Broadening the Scope of Undergraduate Research

Plenary Speaker: Karen Morse, President, Western Washington University
“Broadening the Scope of Undergraduate Research”

Dr. Morse addressed the intellectual development of undergraduates, increasing the number of undergraduates who pursue careers in science, and development of the scientific workforce. Her vision of scientific education is broad and integrative: she described her institution as a place where undergraduates frequently work alongside graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, as well as high school students. Her goal for this talk was to sketch some possible issues for discussion with respect to URCs. The first issue is how to define a URC: as a strong undergraduate research program? As a coordinated, inter-institutional program? As a consortium? As partnerships with community colleges, high schools, or industry? As faculty development, curriculum reform, minority programs? Other key questions are: who are we dealing with? What are the problems? What do we want to accomplish? Science is learning by doing, and our goal should be a “seamless education” in research in which learning is intertwined with the experience of discovery and the building of problem-solving skills. Faculty can lead students into a research frame of mind by intertwining and integrating them into their own research missions. Specific recommendations for doing so included:

Dr. Morse emphasized the need to consider the undergraduate psyche when conceptualizing URCs: undergraduates have a strong need for guidance, support, direction, and encouragement to help them develop understanding. Personal interaction and mentorship are extremely important in building strong student-faculty relationships. The need to target specific populations (honors students, female and minority students, high school students, community college students, and especially students who will go on to become science teachers) is balanced by the need to expose all students to engaging scientific discovery and to identify potential scientists at an early age. One function of URCs could be to make faculty aware of the specific needs of underserved populations; e.g., of the role of communication in helping women to feel comfortable in science. Dr. Morse noted the success of the Shannon Point Marine Center at Western Washington University10 in increasing the participation of minorities, women, and disabled students. This program emphasizes mentor relationships that begin in the academic realm and extend into the professional environment upon completion of the program. Successful targeted programs:

Several barriers to developing these programs exist: restrictions on faculty time for mentorship and for program and curriculum development; restrictions of laboratory space and equipment; curricular constraints on the time needed to prepare students to undertake research; insufficient rewards for faculty participation in undergraduate research; and a research culture that is discouraging to potential young scientists. URCs could help overcome these barriers in the following ways:

Above all, URCs can help to create a university culture that values student learning and student contributions to the creation of new knowledge. Funding alone will not solve the pipeline problem. URCs can help to build an ethos of undergraduate research by rewarding student research and creative endeavors, not just in science, but in all disciplines.

Traditional Models of Undergraduate Research: Strengths and Weaknesses

Plenary Speaker: Mike Doyle, University of Arizona
“Research with Undergraduates: How to Win Friends and
Influence Students”

Undergraduate research is a capstone experience for students. Advantages for students and faculty include the mentor relationship, the opportunity to develop problem-solving skills and to perform experiments, the opportunity to explore and clarify career choice, the opportunity to contribute (or even author) publications and to take part in presentations, and an important link to the profession. The advantages for students and faculty tend to mirror each other, creating a satisfying experience for both participants. The Oberlin Reports of 198511 and 198712 noted the significance of undergraduate research and its importance in attracting students to careers in the sciences. Students who perform research as undergraduates tend to enter graduate school in science and pursue science as a profession. There are impediments to undergraduate research, however: time and space, salaries, stipends, and other funding tend to be in short supply. An additional impediment is ensuring that undergraduates have sufficient skills and self-confidence to carry out research effectively.

Several years ago, a number of foundations collaborated to fund a study on the environment for research at predominantly undergraduate institutions and produced Academic Excellence: The Sourcebook,13 that provided data on the extent of research activities at these institutions. During the past fifteen years, there has been a significant increase in the number of students pursuing biology and biology-related sciences, but the number of students entering chemistry has remained fairly constant. From 1991 to 2000, the number of summer research students in the natural sciences has gone from 20 per institution to 33 per institution, showing strong support for undergraduate research. The government is providing most of the support for this research ($500 million compared to less than $150 million from all other sources in the past ten years). Peer-reviewed proposals submitted by faculty at predominantly undergraduate institutions to the NSF RUI program, the NIH AREA program, Research Corporation’s CCSA program, and the ACS-PRF Type B program for research have remained level from 1986-2000, with about 1200 proposals received per year and 400 awards given per year. In terms of disciplinary distribution, 2200 of 5529 grants went to chemistry during the years from 1986-2000. These awards were distributed among 675 institutions, with 40 percent of these receiving only one or two awards between 1986 and 2000. The NSF RUI program for undergraduate research in chemistry at predominantly undergraduate institutions within the context of their resources is now receiving 50 proposals per year and funding 20 per year, or roughly 40 percent, a relatively high proportion. The NSF Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) program has seen proposals decrease from 2000 per year to approximately 1300 per year, although the level of funding has remained constant at approximately 500 awards per year. The NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program has also funded predominantly undergraduate institutions at a very high “success” rate. External funding to faculty in chemistry at predominantly undergraduate institutions between the years of 1990 and 2000 averaged as follows: female faculty: $13,947 per year (or 0.31 grants); male faculty: $12,707 per year (or 0.30 grants). This amount is lower per faculty member than any other of the natural science departments. Publications by chemistry faculty in peer-reviewed journals during these years averaged as follows: female: 0.48 per year; male: 0.63 per year, with a composite of 0.60, a rate that compares favorably with those in other natural sciences at predominantly undergraduate institutions. (For comparison, the numbers of publications are 1.3 per faculty at M.S. institutions and 3.7 per faculty at Ph.D. institutions.)

The average cost for acquisition and maintenance of chemistry research equipment at predominantly undergraduate institutions is approximately $50,000 per year, which is realizable by most institutions. The cost of undergraduate research at a predominantly undergraduate institution with an existing laboratory (including stipend, supplies, faculty salary, and travel) totals between $14,000 and $21,000 per year.

From a research productivity point of view, graduate students are relatively unproductive during their first two years, as are undergraduate students in their first two years. The third and fourth years for both graduate and undergraduate students tend to be productive. The question is: can we profitably expect students in their first two years to be productive, and who should pay for this experience? A proposed undergraduate curriculum would be an introduction to the techniques and methods of research during the first two years, with the third and fourth years devoted to investigative research. The success of this experience could be measured in terms of publications, preparation for graduate or professional school, presentations, resume-building, and experience and motivation. An ongoing problem is the role assigned to research in the definition of academic excellence at different institutions. It seems, however, that the same constraints often apply to both those who pursue research and those who do not. The difference is the passion for research.

During the group discussion of Dr. Doyle’s presentation, the fact that URCs could benefit undergraduate research at predominantly undergraduate institutions by providing infrastructure and helping to alleviate time problems was noted. The point was made that although it’s not terribly difficult to find funding to support students, it is often much more difficult to find funding to develop and support the infrastructure needed for undergraduate research.

Plenary Speaker: Elaine Seymour, University of Colorado-Boulder
“Establishing the Benefits of Research Experiences for Science Undergraduates: First Findings from a Pilot Study”

Dr. Seymour presented highlights of first findings from her research group’s five-year study of undergraduate research at four liberal arts colleges (Grinnell, Harvey Mudd, Hope, and Wellesley) with a long history of undergraduate research programs.9 The study is both qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative study focuses on the contributions made by undergraduate research to education, career choices, and personal/professional development, as well as the processes and conditions under which these outcomes are realized. The study also considers what (if anything) is lost when students do not participate in undergraduate research.

The study sample comprises all senior students (N = 79) and their faculty mentors working in summer research at the four sample institutions in the disciplines of biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer science, engineering and psychology. First year interviews were conducted with the 79 undergraduate research participants, their faculty mentors (N = 55), and 9 undergraduate research program administrators. In the second year, 69 of the original student cohort were interviewed very close to their graduation, along with a comparison student group of graduating seniors who: chose not to do undergraduate research, chose not to do so until their senior year (e.g., for a thesis), chose alternative experiences, or applied for undergraduate research but were not selected. A comparison group of faculty were those who never or rarely mentored undergraduate researchers, or were taking time out from this summer work.

Interviews with participants were transcribed verbatim, hand-coded and the data entered into ‘The Ethnograph’, a set of computer software programs that aids in the analysis of large qualitative data sets that allows searches for coded segments across the data set or sub-sets of it, and the generation of code word frequencies. Codes and their thematic groupings are stored in an electronic codebook that is augmented and edited as the analysis progresses.

From the research group’s analysis of the first round of student participant interviews, Dr. Seymour presented an overview of students’ perceptions of the benefits of their undergraduate research experiences as summer research apprentices:

Interestingly, the decision to attend graduate school (which is a benefit of undergraduate research viewed from the perspective of institutions who offer undergraduate research programs) is not necessarily seen as such by students. Moreover, the researchers found that, among their rising senior sample, few students reported that their research experience had led to a decision to enter graduate school, although many used the opportunity to clarify and refine their existing plans. A handful decided not to continue in academic science on the basis of their research experiences. The researchers will use their third and final interviews with the whole student sample (participants and the comparison groups) in part to establish when these young people formed their career plans and what were the salient influences in their decisions.

Students appeared to be less motivated to apply for a summer undergraduate research position because of its value as a resume item in their applications for higher education or employment than by the intrinsic value and interest of the research itself. Indeed, students stressed that many of the benefits of undergraduate research are transferable to a wide array of educational and professional situations. However, many gains reported by students reference aspects of professional socialization that are essential for those who are considering an academic research career. These include learning the patience and creativity to deal with the normal risks of research work, with its setbacks, errors, uncertainties, and ambiguities, and learning to give and receive professional critique.

An interesting gender difference in student responses was noted: female students reported that they were closely watching both male and female faculty, especially those with families, to see whether and how a balanced life (that included work, family, personal, and social activities) could be achieved in academic science. How more senior colleagues were observed to respond to younger family with children was also carefully observed by women students. This finding may contribute to our understanding of ongoing national difficulties in attracting and retaining women in the sciences.

The next phase of the research will include comparison of faculty perceptions with those of their student of the benefits of undergraduate research, considerations of the costs and benefits to faculty of engagement in undergraduate research programs, clarification of the longer-term benefits of undergraduate research (including its role in shaping career decisions), and distillation of the processes and mediating factors whereby good outcomes are achieved. Core components of these processes are predicted to include: departmental and institutional roles in establishing a structure and climate that supports undergraduate research programs; the many facets of faculty mentoring; the role of the peer research group; and the reflective engagement of participants in their own growth processes.

Increasing the Pool

Plenary Speaker: Pam Mills, CUNY-Hunter College
“Do Only Our Best Students Deserve a Research Experience? Authentic Research Experiences in the General Chemistry Laboratory”

Dr. Mills opened her presentation with the story of “Ray,” a former undergraduate chemistry student. Ray was an average student, with a GPA of less than 3.0, extremely pleasant and respectful, and interested in freshman chemistry (“because it’s challenging”) and in English (“because I’m a good writer”). As an upper class student, Ray considered undergraduate research, but faculty felt he was not sufficiently motivated, and no one would accept him into a research laboratory. The question that often arises in such cases is whether Ray should be provided with a research experience? Are there any benefits to bringing Ray into research? Dr. Mills proposed that instead of focusing on the question of increasing the numbers of majors and graduate students, the role of research as a valuable component of liberal education should be considered. She suggested that redefining the meaning of research for undergraduates is a crucial part of creating meaningful models of undergraduate research.

The goals of a liberal education include the development of critical thinking skills, understanding multiple modes of inquiry, and the application of critical thinking skills to “real world” issues and problems. These goals are identical to the goals of science education. A 1997 report from the National Academy of Sciences14 entitled Science Teaching Reconsidered recommends the use of research as a teaching and learning model and suggests that “the activity of finding out can be as important as knowing the answer.” Presently, there are two primary models of undergraduate research: the graduate model, in which the construction of new knowledge is the primary objective, and the student-centered model, that emphasizes process over outcome and whose primary objective is to provide experiences that are new to the student. Is the classroom-based, student-centered research model a viable alternative to the traditional model of undergraduate research? How important is it to the student (not to faculty) that their research produces knowledge that is new to the scientific community? How would a student-centered, classroom-based research model contribute to the liberal education of students? Benefits would include the development of communication and critical thinking skills (learning to think and act like a scientist), the opportunity to see real-world applications of their learning, and increased confidence to conduct scientific research.

Dr. Mills described the research cycle as consisting of five stages: preparation (studying and possibly repeating what is already known), formulation of a “What if . . . ?” question (forming a hypothesis and designing a study or possibly extending an existing study), the collection and analysis of data (repeating the experiment, if necessary), reporting the results (in an oral or poster format or in a journal article), and peer review of the results (in which knowledge is constructed by the scientific community; this step is often excluded from the undergraduate research model). Existing models of student-centered research include only part of this research cycle, are directed primarily to upper-class students, and are usually based on a faculty member’s existing research program. Can this model be successfully applied in the education of freshmen chemistry students?

Dr. Mills presented the model currently in use at Hunter College, a large (enrollment of 20,000) urban public institution (part of the CUNY system). The class enrolls 100 students, primarily freshmen, and consists of a three-semester course, the third semester of which is a two-credit, non-laboratory course on chemical bonding taken concurrently with organic chemistry. Lecture and laboratory are integrated, with four hours of lecture, three hours of laboratory, and two hours of workshop. The research cycle of the course takes the following form:

What happened to Ray? Ray was elected to the peer review board, on which he served with great distinction. His journal article was, as expected, mediocre and was not selected for publication. Interestingly, Ray was one of the most insightful and critical editors ever to serve on the board, and it is puzzling that he never seemed able to exercise his insight and critical abilities in relation to his own work. Nonetheless, Ray went on to become a high school chemistry teacher in New York, where he has just finished his first year and is reportedly very happy with his new profession. In short, Ray is a positive outcome of the undergraduate research experience.

Dr. Mills concluded by reiterating some key questions related to undergraduate research and introducing some new ones:

A discrepancy exists in the structure of introductory courses across the disciplines: the social sciences and humanities provide one track for introducing students to their areas of study, while the sciences have multiple tracks. What would happen if the sciences developed a single, integrated introductory curriculum for all students? Suppose that the freshman year was unified around the process of doing science for all students: is this possible? Would it benefit our majors? Would it empower more students?

During the full-group discussion after Dr. Mills’ presentation, participants noted other examples of this type of student-centered model, including one example described by Professor Steve Regen at Lehigh University in which an entire class performed an aggregate experiment and produced an article that was published in the journal Materials Chemistry. In response to a question about the “all-or-nothing” grading scheme that is used for the conceptualization and execution phase of the research cycle in the Hunter College freshmen chemistry experience, Dr. Mills stated that it was to reinforce the communally-constructed nature of knowledge by stressing the peer review process over instructor grades.

Plenary Speaker: Ray Turner, Roxbury Community College, Boston
“The ATOMS Project: An Inner-city Model for Undergraduate Research Centers”

Dr. Turner began by identifying a problem: the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System), a standardized examination required of all graduating high school seniors, reflects considerable underachievement in certain regional sectors. Test results demonstrate a lack of math and science preparation among students entering Roxbury Community College (RCC). Dr. Turner took two approaches to address this problem: the development of several strategies designed to boost students’ skill levels in math and science, as well as upgrading the college’s technology infrastructure to allow for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week interactive web-based teaching and learning modules; and the development of a new program to involve students in community-based, culturally-relevant research. The infrastructure for these approaches also supports pre-college students involved in many of the college’s K-12 programs. Once students are proficient in math and science, the college’s honors science program screens students and places qualified students at prestigious research universities in Boston. ATOMS (Advance Training Opportunities for Minorities in Science) is a Bridges to the Future grant funded by the NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences. While the college is successful at placing qualified community college students in internships at major research institutions, it has recently put a different spin on ATOMS by expanding it in order to harness human potential energy for science through a new collaborative project called FUSION (Facilitating Urban Science Initiatives by Organizational Networking). This approach recognizes the importance of environmental health and health disparity issues prevalent in minority communities and the likelihood that science exploration may be made more attractive when framed in a “culturally relevant” context. The high density of public and private agencies and research institutions surrounding RCC provides a unique opportunity to strengthen existing partnerships through e-networking and e-collaboration.

Culturally relevant and community-based science projects could serve as “magic bullets” to recruit more minorities to the sciences at every level. A “Smart Lab” at Roxbury Community College equipped with advanced broadcast media technology and an advanced television studio will play a significant role in supporting the virtual scientific learning community. The Urban Gardening Project is exploring the concept of “farms in the city” and offering many students an opportunity to engage in hands-on research in soil chemistry, while the Air Quality experiments conducted in Roxbury neighborhoods, in cooperation with Harvard University School of Public Health, involve the analyses of airborne sub-micron particles and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. These projects, conducted by RCC students in collaboration with over 30 community-based agencies, and the results of these experiences are shared through use of technology. Dr. Turner’s presentation included a wealth of examples of RCC students actively involved in research (many as collaborative groups), thus demonstrating both the feasibility and the success of implementing undergraduate research within the community college environment and emphasizing the importance of local, community-based research for attracting and involving minority students.

During the group discussion after Dr. Turner’s presentation, the link between community-based research and service learning, a connection with potential for work with high school students and an opportunity to empower students as community builders, was noted.

Structure, Resource Needs, Assessment, and Sustainability of
Undergraduate Research Programs

Plenary Speaker: Carlos Gutierrez, Cal State-Los Angeles
“Structure, Resource Needs, Sustainability, and
Assessment of an Undergraduate Research Program at a
Minority Urban Comprehensive University”

Dr. Gutierrez began by summarizing the history of California State University - Los Angeles (CS-LA), which was founded in 1946 as one of 23 institutions in the California State system. CS-LA currently enrolls 20,765 students and is the most ethnically and racially diverse four-year institution in the United States. CS-LA students have the lowest per capita income level of any of the California State institutions and come primarily from within a 25-mile radius of CS-LA (so are largely commuters). Students are largely self-supporting, working an average of 18 to 40 hours a week.

In 1957, the chemistry department chair decided to focus the department on serving the needs of the teachers’ college. Three faculty members, however, had a different agenda: they wanted to incorporate research into the undergraduate curriculum. For a model, they looked to predominantly undergraduate institutions such as Carleton, Oberlin, Grinnell, Hope, Bates, and Furman: small liberal arts colleges where undergraduate research was already proving to be successful at preparing students for graduate school. Despite the obvious differences between CS-LA and these small liberal arts institutions, they all provide many opportunities for students to work closely with faculty in undergraduate research. The Minority Opportunities in Research (MORE) program is designed to assist students in developing their own abilities (as distinct from faculty developing students’ abilities) and making their talents available to the research enterprise. MORE serves as an umbrella program housing numerous programs that focus on students from funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NSF, the American Chemical Society, etc. A key to the success of MORE is the creation of staff positions dedicated to administration of the program. In addition, participation by faculty and staff is widespread.

MORE provides an “idealized” four-year plan for students that integrates research, workshops, seminars, writing support and orientation into academics. Although students ideally enter the plan as freshmen and continue for all four years, students in fact enter at various points, up until the beginning of their senior year. Retention of MORE students to graduation in their major is 95 percent. (University-wide, retention of majors who do not participate is 30 percent). CS-LA students in the NIH Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) program have co-authored 557 journal articles and more than 3,000 presentations at local, national, and international meetings. Dozens of MORE students are currently enrolled in doctoral programs; CS-LA supplies more graduate students to UCLA than any other institution. Eleven MORE graduates are now faculty members.

Dr. Gutierrez quoted Anthony Andreoli: “We are developers of talent, not its creators. Talent is widely distributed.” Having an entity on campus that worries specifically about the development of student talent makes an enormous difference. The goal of MORE is not to convert every student into a scientist, but to identify the students who are motivated to become scientists.

Dr. Gutierrez advanced his argument for supporting minority participation in research through a series of quotations, beginning, interestingly, with a quotation attributed to Pablo Picasso: “Art is the lie that lets us see the truth.” Likewise, “Chemistry is the lie that lets us see the truth: molecular truth.” Chemists are model builders, and it is important to remember that we study models. In contrast, a quotation from a student indicates that his attraction to science is related to its freedom from bias or prejudice: “What matters is what you know and what you can do with it.” Another quotation states that distance learning is preferable because the Internet masks race, ethnicity, and gender. Both of these statements betray a false belief that it is possible to discard the factors that “model” each of us (race, gender, ethnicity) and engage directly with truth. Dr. Gutierrez offered another perspective through a student whose passion for chemistry is unabashedly flavored by his identity as Chicano: “I do Chicano chemistry,” he says of his study of chiles. “These molecules are hot. They burn me up. [. . .] If I don’t study the chemistry of chiles, who will?” This student embodies a kind of “holistic” science, and Dr. Gutierrez considers him the best of his student scientists. As David Bohm and David Peat write in Science, Order and Creativity, “Different kinds of thought and different kinds of abstraction may together give a better reflection of reality. Each is limited in its own way, but together they extend our grasp of reality further than is possible with one way alone.”15 This is the most compelling intellectual justification for working to increase the participation of minorities in science: the greater the diversity of our talent, the richer, more complex, and more complete will be the science that results.

The NIH RISE program provides annual salaries for students as follows: $6,200 for freshmen, $7,200 for sophomores, $8,400 for juniors, and $9,400 for seniors. Undergraduate research at CS-LA is a year-round activity, usually embarked upon in the second year, although students can begin as freshmen. Requirements to enter the program are motivation and a better-than-2.5 GPA but who are capable of growing to a 3.0 GPA by graduation. (Ability and talent do not necessarily correlate directly with GPA.) NIH RISE is not for chemistry only, but includes ample opportunities in chemistry. At least one summer is spent in off-campus research at various locations. Because 55 percent of CS-LA students transfer from community colleges, particular attention is paid to these students through programs such NIH Bridges to the Future.

While research training is the heart of the MORE program, it also consists of other important components: attention to academics, travel to meetings, academic and career advisement, seminars, and workshops. Career advisement is particularly important, since faculty generally tend to advise in academic directions. On Friday 30 times each year, the Biomedical Science Seminar meets to broaden students’ scientific awareness, provide opportunities for them to present their research, and improve their awareness of graduate school and career opportunities. Speakers are invited from academia and industry. Workshops offer training in laboratory safety, techniques, and instrument use, as well as GRE preparation and applying to graduate school. Writing support in science is provided by two graduate students throughout the four-year program; students are encouraged to “write with the precision of a poet.”

The program was slow to develop assessment and evaluation, but has profited from its findings. It is important to plan for evaluation from the beginning and to work with someone with expertise in evaluation. Evaluate for the right reasons: to learn and to improve the program, not simply to satisfy the requirements of the funding agency. Ongoing evaluation is provided by the Program Evaluation and Research Collaborative (PERC). Turning evaluation into research helps to make evaluation interesting.
Among the resources that are required are a plan (what are the institutional goals for undergraduate research?), people (a core of talented, research-oriented faculty who care about undergraduates, supportive administration, and talented staff), infrastructure (adequate facilities and instrumentation), and funding. NIH, NSF, the Arnold & Mabel Beckman Foundation, and the Dreyfus Foundation have all been supportive. Sustainability is required for each of these components.

It’s important to remember that most of the work takes place under the direction of the individual faculty member; the MORE program is simply an umbrella structure to support this work. “My research students and I do chemistry because we’re good at it, we like it, and it is our pleasure.”

In the discussion following Dr. Gutierrez’ presentation, it was noted that occasionally, students will give short shrift to their academics in order to spend more time in the laboratory, but the answer has been to monitor their academics and to limit their lab time accordingly. Recruitment is largely by word of mouth, though letters are sent to all entering students. Students respond enthusiastically to being approached about research opportunities.

Plenary Speaker: Sandra Gregerman, University of Michigan
“Improving the Academic Success and Retention of Diverse
Students through Undergraduate Research”

Dr. Gregerman began by noting the significance of the current date, when the University of Michigan affirmative action case was due to be heard by the Supreme Court. The fate of programs such as the one she was presenting is uncertain. The Michigan Mandate was a call to increase diversity in the university system. The current University of Michigan profile is: enrollment of 25,000, of which 23 percent are students of color (9 percent African American, 4 percent Latino/a, and 10 percent Asian American). The University is a large public research university, 40 minutes from Detroit and 60 minutes from Lansing.

While recruitment of minorities was proceeding well prior to implementation of the University Research Opportunities Program (UROP), retention rates were poor. Explanations for this problem include poor high school preparation, a lack of identification with the culture and goals of college and lack of close contact with faculty, and external pressures (financial, cultural, or familial). The solutions identified were to integrate these students into research through “living learning”, to encourage peer-to-peer interaction (study groups and seminars), mentoring (both student-to-student and student-to-faculty or -staff, and the UROP, or student-faculty partnerships through undergraduate research. (Although UROP does emphasize diversity, all first and second year students are invited to participate in the program.) The rationale behind UROP is that many students of color do not identify with the academic mission and do not feel welcome; consequently, close contact of these students with faculty is a key determinant for minority retention. Invitations to students to participate in research lets them know that they belong in the academic environment and are welcome to participate in its mission. Developing research skills also develops transferable critical thinking skills. Working closely with students from diverse backgrounds also educates faculty about the barriers faced by minority students and about the value of diversity in an academic setting.

Features of UROP include its focus on first and second year students, a program that extends throughout the academic year, involvement of all the university schools and colleges, peer advising and community building, an emphasis on the multicultural aspects of research, faculty participation in a campus-wide retention effort, biweekly seminars, evaluation activities (including longitudinal assessment since the program began), and research peer groups and research symposia. Students spend 6 to 12 hours a week engaged in research activities and meet monthly with peer advisors to follow the progress of their research and to talk about their academic studies. Research peer groups meet twice each month to share information about research, hear research presentations, discuss research ethics, and participate in skill-building workshops. Several research symposia each year provide an opportunity for students to share the results of their research.

Faculty recruitment takes place through targeted mailings, presentations at faculty meetings, recommendations and referrals, word of mouth, student recruitment, and articles in departmental and campus newspapers. Student recruitment takes place through mailings, presentations at high schools, campus presentations, targeting of diverse students to ask them to participate, and counselor referrals. Students are paid through work-study funding; UROP is the second largest work-study employer on campus. Students also receive academic credit for their participation.

The Fall term begins with enrollment workshops and sessions on getting started in research, research ethics and case studies, academic advising, research fieldtrips, and listening to other students talk about their research. The Winter term begins with the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research Symposium that focuses on community-based research across the curriculum, and continues with research in the discipline (the cutting edge of research), race and gender issues in research, a panel to discuss graduate school issues, and a panel to discuss professional career options. The Winter term includes sessions on working in academe versus working in industry, resume and curriculum vitae writing workshops, alternative and nontraditional careers in the sciences, professional oral presentation and poster skills, and concludes with a research symposium.

The skill-building workshops allow faculty to focus more time on actual research activities. These workshops include resume writing and interview skills (students interview for the research projects that interest them; some faculty complain that they can no longer tell the good students from the bad students based on their self-presentation), library and web research, web page design, PowerPoint presentations, and computer workshops (HTML, programming, etc.) Special workshops can be arranged at faculty request (e.g., laboratory safety workshops, etc.)

Since UROP is a campus-wide initiative, examples of research projects are diverse: gene therapy development using transgenic mouse models; investigating the sources, chemistry, transport, and deposition of mercury in the Great Lakes; and test methods for characterization of asphatene precipitation. Chemistry students frequently are involved in research in other departments. Research activities include library research, book development, course development, laboratory research, community-based intervention research, survey research, technology transfer, and performance art.

Learning outcomes of undergraduate research are various: academic course work becomes more relevant to students; students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills and communication skills; students are socialized into their disciplines; they gain computer skills and skills in library and internet research, as well as statistical understanding; students learn to work independently; and they grow in multicultural understanding. Often, students find the academic setting discouraging, but find their abilities recognized and affirmed in the research setting.

The Engineering Pipeline model (initially funded by General Electric) is exemplary for chemistry in its focus on guiding students into graduate school. The program identifies underrepresented students and recruits them during the spring and summer before they enroll. First year fellowships are offered to provide a book stipend and to involve students in research right away with faculty. Students participate in biweekly seminars and attend monthly academic advising. Summer fellowships provide continuity of the research experience. One third of these students continue their studies at the masters and doctoral levels after graduation.

Among the lessons learned from UROP are that early identification of students is critical, along with early faculty mentorship. Opportunities to attend professional meetings and social interactions with other students and graduate students are vital to the socialization of students. Dedicated staff who can provide personalized academic advising are also essential to the program.

A significant number of program graduates have continued onto graduate school (for may students with less than stellar academic records, their research experiences compensated and allowed them to attend graduate school, nonetheless). For many students, research mentorship reinforced their skill and intellectual ability in ways not reflected by their performance in gateway courses.

The UROP in Residence (UIR) program allows 130 diverse students with a shared interest in research to live together in a single residence hall, where they enroll in a special seminar (Introduction to Research) in the fall. UIR students also have access to special sections of various courses.

The keys to a successful undergraduate research program are institutional and administrative support, good public relations, faculty support, staff resources, flexibility (the ability to adapt programs to student needs), and communication among all participants. Above all, the program must fit well with the institution’s overall mission and goals.

Funding for UROP initially was internal (Vice Presidents for Student Services and for Research); the first external grant came from the State of Michigan Office of Equity. Subsequent funding has been both governmental and from private foundations, as well as from the Provost. UROP received an NSF Recognition Award for Integration of Research and Teaching.

Assessment is important for formative evaluation, to document program impacts to determine efficacy, for acquiring external support, to obtain local validation for the program, and to influence future policy and funding decisions. Assessment also serves a significant research role in exploring the question: to what degree does UROP enhance student retention, academic success, integration, and the pursuit of graduate education among all participants? A multi-method approach to assessment has been implemented, including quantitative research (surveys and retention studies), qualitative research (focus groups and individual interviews), and an experiential sampling study. The original retention study matched experimental and control groups by comparing UROP participants with UROP applicants matched according to entering GPA, test scores, high school profile, race, and gender. Both pre- and post-surveys were blind for the participants (i.e., they did not know the purpose of the surveys). The sample size was 1,280 students. Findings indicated that UROP participation increases retention rates for some students; retention rates were most improved for African-American males and during the sophomore year. African-American students whose performance was below the median for their racial/ethnic group benefited the most. UROP participation also seems to increase degree completion rates for African-American males.

During the focus group survey, students in UROP, not in UROP, and in another campus retention program discussed their research experiences. The purpose of the focus groups was to determine why UROP was having a positive impact on students. Student responses were categorized as either proactive, reactive, or inactive. UROP students tended to talk about their education much more proactively, representing 58% of all proactive comments. UROP students are more likely to anticipate future events, such as graduation, graduate school, or career choices. UROP students are also more likely to initiate activity with others and to see faculty and staff as positive influences. In the alumni study, experimental and control groups consisted, respectively, of UROP students and two to four non-UROP students matched according to age, test scores, high school GPA, intended major, and race and gender. The sample size consisted of 291 alumni. The return rate for the survey was 58.55%. Findings indicate that students who participate in UROP or another research program are significantly more likely to pursue graduate study than control students. UROP students are significantly more likely to pursue professional degrees, such as the MD or the PhD. UROP students are more likely to request letters of recommendation from faculty than non-UROP students. There are no differences or interactions according to race or ethnicity indicating that UROP equalizes the pursuit of graduate study.