During the final two breakout sessions, participants considered possible solutions to the limitations of the traditional model of undergraduate research, including the possible role of Undergraduate Research Centers as vehicles for broadening the participation of undergraduates in research in chemistry. Underlying these discussions was the near-universal acceptance among the participants that research has inherent pedagogical value in undergraduate education in chemistry, and that broadening the scope of undergraduate research to encompass students earlier in their undergraduate careers could have substantial positive benefits including an improvement in their education, greater retention of undergraduate majors in chemistry, or attraction to chemistry of students who might have pursued other majors. A comprehensive vision for what URCs could be as agents of systemic educational reform emerged during these breakout sessions. A summary of the relevant points made during these discussions and conveyed during the reporting sessions is contained below.

Participants generally agreed that in order to broaden participation in research in a manner that is not constrained by the limitations of the traditional model of research, innovative, “out-of-the-box,” and potentially controversial new paradigms must be explored as experimental endeavors. The concept of Undergraduate Research Centers was viewed as having considerable merit as a new paradigm for broadening undergraduate research participation. As this concept was discussed further, a far-reaching vision of URCs that would have impact beyond simply broadening research participation was formulated. This vision encompassed impact and systemic change in education at the disciplinary level as well as at the institutional level.

At the disciplinary level, the first and most obvious impact of URCs would be the creation of many more research opportunities for undergraduates. Such opportunities would be distinctly different from those already existing in the extensive NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program in which many students leave their home institution to undertake research, typically in the summer. Thus, in contrast to the REU model of “bringing students to the research,” URCs ideally would function to “bring research to the students” by providing research opportunities at the students’ home institutions.

Beyond the number of research opportunities, however, participants valued the potential impact of URCs in enhancing the overall quality of the undergraduate educational experience by providing students, preferably early in their undergraduate careers, with role models and mentors as well as first-hand insight into how new knowledge is created in science. Indeed, many participants thought this impact to be the most important of those articulated. Furthermore, strong sentiment was expressed that this impact be realized for all undergraduate students, not just those planning to pursue science degrees. By so doing, these Centers would help to shape the undergraduate experience in a way that promotes the education of more scientifically literate citizens.

The value of having students learn science by doing science has been well-recognized since the 1983 National Commission on Excellence in Education report from the Department of Education entitled A Nation at Risk,15 but its full-scale implementation in a meaningful way at the undergraduate level has been slow to develop due to many of the same barriers that were described above in the context of the traditional model of undergraduate research. Significant advances in the use of discovery-based or problem-based learning in undergraduate science education have been made, but often, these exercises stop well short of a bona fide research experience based on the investigation of unknown phenomena. Thus, the provision of opportunities for undergraduates to become engaged in the very business of science through the generation of new knowledge should lead to an enhanced understanding of the scientific process along with its limitations in providing answers to challenging and complex problems.

The unique problems faced by community college students in terms of limited access to research are noteworthy here. According to data reported in the NSF report Shaping the Future,16 enrollments in science, math, engineering, and technology courses in two-year colleges account for approximately one-third of the total enrollment in these courses at all types of institutions nationwide. Despite these large numbers, however, research opportunities are generally quite rare at community colleges. In many such institutions, a mindset exists which almost exclusively emphasizes the classroom lecture as the only appropriate model for undergraduate education. (Research opportunities, while rare, are not altogether absent, however, as demonstrated by the program described by one of the plenary speakers at this workshop, Dr. Raymond Turner of Roxbury Community College in Boston. For another example of research programs at community colleges, see the brief description of research activities at Oakton Community College in Chicago in the section “A Compendium of Undergraduate Research Programs” at the end of this report.) Poor access to research is further exacerbated for many community college students attending institutions focused on educating underrepresented minority students. These institutions are often geographically situated in socio-economically depressed urban areas or extremely rural areas (e.g., tribal colleges) that might be well removed from the influence of or access to neighboring undergraduate institutions that do support research. Moreover, a substantial fraction of students attending community colleges often have work or family obligations that make it virtually impossible for them to pursue additional educational opportunities, such as undergraduate research, at a remote site, regardless of their educational value. In order to broadly influence the education of freshmen and sophomore chemistry students in this country, URCs will have to not only find ways of successfully engaging community colleges in partnerships, but also find mechanisms for successfully accommodating the individual circumstances of many of today’s community college students.

Recent research demonstrates the critical role that effective mentors play in student retention and satisfaction with science majors at the undergraduate level.3,6-9 Participants recognized that mentors do not necessarily have to be faculty members to be effective, but could include postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, industrial or government lab scientists, or even upperclass undergraduates who have the knowledge and perspective to provide appropriate guidance to the student and a window into the workings of the profession. This hierarchical “deputy” model would greatly expand the capacity of the undergraduate system to provide research opportunities to large numbers of students.

Workshop participants also recognized URCs as entities that would advance the knowledge base in chemistry through new research. Although the rate at which new knowledge would be created with undergraduates would be expected to be much below that with graduate students and/or postdoctoral researchers, participants were consistent in their belief that URCs should support real research involving undergraduates and not simply discovery-based laboratory exercises. The value of discovery-based exercises very early in the undergraduate experience as an appropriate vehicle for preparing undergraduates for participation in research was noted, however.

URCs were also viewed as potential drivers of curricular reform in chemistry. Participants felt it important to distinguish between the simple replacement of existing segments of the curriculum and the infusion of research as a pedagogical tool into all segments of the curriculum. In some cases, this may take the form of discovery-based laboratory exercises, and in other cases, it may take the form of conventional research projects involving the investigation of complex phenomena in a manner that addresses questions for which answers to significant questions are not yet known.

The URC concept was noted to be especially suited to facilitating research and education in multi-disciplinary areas given its focus on establishing partnerships and research communities among different groups. Finally, participants recognized the potential for URCs to support more traditional curriculum development activities through the involvement of undergraduates in the research necessary to support such development. As an example of how research could be used to support curriculum development, a research project might encompass experiments to develop and optimize a suitable undergraduate laboratory experiment based on a new research result published in the recent literature or the development of a workable classroom demonstration.

URCs could also offer experiences that involve community-based research projects. Undergraduates often see community-based projects as more relevant than fundamental research projects; furthermore, community-based activities can be particularly effective in attracting minority students to science. In addition to the community-based research projects described in Dr. Turner’s plenary talk, another example of a community-based project that was successful in attracting Native American undergraduates to chemistry was described by Dr. Jani Ingram at Northern Arizona University. Dr. Ingram received a grant to support undergraduate research to determine the speciation of uranium in groundwater from abandoned mines on Native American Indian reservations where the incidence of cancer among the population has been disproportionately high. Participation in this project by Native American students has been overwhelming in response to the immediate environmental and familial impact of this issue for this particular group of students.

One additional impact of URCs would be to stimulate and increase the capacity for research in chemistry, or to increase access to existing research capacity in chemistry. URCs might help provide and sustain the infrastructure at an institution necessary for modern chemistry research in terms of instrumentation, technical staff support, and technology. Improving faculty capacity to initiate and sustain undergraduate research might be an additional outcome of URCs, especially if institutions at which a culture of research has not traditionally existed are partnered with institutions, such as research universities, government labs or industry, that have a long tradition of research.

The potential impact of URCs on the education and training of educators at all levels of the K-16 continuum was cited as a significant benefit. URCs could provide research opportunities for in-service secondary school teachers to help them maintain their current state of knowledge and skills, and to help them sustain the enthusiasm for science that led them into careers as science teachers. Ideally, the engagement of high school chemistry teachers in the process of modern research would lead to more and better educated students with interests in science entering college, and enhance the overall vertical integration of the educational process. Research opportunities were also recognized to be significant mechanisms for high school chemistry teachers who were not trained in chemistry to broaden and enhance their knowledge and skills, thereby contributing more effectively to this vertical integration. Undergraduate students who are pre-service K-12 science teachers would also benefit from the increased opportunities for research that URCs would provide. For faculty at college-level institutions that have not had a significant history of undergraduate research, URCs could provide opportunities for training in research-related activities such as the design of appropriate projects for undergraduate students at different levels, effective mentoring of undergraduate researchers, and grantsmanship.

Finally, URCs provide the opportunity for additional assessment of the outcomes and benefits of undergraduate research. Although some work on the impact of research on the educational experiences and career paths of students has been undertaken, evaluation of this impact has not yet been conducted on a scale large enough to draw compelling conclusions. The experimental nature of URCs will make them appropriate places to develop new assessment vehicles by which success can be defined across a range of contexts. Participants noted the utility of the concept of a “meta-URC” devoted solely to the assessment of research that might also serve to coordinate assessment and evaluation activities across all URCs.

Beyond the discipline-specific impacts of URCs described above, participants also recognized the potential value of URCs in promoting systemic institutional change. Of perhaps greatest importance could be the role of URCs in facilitating the institutionalization of research as a valuable pedagogical tool for undergraduate education. The need for undergraduate institutions of all types to embrace research or similar independent creative activities as a cornerstone of undergraduate education has been a hallmark of several recent comprehensive reports including those from the Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities,19 and the American Association of Colleges and Universities Greater Expectations National Panel, Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College.20 Indeed, evidence that there is a national movement in support of a culture of research in undergraduate education is seen by the fact that U.S. News & World Report now uses undergraduate research as a category of programs that enhance learning in their evaluation of undergraduate programs.