During the first two breakout sessions, participants engaged in discussions of the value of research in the undergraduate chemistry experience, and the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional model of undergraduate research in which an undergraduate, typically during their junior or senior year, engages in research under the direction of a single faculty mentor. A summary of the relevant points made during these discussions and conveyed during the reporting sessions is contained below.

Undergraduate research has been a cornerstone of the undergraduate major in chemistry for decades. Its value as an educational component in the undergraduate experience was enhanced by the Undergraduate Research Participation program established by the National Science Foundation in the early 1960’s. Since that time, the chemistry community has willingly embraced the traditional single faculty mentor-student apprentice model of undergraduate research for advanced undergraduates, and anecdotal information suggests that many students choose to pursue graduate work in chemistry or related disciplines as a result of such undergraduate research experiences. From the 1960’s to the mid 1990’s, the number of undergraduate chemistry degree recipients steadily rose, suggesting the health of the undergraduate structure. However, since the mid 1990’s, the number of degree recipients in chemistry has begun to decline. Although some argue that if all biochemists, chemical biologists, and environmental discipline degree recipients are included in the count of baccalaureate chemistry degrees, the numbers do not support a decline, the number of traditionally-trained chemistry degree recipients (i.e. those largely educated in chemistry programs) does appear to be decreasing due to increasing specialization of the field and proliferation of more interdisciplinary areas. The consensus is that the decline in majors is attributable to multiple factors. Less chemistry is required in other majors such as engineering or nursing today compared to a decade ago. Chemistry-related disciplines such as biochemistry and environmental science are siphoning off a fraction of the top students, since students tend to view the chemistry major as “too hard” or less relevant than these other areas. Finally, the perceived “staleness” of the chemistry curriculum undoubtedly contributes to this loss as well.

Other educational and societal factors also contribute to this decline in chemistry majors. These include education problems in science at the K-12 level such as poorly trained teachers and teaching to standardized tests, and as documented by Seymour and Hewitt in Talking About Leaving,16 the lack of student knowledge of career opportunities in chemistry, poor teaching in undergraduate chemistry at the general chemistry level, and the fact that students entering college no longer perceive the physical sciences such as chemistry to be either desirable or achievable as career aspirations.1 This latter factor is particularly problematic for attracting women and minority students into careers in the sciences.

Of this list of contributing factors, changes in the undergraduate degree program in chemistry would seem to be the most straightforward to address. The general perception that undergraduate research experiences play a pivotal role in students choosing to pursue careers in the sciences is commonly held. Indeed, a small but growing body of research supports this perception,3,6-9 although this hypothesis has not yet been proven on a large scale. Nonetheless, if one assumes that undergraduate research is a significant factor in student career choice, a logical extension of this assumption is that increasing the availability and accessibility of undergraduate research opportunities for students has the potential to not only improve the educational experience for all students taking chemistry courses, but also increase the number of undergraduate chemistry majors.

Research creates knowledge, communicates discovery, and provides a significant opportunity for the mentorship of students. Research additionally increases the confidence of students, stimulates their curiosity, improves their communication skills, and enhances their critical thinking and problem-solving skills.9 Research can generate sustained and persistent enthusiasm that contributes to the retention of a student either in a specific discipline or even in their undergraduate studies. Research mentoring can lead to the efficient integration of students into research communities in a way that clearly establishes their career paths.3 The age of students involved in research is not nearly so important a factor as their ability to relate well to a mentor. Alumni of undergraduate research programs indicate that the research experience itself was a central factor in their perceptions of their undergraduate experience, regardless of whether this experience lasted 6 weeks or 4 years.3,6-9 Not enough is known about why research has such an impact on undergraduates, so further investigation in this area might be encouraged as part of the development of URCs.

One difficulty in increasing undergraduate research experiences for undergraduates according to the single faculty mentor-student apprentice model is the limited number of undergraduates that this model can accommodate within the existing faculty capacity. Although the number of students who can be involved successfully in research under the direction of a given faculty member depends on that faculty member’s capacity for mentorship, the notion of significantly broadening participation in undergraduate research to include freshmen and sophomores will require new paradigms for providing such research experiences within the existing faculty capacity. The possibility of soliciting mentors from sources other than the regular faculty ranks (e.g., postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, advanced undergraduates, national laboratory or industry scientists) was discussed, as was the possibility of designing “science semesters abroad,” similar to the traditional semester abroad to expand undergraduate research opportunities. The content of research should be distinguished from the experience value of research in relation to the level of student involved: a significant research experience for a high school student would most likely not be a significant experience for a postdoctoral student.

As has been shown by recent studies,3,5-9 mentorship is the critical component of any undergraduate research experience and increasing the system’s capacity for such mentorship requires, at the very least, support at the institutional level in the form of recognition of research mentoring activities and curricular reform. Given its value as an educational experience, there is a developing movement nationwide to require undergraduate research or other significant independent creative work as part of all curricula.

To achieve this end, research must become part of an institution’s fabric as an inherent value that supports and strengthens the education of students. Institutionalizing research will automatically involve more students, but will also require institutional change both in terms of curriculum reform and the faculty reward structure. Continued curriculum reform to better integrate research activities is needed. Engaging students as scientists early in their educational experience in active, discovery-based labs can provide a logical developmental pathway for their later successful involvement in research. An additional approach that might be helpful in developing some of the appropriate skills needed for research early in the undergraduate career of students is the model of the Research Methods course frequently used in the social sciences.

In order to implement such curricular change, the limitation of faculty time must be acknowledged and addressed. Faculty time for mentoring undergraduate research and/or curricular reform is limited and expensive, but critical for successful education in chemistry. Institutions must be encouraged to find adequate resources in terms of faculty release time for the curriculum development necessary to support an institutional culture of research. In addition, since good undergraduate research mentoring requires considerable faculty time, faculty must be provided with release time or teaching credit for mentoring activities. Faculty participants of this workshop almost uniformly cite faculty time as a critical limitation to further broadening undergraduate participation in research.

Further limitations to the traditional model of undergraduate research involving the single faculty mentor-student apprentice include those directly related to the students. Student course and work schedules often do not allow adequate time for engaging in time-intensive research activities. This problem can be exacerbated by insufficient stipends for students who must work to support themselves, a scenario of increasing frequency especially in environments such as community colleges or urban campuses. Moreover, students are often unaware of research opportunities, especially in large, impersonal institutions such as many research universities, urban institutions, or community colleges.

Many research opportunities have historically been given to those perceived to be the “best” students, those students already committed to the discipline, or those students already possessing a particular skill set. This selectivity has often led to diminished opportunities for women and minority students, and neglects potential “diamonds in the rough” among student populations other than those who have historically pursued chemistry as a career. Such selectivity for research experiences is unfortunate, however, since among populations of students who are not necessarily predisposed to science, successful research experiences can often lead to attracting these students to pursue a science degree.

Student research experiences can also be variable in quality depending on the mechanism used to establish faculty mentor-student relationships and depending on faculty expectations of undergraduate researchers. In some programs, random assignment of faculty mentors can lead to unsatisfying research experiences for a portion of undergraduate participants. Unrealistic faculty expectations for research productivity of undergraduates can also lead to a negative student perception of the experience. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that mentor relationships be allowed to develop spontaneously whenever possible and that adequate attention be paid to appropriate choice of research project for a given undergraduate, taking into consideration the background, skills, and interests of the student.

Initiating and sustaining undergraduate research at predominantly undergraduate institutions and community colleges can be particularly challenging. At predominantly undergraduate institutions, one difficulty is the relatively rapid turnover of student researchers, especially if they don’t begin their research until late in their undergraduate careers. Because they have fewer peers for interaction, faculty at smaller institutions often find the generation of research ideas that are relevant and interesting more difficult. Faculty at smaller institutions also tend to have heavier teaching loads than faculty at larger, research-oriented institutions and so have less time available for supervising student research. Lack of institutional support is also problematic in many cases both in terms of financial support for the necessary research infrastructure and also in terms of administrative buy-in that research is a central component of the undergraduate educational portfolio. This latter problem is particularly acute at community colleges, an environment in which “teaching” is viewed as the primary mission with the implicit model of classroom lecturing as the expected manifestation. Technical assistance for the maintenance of departmental instrumentation and for student training on that instrumentation is frequently lacking at smaller institutions and community colleges.

Regardless of institution size, institutional buy-in at all levels must be promoted with sensitivity to the nature and history of the individual institution. Such buy-in can be promoted by means of both downward and upward pressure: downward by administration in terms of recognition of teaching credit for mentoring undergraduate research, and upward by faculty in terms of structuring tenure and promotion documents to emphasize contributions in the mentoring of undergraduate research as significant educational contributions. Participants did note, however, that while institutional buy-in involves promotion of research across the curriculum, different disciplines have different definitions of what constitutes research and the resources that are required to support it (e.g., research in English is very different from chemistry research). It is clear that “one size does not fit all” when it comes to undergraduate research programs. Needs are very diverse, so flexibility is needed in defining undergraduate research programs. Any model adopted by a particular institution should be “win/win,” offering students the best possible educational experience and recognizing, rewarding, and supporting faculty efforts to mentor students.