Chem. Eng. News 2005, (April 25), 39–40; Hutchison, A. R.; Atwood, D. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 125–126. Newton, T. A.; Tracy, H. J.; Prudenté, C. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1844–1849; Spector, T. I. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 146–148; Vallarino, L. M.; Polo, D. L.; Esperdy, K. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 228–231. Ford, J. R.; Prudenté, C.; Newton, T. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 929–933. Carpenter, N. E. Grey Matter in the Organic Lab: The Mystery Reaction as a Vehicle for Enhancing Thinking and Learning. Presented at the13th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education; Bucknell University, August 1994. Two examples can be found in this Journal: Clausen, T. P.; Johnson, B.; Wood, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 266. Wachter-Jurcsak, N.; Reddin, K. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1264–1265. Schowen, K. B. Communicating in Other Formats: Posters, Letters to the Editor, and Press Releases. In The ACS Style Guide, 2nd ed.; Dodd, J., Ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997; pp 27–39. Polik, W. F. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 17–18.
Supporting JCE Online Material
http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2009/Aug/abs940.html Abstract and keywords Full text (PDF) Links to cited URLs and JCE articles Supplement Course syllabus and detailed schedule
Guidelines for the research proposal, mystery reaction report, project report, and poster presentation
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 86 No. 8 August 2009 • Journal of Chemical Education
945
