Downloaded via UNIV OF SYDNEY on July 15, 2018 at 00:11:30 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Chapter 5
The TIM Consortium: A Dispersed REU Site at Primarily Undergraduate Institutes KC Russell*,1 and Shannon M. Biros2 1Department
of Chemistry, Northern Kentucky University, Nunn Drive SC204, Highland Heights, Kentucky 41099-1905, United States 2Department of Chemistry, Grand Valley State University, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, Michigan 49401, United States *E-mail:
[email protected].
The Theoretically Interesting Molecules (TIM) Consortium is a unique REU program where the “site” is decentralized rather than being at a single host school. This dispersed model was the first of its kind to be funded by the chemistry division of the NSF. The lack of a single site is compensated for by two supergroup meetings where students, faculty and an external mentor from a large research institute gather to discuss the chemistry within the consortium and attend a national meeting. The program currently unites faculty from five primarily undergraduate institutes whose research interests broadly overlap. Each faculty member accepts one internal student and hosts an external student targeted from an underrepresented group and that would normally not have access to a significant research experience. Since its inception in 2002 the consortium has directly involved more than 125 students.
© 2018 American Chemical Society Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
The Rationale Compared to the rest of the world, the United States is unique in the prevalence of liberal arts and other primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) as places of higher collegiate education. PUIs have long focused on establishing an intimate learning environment created by small class sizes in which students have extensive contact with the faculty individually or in small group settings. In the sciences, this focus on teaching is brought into the independent research laboratories of individual faculty. Devoid of a graduate student population, PUI science faculty construct research programs in which they work directly with their undergraduate research students in the laboratory on a daily basis. Undergraduate students at PUIs are the lead researchers on their scientific projects, requiring the faculty members to be adept at project selection, focus, and mentoring in order to navigate the pursuit of cutting edge science as the undergraduate researchers’ scientific and intellectual skills mature. Indeed, it is easily argued that highly research active PUI faculty, with track records of obtaining external research funding and publishing in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, are ideal candidates to supervise immersive and educationally stimulating REU summer programs. However, the size of most chemistry departments at primarily undergraduate institutions and the necessary diversity of disciplinary expertise means that the “well-defined common focus that enables a cohort experience” (1) is harder to develop at a single-site PUI REU program, let alone a “site” that would span multiple schools. But that is exactly what we set out to do.
Origins The inspiration for the Theoretically Intersting Molecules (TIM) Consortium came when David Reingold (Juniata College) saw a presentation from the Keck Geology Consortium at a Council of Undergraduate Research (CUR) meeting. The Keck Geology Consortium began in 1987 and since has provided research opportunities to more than 1500 undergraduate students from 140 different schools (2). Still in existence, the Keck Geology Consortium continues to provide opportunities for faculty and students from different PUIs to get together to study common geological interests (3). Of course, studying geologic problems often requires participants to travel to where the geology is. For chemists who rely on synthesis, chemical reactions work the same way in one lab as they would in any other lab. There is no inherent need to travel. The question was how to justify bringing organic chemistry students and faculty from different PUIs together, create a valuable program for all participants, and convince the NSF proposal reviewers that it was a suitable training experience. After some brainstorming with Nancy Mills (Trinity University) a framework was assembled. The initial idea was to involve five or six PUIs, connected, not geographically or institutionally, but instead by common educational goals and common research interests in “Theoretically Interesting Molecules.” The TIM Consortium was born. Each participating PUI would host two REU students, one internal and one external, at their home institute. With only one external student 60 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
at each school the internal student would serve as an important bridge to help integrate the external student with the host research group. In its initial form, the entire group was to get together three times during the summer for “supergroup” meetings. One of the meetings would be in concert with a national meeting, and the other two meetings would be held at different host schools. To augment the diversity of science, connect the group directly to graduate programs, and to create additional networking possibilities for both students and faculty, a faculty “mentor” from a large research (R1) university was to join the group and be an integral part of each meeting. At the first meeting each PUI faculty member would give a brief introduction to the REU student projects in their lab. The second meeting would involve informal student progress reports. The third meeting would feature a one day TIM Consortium symposium where students would make formal presentations of their summer activities. At this meeting the R1 mentor would play the role of a keynote speaker presenting on his or her own research. While the reviewers believed the idea had merit, criticisms from the first submission centered around more clear program assessment, recruiting strategies, insufficient support from host schools (offering summer housing to all external student participants), lack of social activities for the student participants, and the fact that it was not a site in the traditional sense. With the exception of the “site” all of these issues were easily addressed. The program assessment included surveys to gather student feedback. A recruiting plan was developed targeting schools with large minority populations using PUI faculty contacts. Each host school agreed to provide summer housing for the external, and sometime internal, student. The case for social activities was made by reflecting upon the nature of the faculty and PUIs involved. Each faculty member had a robust research program with multiple undergraduate researchers prior to participating in the consortium, and at the same time was part of a department with multiple social activities spanning all undergraduate research participants. Although the proposal was not able to directly address the fact that the program was not at a single site, the program was funded and in 2002 became the first “Dispersed REU Site” funded by the Chemistry Division of the NSF (4).
The TIM Consortium Our “Site” The TIM Consortium REU is unique in chemistry, as it is not located at a single site, but distributed across the country. Table 1 lists our past and current locations. Our Meetings At the heart of the current REU program are the TIM Consortium research meetings: an introductory meeting near the start of the summer and the TIM Consortium Symposium at its conclusion. These meetings provide the “glue” that 61 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
unifies the Consortium and enhances the personal and professional development of the REU students.
Table 1. TIM Consortium locations, past and present School
City
Years active
Juniata College
Huntingdon, PA
2002-2008
Trinity University
San Antonio, TX
2002-2014
St. Michael’s College
Colchester, VT
2002-2004
Trinity College
Hartford, CT
2002-2008
Macalester College
St. Paul, MN
2002-2014
Northern Kentucky University
Highland Heights, KY
2002-present
Colby College
Waterville, ME
2011-present
University of San Diego
San Diego, CA
2011-present
Grand Valley State University
Allendale, MI
2011-present
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA
2016-present
The Introductory Meeting As proposed, three meetings per summer were planned, and that was the case in 2002, the initial year of grant funding. The very first TIM meeting was hosted by Dave Reingold at Juniata College. At this meeting each PUI faculty member presented an overview of his or her research. For some of the participating faculty this was a rare opportunity to have deep, insightful conversations with other like-minded faculty about their research. Without exception, the faculty found this extremely beneficial. The student interactions with faculty and other students were also very positive. To help develop the student cohort, housing was arranged so that, whenever possible, students from different research groups roomed together. Unfortunately, none of the R1 mentors that had agreed to work with us were availale for the first meeting. The 2002 mid-summer meeting was held in concert with the Reaction Mechanisms Conference (RMC) at The Ohio State University. Our original plan assumed that the national meetings would have afternoons off, and we would sandwich our own meetings around the morning and evening sessions of the national meeting. Unfortunately, the RMC was scheduled solidly from morning to night. Thus, we arranged to come a day early and have our meeting before the official events began. We found this approach worked well in that our students were finished with TIM business when the conference started and they could concentrate on the conference without have their own presentations looming over them. Our students enjoyed the conference very much, and were a 62 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
well noticed presence: since several of us brought extra students with us, there were a total of 24 people there from the TIM Consortium; we represented more than 10% of the entire conference. The presence of the Consortium at national meetings over the years has had a significant impact that will be discussed later. Scientifically and socially this meeting was a bit of a challenge for the undergraduate participants. While the students generally enjoyed the meeting there were few other undergraduate students in attendance other than our own group. Also, the level of the presentations was often beyond the students’ knowledge base. In the second year of the funding cycle it was decided to go from three meetings per summer to two. The major reason for this was the national meeting we had selected was the National Organic Symposium (NOS). In 2003 the NOS was held in early June instead of its normal time in late June. We saw little profit in meeting the first week of June for our “first” meeting, followed by a “middle” meeting a week later. Accordingly, we decided to combine the two, and use the NOS as a site for both the introductory talks and progress reports. This schedule had both advantages and disadvantages. The overall TIM meeting was longer because both faculty introductions and progress reports were included. On the other hand, the combined first and second meeting caused considerably less disruption of the research in the lab, and arguably more progress was made on the actual projects. The success of the two-meeting schedule in the second year made it the faculty preference for every year since. In year three, this also aligned well with the meeting that we decided to attend, the Sixth International Symposium on Functional Pi Systems (Fπ6), which was again in early June. This summer also marked the first time that our R1 mentor was able to join us at both the introductory and end-of-summer meetings. In more recent years, our established pattern is to hold this first TIM Consortium meeting in conjunction with a national conference (typically the NOS or RMC) and with our R1 mentor in attendance. It is the first opportunity for the Consortium members and R1 mentor to meet, learn about the projects of other Consortium members, and have an opportunity to discuss initial research problems. The structure of this initial meeting has been adapted significantly since the inception of the program to make it highly interactive between students from different institutions. In addition to icebreaker activities to begin the meeting, we have adopted a breakout-session format where students brainstorm answers to chemistry questions related to each TIM faculty members’ research projects prior to each presentation. The students work in small groups with each member from a different school. The faculty, including the R1 mentor, move between groups interacting with the students and helping guide their discussions when necessary. The TIM Consortium faculty then present short overviews of their research programs, focusing on the chemistry that will be undertaken by their REU students. The presentations are specifically targeted to the undergraduate audience, and provide all the REU participants with background to have informed conversations about the various student research projects. There is then the opportunity for the collective faculty, including the R1 mentor, to offer advice regarding troubleshooting and new avenues for exploration, and this allows 63 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
students to observe peer-to-peer scientific discourse at the faculty level. The meeting concludes with an interactive presentation by the R1 mentor on an professional develoment topic of her/his choice, such as admissions into graduate school, the differences between undergraduate and graduate research, scientific ethics, etc. We have found that this meeting structure serves as an excellent platform for our students to participate in an active science setting. It also prepares them for the national conference, which immediately follows and is attended by all REU program participants.
The End-of-Summer TIM Symposium The second TIM Consortium meeting is organized as a stand-alone research symposium at the end of the summer research season, combining research presentations by all students with a keynote lecture by the R1 mentor. This meeting is focused on student professional development through the preparation and execution of their oral research presentations, and ultimately is a time to reflect upon and recognize each student’s progress and summer maturation. Student preparation for this meeting is significant: each student spends substantial time crafting and practicing their presentation while being guided by their research mentor. For most of the REU participants, this is their first experience giving an oral science presentation. Each faculty mentor uses the presentations as a teaching tool to hone students’ understanding of the underlying science, while also building their public speaking skills. Finally, the last pieces of assessment data are collected at this meeting through both on-line surveys and interviews by an external evaluator. With the excpetion of integrating an ethics component into the meeting (see below), it has changed little from its original format. Scientific Ethics Training Beginning in 2016, the TIM Consortium began integrating an ethics curriculum into its program structure to expand upon and reinforce the online NSF Ethics Training Modules for Responsible Conduct of Research. Ideally, three separate components were envisioned to be included and reinforced throughout the summer. The first component would be at the first summer meeting, introducing students to carefully selected case studies. The second component would be at each home institute over the summer and the third component would take place at the end of summer meeting. Our effort to include ethics at the first meeting of 2016 was not successful. We found we did not have time needed to address this in an already full schedule. While we did have a modified ethics discussion at the end of summer meeting, we made significant modification for the summer of 2017 cohort. During the summer of 2017, each TIM faculty member used a common set of case studies to have an ethics discussion with their research group at some point over the summer. At the end-of-summer TIM Consortium meeting the students revisited the case studies in a round table discussion. Groups of two or three students from different schools discussed one of the case studies and presented 64 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
their analysis to the group. After expressing their opinions on the case study, discussion was opened up to everyone. Students and faculty alike find this a very effective approach and the Consortium will continue to use this model in the future. Our Mentors One of the key features of our program is the role played by the R1 faculty mentors. With the exception of the early meetings in the first two years of the Consortium, the R1 mentor has joined the group at every introductory and end of summer meeting. Table 2 shows a list of our R1 mentors and their affiliation. In choosing our mentors we look for leaders in applications based chemistry with a strong synthetic component. We obtain letters of participation from our mentors prior to submission of the proposal with a general understanding of the summer that they would be expected to participate. This is naturally one to three years ahead of when a particular mentor would actually be involved with the group. Because of commitments that cannot be anticipated, on occasion we do have to find replacement mentors. Although this is an inconvenice in planning we have always been able to find outstanding individuals to fill in. At the conclusion of their participation with the Consortium we ask for a letter of reflection on their experience to be used both as feedback and as support in future grant submissions.
Table 2. TIM Consortium R1 Mentors Year
Mentor
Affiliation
2002
Mike Haley
University of Oregon
2003
Larry Scott
Boston College
2004
Jay Seigel
University of Zurich
2006
John Baldwin
Syracuse University
2007
Rik Tykwinski
University of Alberta
2008
Tim Swager
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2012
Cassandra Fraser
University of Virginia
2013
Darren Johnson
University of Oregon
2014
Eric Anslyn
University of Texas, Austin
2016
Robert Bergman
University of California, Berkeley
2017
Craig Hawker
University of California, Santa Barbara
Logistics Program Coordinator The dispersed nature of the consortium requires that the program financially be run through of one of the PUI schools with the faculty participant at that school 65 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
serving as Program Coordinator. It is the responsibility of the Program Coordinator to organize the groups’ participation at a national meeting, take care of consortium finances, make arrangements with the R1 mentor and report to the NSF. Finances Currently the program is run through Northern Kentucky University. Since stipends and supply support are consistent over the three years of an award, those are easly handled by subcontracts. The four other PUIs originally receive a subcontract for two students and supplies. Because the current award includes a total of eleven students, five internal and six external, NKU starts with three students. This allows only one subcontract to be altered based on which school takes two external students. The school that takes the extra student is by mutual agreement among consortium faculty. With the exception of student stipends the most significant expenses for the consortium are those related to travel and registration at the national meeting. Since the amount each school would need to cover travel costs can change drastically from year to year, based on fluctuating transit costs and locations of meetings, it is not possible to include a well defined amount as part of a subcontract. Therefore, the entire travel budget for the consortium and conference registration is part of the NKU budget. As much as possible, travel costs are covered by reimbursement, while conference costs are taken care of by direct payment through the Program Director. The TIM Meeting at National Conferences One of the biggest challenges of running this consortium is arranging our TIM meetings in concert with national meetings. Unlike the end-of-summer meeting, the national meetings are not held on the campus of one of the participating PUI schools. Thus, there is no on-site coordinator for our group. In general we have been very lucky that most meeting organizers are very helpful and well-organized. Our TIM meeting is held either one day before the start of the national meeting (when they have early first day conference opening) or on the same day as the start of the national meeting (when there is an evening conference opening). This requires most, if not all, of our group to arrive the evening before our meeting. On occasion it has been possible to work directly with conference housing to get early access to the dormitories. However, contracts for dormitory space associated with the conferences often are signed six months or more in advance of the meeting, before meeting registration is even open. It can be very difficult to modify those contracts, even when working months ahead of the meeting. In cases where we are not able to get into the dormitories early we necessarily must book a hotel. That creates additional problems, not only because of the cost, but because we would like to stay as a group and need to secure transportation from the hotel to the site where we will have our TIM meeting. Since most of the TIM meetings are held on a university campus, the local arrangements contact is usually able to secure a room with appropriate audio-visual equipment for our group. 66 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
In addition to having our own meeting we also attend the national meeting. That means that our entire group, which can be close to 25 people, needs to register. Since it is our goal to attend as a group we try to stay together. This requires coordination of housing and registration. As mentioned previously, we pair up undergraduates as much as possible so that no two students from the same school room together. We also do our best to pair the students who are REU participants before mixing in the additional non-TIM students who may come with their PUI faculty. TIM faculty also partner up as best as possible. Since the R1 mentor does not receive an honorarium, we give that individual the option of staying with the rest of the group or in a hotel. While most do choose a hotel, all have been very willing to have the consortium only reimburse an amount equal to the cost of standard conference housing. In many cases we have been able to handle registration and housing by working directy with conference services rather than filling out individual applications on line. We are often able to provide a single application for the entire group in spreadsheet form with room assignments included.
The Results Benefits to Students While educational studies continue to emphasize the importance of undergraduate research for the intellectual growth and persistence of young scientists, quantitative and impartial evaluation of these research experiences is an ongoing challenge. With the establishment of the TIM Consortium REU program, it became critical to measure the success of the model against other summer research opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In 2003, Lopatto initiated the HHMI-funded Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) in an attempt to quantitatively assess both NSF-funded and other summer research programs (5). The SURE survey continues to be used as a key tool for evaluating the effectiveness of undergraduate summer research: “[The SURE survey] provides a quantitative index of learning gains, documents the intent of the student to continue with a science education, and exposes the different experiences of students who are enthusiastic about further work in science compared to students who are discouraged (6).”
Learning Gains The TIM Consortium has incorporated the SURE survey into our REU program for the 2007-2008, 2012-2014, 2016 and 2017 cohorts. As shown in the aggregated data in Figure 1, TIM Consortium students report significantly higher levels of satisfaction and achievement as compared to alternative summer research opportunities. TIM Consortium students report higher gains on nearly every survey question: topics that measure personal maturation, intellectual/scientific development, presentation skills, and persistence in a scientific field/higher 67 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
education. The consistency of these data demonstrate that the TIM Consortium dispersed REU site, created through a community of research-active PUI faculty, is a powerful learning environment that produces measurably better outcomes than other summer research programs (both REU and non-REU).
Figure 1. Selected data from the Lopatto survey, 2007-2014.
Career Outcomes Career outcomes for students from each granting periods 2002 to 2014 are shown in Table 3. One student went on to attend graduate school at the University of Zurich and worked with Jay Siegel, a second student attended Erlangen to work with Rik Tykwinski, and one TIM REU student went on to conduct undergraduate research with Tim Swager before attending graduate school. In all three cases, the TIM Consortium created the initial relationship between student and mentor. Several of our external minority students have had noteworthy outcomes. Darien Harper, an African American student from Armstrong State University, leveraged his REU experience into a research position at a local chemical company (SNF Chemtall). Gerardo Sorriano, a Latino (former community college) student and TIM Consortium alumnus in 2012, has since transferred to San Diego State University (SDSU). At SDSU he received NIH-sponsored Minorities Access to Research Careers (MARC) funding, a highly prestigious award. Gerardo conducted research with Professor Steven Craig (Duke University) over the summer of 2013, after meeting him at the Reaction Mechanisms Conference in 2012 while participating in the TIM Consortium. Gerardo is author on one paper from Peter Iovine’s group and one paper from Steven Craig’s group. Finally, Gerardo won the “President’s Award” at SDSU for his ongoing research efforts 68 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
and represented his institution at the CSU Student Research competition in 2015. Matt Miles was a non-traditional internal student at NKU and a military veteran. The Consortium was his first research experience, and this was formative in leading him to establish his own start-up company, Verdant Applied Sciences. His company was awarded first place in the ACS 2015 Green Chemistry and Engineering Business Plan Competition.
Table 3. Career Outcomes for TIM Consortium Participants REU Years
Grad School
Med/Dental/ Law/Pharmacy
Industry/ Teaching
2002-04
20
4
2
2006-08
18
7
4
2012-14a
9
5
4
a
Does not include nine students who were still undergraduates when this data was compiled.
Broader Impacts One unique outcome of the TIM Consortium has been related to our participation at national meetings. During the first years of the Consortium our faculty noticed that there was a discrepancy between the level of the talks at the national meetings and the undergraduate students’ ability to understand the material. This is not surprising since, in general, relatively few undergraduate students attended these meetings. Furthermore, it was unlikely that undergraduates would feel comfortable asking questions of the seminar speaker from the floor of a national conference. This led the group to initiate Undergraduate Context Sessions (Figure 2) (7). At the context sessions, TIM faculty collect questions from the undergraduate students in the audience and then guide the group in answering the questions. TIM faculty first look for topics that have a common thread so that those ideas can be associated through a series of questions. Importantly, the first opportunity to answer questions is given to the undergraduate students in the audience. Next, the opportunity goes to graduate students, then post-doctoral fellows and finally any faculty members present. This intentional guidance of the session makes the undergraduates a central part of the scientific discourse. The contexts sessions are generally well attended, often with 50 or more individuals present. On ocassion keynote speakers from the conference and Noble Laureates have dropped by to participate in the discussion. The Context Sessions have also become a popular place for networking among faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions for looking to recruit new hires. The NOS has made Undergraduate Context Sessions an official part of their program since 2011 and the RMC since 2012. We have been fortunate that since our first formal context session in 2004 at the Fπ6 conference, meeting organizers or sponsors have supported this activity by providing pizza and drinks. Our faculty remain 69 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
so dedicated to these events that even in years where the Consortium was not funded, TIM faculty have held context sessions at both the NOS and RMC. The consistent presence of the TIM Consortium at the NOS and RMC has also had an impact on the tenor of these meetings. First off, we have seen the number of undergraduate students at these meetings increase over the years. Secondly, conference speakers have also taken note of the undergraduate presence in the audience, often including additional background information in their presentations to specifically address these students. Outside of the world of organic chemistry, the idea of undergraduate context sessions is also gaining traction. The Conference Experience for Undergraduates (CEU) for the Division of Nuclear Physics of the American Physical Society (APS) is exploring the possibility of implementing similar context sessions into their meeting program.
Figure 2. Undergraduate Context Session at the 36th Reaction Mechanisms Conference, St. Louis University, 2016. Photo courtesy of KC Russell.
The Future of the Consortium We are optimistic about the future of the TIM Consortium as we prepare to apply for another cycle of funding. Based on the feeback from our students and our external evaluator, we believe that the general format of the Consortium is strong: two meetings per summer (one in concert with a national meeting), a highly interactive R1 faculty mentor, strong research and ethics components and high quality student research presentations. However, one need that we had not considered until recently is possibility of having a larger pool of TIM faculty members. Given the expense of travel, we 70 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
are currently limited to five active faculty members per summer. However, over the past 14 years we’ve experienced situations where one our faculty members was only able to participate in a limited capacity, or not at all, for one particular summer of the grant cycle. As with our R1 mentors, we have always been able to work around these issues without detriment to the Consortium. Moving forward we will explore the possibility of increasing the number of TIM faculty by one or two members. These additional faculty would allow faculty participants to cycle out each summer. While the final details are still being developed, this model would ease the three year commitment of current faculty participants and offer additional opportunities for early career PUI faculty to get involved in our program.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the National Science Foundation for their generous funding of the TIM Consortium though the following awards: CHE-0138640, 2002-2004; CHE-0552292, 2006-2008; CHE 1062944, 2011-2014; and CHE-1559886, 2016-2018. We are also indebted to the following faculty who have in the past been, or are currently, involved with the program: John Bender, Ron Brisbois, Pete Iovine, Jeff Katz, Nancy Mills, Tom Mitzel, Kathleen Mondanaro, David Reingold, Joan Schellinger and Ellen Yezierski. In addition, we wish to recognize the many significant contributions made by our R1 mentors, Eric Anslyn, John Baldwin, Robert Bergman, Cassandra Fraser, Mike Haley, Craig Hawker, Darren Johnson, Larry Scott, Jay Seigel, Tim Swager and Rik Tykwinski. Finally, we would like to express our deep appreciation to all of the individuals who have assisted in the implementation of this award, particularly with respect to helping arrage our participation at national and TIM Symposium meetings.
References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU), Program Solicitation, NSF13-542, 2013. Manduca, C. A.; Woodard, H. H. Research groups for undergraduate students and faculty in the Keck Geology Consortium. J. Geo. Educ. 1995, 4, 400–403. Keck Geology Consortium. https://keckgeology.org/ (accessed March 17, 2018). Reingold, I. D. The dispersed REU site: A new model for interactions among undergraduate chemistry faculty. CUR Quarterly 2003, 24, 10–13. Lopatto, D. Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings. Cell Biology Education 2004, 3, 270–277. Lopatto, D. Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research: The SURE survey. In Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science; Taraban, R., Blanton, R. L., Eds.; Teacher’s College Press: New York, 2008; pp 112−132. Reingold, I. D.; Russell, K. C.; Brisbois, R.; Mills, N.; Mitzel, T.; Mondanaro, K.; Katz, J. Undergraduate context sessions: How to help undergraduates get more out of professional meetings. CUR Quarterly 2008, 29, 39–41.
71 Griep and Watkins; Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
