• Karen Morse
• Michael Doyle
• Elaine Seymour
• Pamela Mills
• Ray Turner
• Carlos Gutierrez
• Sandra Gregerman

The United States has long been envied for the strength of its postsecondary educational system in that it is simultaneously excellent and yet accessible. As we move into the 21st century, the burgeoning population and diversity of college-bound students has begun to place considerable stress on this system that is manifest in such disturbing statistics as increasing times to graduation and increasing attrition rates. These troubling outcomes have led to enhanced public scrutiny of the postsecondary system and calls for greater accountability in ensuring the success of the educational process. In response to these concerns, a national discussion has ensued about the very nature of the postsecondary educational process itself and how it might be improved to be both more engaging and inclusive, in recognition of the greater diversity of the student population, while at the same time, retaining appropriate rigor and depth. This discussion has made clear the fact that academic “business as usual” based on educational approaches that date back to the early 1900’s is no longer sufficient to educate the student body of today.

Along with increased diversity in student population has come increased diversity in the possible modes of acquiring a college-level education. The mid-20th century model of an in-residence student attending one institution for an entire four-year undergraduate experience is no longer the norm. Tremendous growth in the number of two-year colleges, comprehensive universities, and even for-profit educational institutions attests to the expanding scope of the undergraduate educational landscape.

These changes in undergraduate education, the populations of students to whom it must be delivered, and the types of institutions within which it is delivered have led to a re-examination of the adequacy of the methods used in undergraduate education, and an enhanced appreciation for the value of pedagogies that actively engage students in the learning process. Participation in research and similar “active” modes of learning have been recognized as especially effective educational strategies, and undergraduate institutions are more frequently using these tools to enhance the undergraduate curriculum across all disciplines.

Nowhere is the utility of research as a learning tool more appreciated than in the sciences. However, despite a rich history of involving advanced undergraduate science students in research, the early science courses, those that are likely to be taken by a much broader range of students, are still largely based on the didactic model of curriculum delivery. At a time when student interest in most sciences is waning and the number of baccalaureate degrees awarded continues to decline (except in the life sciences), the use of these pedagogically stale approaches in introductory undergraduate science courses is detrimental, and has serious consequences for the future strength and vitality of the scientific workforce in this country.

The challenges before us in undergraduate science education are very clear: how can we provide active and engaging modes of learning such as research opportunities, with their inherent pedagogical value, to a larger number of students earlier in their undergraduate careers in a manner that will attract and retain them as majors in these disciplines? And, how can we successfully broaden utilization of these models beyond the current confines of research universities and the more elite four-year colleges to institutions with no history of research and to the growing population of students starting their undergraduate education at two-year colleges? This report contains the summary of a workshop convened to explore these challenges in the discipline of chemistry in the context of a model based on Undergraduate Research Centers (URCs). These Centers would provide research opportunities, perhaps focused around a single scientific theme, to undergraduates, particularly those in the early stages of their undergraduate experience, throughout a consortium of institutions of different size and type.

The workshop explored this concept through its focus on three specific tasks: examine the need for expanded opportunities for undergraduate research in chemistry, particularly in the early stages of a student’s undergraduate experience; explore alternative models for providing undergraduate research opportunities that differ from the traditional single faculty mentor-junior/senior undergraduate student scenario; and formulate specific recommendations for a National Science Foundation program solicitation for URCs. The workshop brought together a cross-section of stakeholders in undergraduate chemistry education: faculty and administrators from a variety of educational institutions, including large research institutions, comprehensive universities, predominantly undergraduate institutions, community and tribal colleges, and K-12 schools; representatives of government laboratories, granting agencies, and industry; and an undergraduate student. Although largely based in chemistry, this group also contained representatives from related scientific disciplines. The workshop presenters introduced a similarly broad range of undergraduate research programs, from university-wide initiatives to research-based approaches in specific chemistry courses. This synergistic mix of perspectives and experience resulted in vigorous and expansive discussions that balanced enthusiasm for the concept of URCs with cautionary concern for barriers to successful implementation of such Centers. The process of the workshop—four plenary presentations, each one followed by breakout group discussions, which were in turn followed by reports from each breakout group and full group discussion—allowed consensus on a vision for URCs to emerge, with minimal direction or guidance from the Workshop Steering Committee. This combination of diversity among the participants and emergence in the workshop process were responsible for the success of the workshop in completing its three tasks. Specific recommendations of guidelines for a program solicitation for URCs are contained in the body of the report.

Within the consensus vision, several themes emerged that highlight the philosophical values embedded in the concept of URCs. One central theme was that of collaboration: participants agreed that URCs should bring institutions with divergent missions together to their mutual benefit. A second strong theme that emerged was that, as often as possible, students should be involved in real research and actively contribute to the production of new knowledge. The utility of community-based research experiences in attracting students to the sciences, particularly at urban and nonresidential institutions, was recognized in this context. While it was agreed that URCs should focus initially on expanding research opportunities for freshmen and sophomores, participants articulated an expansive vision in which URCs support research-based learning “from cradle to grave,” from elementary school to civic involvement within the local community. Finally, the themes of institutionalization of the culture of research as the cornerstone of scientific literacy for all students and curricular reform necessary to successfully support such a vision of URCs were also emphasized. Despite its focus on a seemingly limited problem—improving research opportunities for undergraduates early in their academic experience—the concept of URCs clearly represents the kernel of a comprehensive vision for undergraduate education, one with the potential to transform it from an exclusive “ivory tower” into a vigorous and dynamic forum of inclusiveness and engagement for a larger group of students than we currently serve.