Presentation:

Research experiences can often be inspiring and life-changing for young college students and pivotal in their making decisions about college majors and careers. Purdue University is beginning to implement research as part of the regular curriculum for first and second year students in chemistry. This session focused on Purdue’s Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education (CASPiE) project, which was the first Undergraduate Research Collaborative (URC) program established by the NSF Chemistry Division three years ago. The goal of the URC program is to develop new models for undergraduate research that extend research opportunities to students early in their college careers.

In addition to Purdue, the principal investigators are located at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Ball State University, and the College of DuPage, with seven other institutions also participating.

CASPiE utilizes authentic research projects, a remote-access network of chemical instruments, the peer-led team learning (PLTL) model, and the first- and second-year laboratory courses for involving students in research. The session explored several themes relating to CASPiE’s design and implementation: Inter-institutional collaborations in undergraduate education, infrastructure considerations for undergraduate research, and roadblocks to reaching large numbers of students.

Background

The National Science Foundation’s 2002 and 2004 Science and Engineering Indicators drew attention to high attrition rates among undergraduates who enter college planning to major in the sciences (National Science Board, 2002, 2004). Many of these students switch to non-science majors or do not graduate at all. The largest drop in enrollment in the physical sciences occurs between the first and second years of college. The drop is larger for women than men, and even larger for underrepresented minorities.

A solution to the attrition problem may be found through undergraduate research. Research examining the University of Michigan Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) demonstrated that students who are involved in scientific research early in their college careers are more likely to stay in college, earn their degrees, and continue on to graduate school (Nagda et al., 1998). Seymour and her colleagues have recently conducted an extensive study of undergraduate students who were involved in research through the traditional model of summer REU programs (Seymour et al., 2004). The authors interviewed 76 students at four institutions and carried out an ethnographic analysis of the interview themes they identified. Overall, they found that students reported an increased sense of confidence in their abilities to do and understand science, a more positive attitude about science and scientific careers, and gains in their abilities to explain, present, discuss, and defend their work. The research also showed that students actively engaged in research develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, an understanding how to frame research problems, and a clearer sense of how scientific knowledge is constructed.

Two models of undergraduate research prevail at U.S. colleges and universities. Many students work as part of a faculty-led research group during the summer or academic year. Students acquire scientific content knowledge, learn how to be and think like scientists, and generate new scientific knowledge. However, this one-to-one model reaches a limited number of students and is usually available only to students at the junior or senior level who have already decided to major in science. In the second prevalent model, upper division or honors laboratories include inquiry activities in which students verify known scientific results. Faculty may connect the experiments directly to the literature, but the students are exploring questions for which the answer is known. This model reaches a broader student population, but, as with the first model, the students are those who have already decided to stay in science.

CASPiE

CASPiE’s fundamental goal is to bring the benefits of the two models of undergraduate research together in a format that involves first- and second-year undergraduate students doing authentic scientific research within the context of their mainstream chemistry laboratory courses; the hope is that the student’s direct engagement in research will result in increased student retention in science. The approach is three-pronged, consisting of laboratory experiments based on authentic research, student access to a remote instrumentation network, and the creation of a research group environment using Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL). The CASPiE model should be adaptable to any undergraduate institution, from two-year community colleges to research universities.

By participating in CASPiE, institutions receive a number of other benefits. Involvement in CASPiE enhances research capacity at partner institutions, especially two-year community colleges. Students develop scientific process skills such as understanding of experimental design. Typically, large-enrollment introductory chemistry courses are much more diverse in terms of students’ gender and ethnic background than the group of graduating chemistry majors. By targeting students in their first year, CASPiE hopes to diversify the group of students who major in science. Also, as students gain research experience through courses early in their college careers, they become more attractive candidates for conducting research in the traditional model with a research advisor later in their college careers. Another important aim of CASPiE is to change faculty attitudes about what undergraduate students are capable of achieving. Early research results from CASPiE indicate that when average students are given room for creativity and exploration of science, they can be quite successful. Finally, the students’ work must contribute authentic, usable data to the faculty module developer.

Research Modules

The main teaching vehicle within CASPiE is the research module, a six-to-eight week lab-based experience centered around a research field in which students, guided by faculty and peer mentors, work on ongoing problems related to the faculty’s own research; the understanding is that their work will contribute to current research in the field. Module authors are drawn from a variety of fields, including biomedical engineering, chemistry, food science, and chemical engineering. The modules are used in second semester General Chemistry, but all of organic chemistry (i.e. semesters 2, 3 and 4 of a typical undergraduate sequence. Four modules have been completed to date, with topics ranging from antioxidant content in foods to solid-phase organic synthesis. Three modules are currently under development, and more are planned for the future.

The modules begin with an introduction to establish the “big picture” of the research field and emphasize the students’ role in the research. Next, skill building sessions introduce students to the important techniques and analytical equipment they will use in their research. Finally, every module identifies potential research areas, guides students to design experiments based on literature reading, and outlines the product or information students should provide to the research faculty member at the end of the module.

CASPiE labs differ from traditional verification labs since the student work contributes directly to the discovery of new knowledge, thus yielding students ownership of their work. Research in chemistry requires a large amount of creativity; many students do not realize this before they enroll in a CASPiE course. Students develop their own experimental procedures, and the data they collect is analyzed for meaning, not for the “right” answer. Students are given the opportunity to revise their plans as they gain information from their experiments. All either write a paper or prepare a poster or oral presentation describing their findings.

The CASPiE modules are designed to fit within standard lab schedules of one three-hour lab session per week. Their 6-8 week time frame (approximately half of a semester), allows the students sufficient time to revise their research plans based on preliminary results. Course instructors are able to decide which parts of the existing curriculum will be replaced by a CASPiE module. Modules utilize materials and equipment that are commonly available or easily accessible. When necessary, modules provide alternatives to expensive equipment. For example, one module requires every student have access to a goniometer, an instrument which costs $5000. The module provides instructions on how to build a $75 alternative.

Assessment of students in CASPiE courses focuses on evaluating their written descriptions and analysis of their research process. Student lab notebooks are graded on pre-lab, in-lab, and post-lab writing. Students are given grading rubrics at the beginning of the CASPiE course outlining the criteria that will be used to evaluate their lab reports, research papers, and/or poster assignments.

Module development has brought rewards to many faculty. Two professors at Northeastern Illinois University, where faculty laboratory research is not common, have developed a module to engineer catalysts for use in converting waste fats to biodiesel fuel. Through developing the module, these faculty have launched a research program. A Purdue pharmacy professor has created a module focused on small molecule drug design via computer simulations and laboratory work. Students piloting the module have already discovered new methods that the author plans to publish.

Remote Instrumentation Network

To support the generation of research-quality data by students involved in modules, CASPiE has established a remote instrumentation network with research-quality instrumentation. Due to the high cost of some instruments, CASPiE’s approach is to purchase a single instrument, equip it with an autosampler, and connect it to a network so that students at all CASPiE institutions can access the instrument. Currently, the network includes a FTIR/Raman spectrometer, an HPLC, a gas chromatograph, and a gas chromatograph/ mass spectrometer. Future plans call for the purchase of FTIR, UV-Vis, and NMR spectrometers.

For analysis, student samples are mailed to the institution hosting the instrument. Students use computers at their own institutions to log on to instruments in the remote network, collect data, and store the data on a file server. Later, students can access the data and process it without interfering with others’ use of the instrument. For large classes, a CASPiE instrument network staff member can run samples from an entire class sequentially in batch mode and return the data to each student team. Video cameras installed in the instrument laboratory allow students to observe the instrument as it runs their sample. The instrument’s software must be adaptable so that the options available to students can be limited to avoid overwhelming the students and damaging the instrument.

Peer-Led Team Learning for CASPiE

Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) has been used to increase student learning in lecture based courses (Gosser and Roth, 1998). Since its introduction in chemistry courses more than ten years ago, it has been successfully implemented in numerous other fields. In the model, a student who recently took the course leads a small group of students in problem-solving activities designed to teach course content. The leaders are not teaching assistants and are not involved in grading. Because the peer leader’s course experience is recent, the students can trust them to provide helpful advice.

CASPiE has adapted the PLTL model to establish a sense of scientific community and mimic the traditional research group environment. CASPiE peer leaders have completed the module in a previous semester. Students work in teams of three in the lab but join to form groups of six working with each peer leader. Each team is a research group. When PLTL groups meet, they first discuss the previous week’s lab experiments and plan for the next week’s lab. Then workshop sessions focus around one theme per week. A series of workshop materials has been developed which introduces students to information and skills they need to be successful laboratory researchers. Workshops cover a wide range of topics, from keeping a research lab notebook to scientific ethics to designing experiments. Activities in the workshops are designed to encourage interaction between students in the group. Usually, students are not taught these skills in any formal manner, but instead acquire them through interaction with more experienced students in a research group.

Collaborative Partnerships

Every CASPiE research module is developed by a research faculty member working with a faculty partner from a 2-year or non-research institution. The involvement of the second person ensures that the completed module will be transportable to a variety of institutions. The two-year partner provides a reality check to the researcher by identifying areas where the module requires equipment that is not usually available or describes the chemistry in language that will confuse students.

CASPiE’s partner institutions interact in a number of ways. Primarily, schools are implementing the CASPiE modules in their first- and second-year chemistry curricula. Some schools are adapting the PLTL materials and are taking advantage of the remote instrumentation network.

Outcomes to Date

In its first year, CASPiE involved a total of 38 students in piloting the first research modules at three sites. In the spring of 2006, the project’s second year, 230 students at eight institutions enrolled in CASPiE courses. Scale up will continue in the spring of 2007, when 450-600 students are expected to enroll in CASPiE courses at 10-15 schools.

The Center has developed a series of educational materials related to CASPiE, including an implementation guidebook for faculty, a module writer’s guidebook which provides research faculty with an approach to adapting their research into an undergraduate lab setting, the series of PLTL workshops and an accompanying guidebook, and the research modules. On the Web, instructional videos assist partner institutions with accessing the remote network, faculty post module updates and supplementary materials, and data archives are available to collect information for module authors.

Preliminary evaluation shows that CASPiE students are more positive about their lab experience than students enrolled in a traditional lab.

Discussion:

Session participants were asked to consider three questions:

• What are the best ways to initiate collaboration across institutions pertaining to undergraduate education?
• What are the incentives and obstacles for faculty and departments to participate in curriculum reform and undergraduate research efforts? What strategies might be used to overcome the obstacles?
• What are the strategies to institutionalize undergraduate research efforts and reach large numbers of students?

In response to the first question, participants encouraged the development of formalized structures that encourage faculty collaborations across institutions and assist faculty in finding research partnerships. One group suggested creating a Web site that could serve as a clearinghouse for collaboration ideas. The Web site might include a blog, a list of resources available to faculty, and a format that allows faculty to post “seeking collaborators” notices. Another group recommended the establishment of regional conferences where faculty could meet in discipline-specific groups to build collaborations.

Groups identified two primary obstacles that prevent faculty participation in curriculum reform and undergraduate research: A lack of financial, human, and/or physical resources, and the culture within universities, specifically, the absence of rewards for participation in undergraduate research. To overcome funding shortages, faculty should be encouraged to pursue research questions with their students that are less expensive and can be sustained for a long period of time. Public databases on the internet are a possible resource for some faculty. Non-financial forms of support were also suggested. Research faculty with exciting ideas should partner with centers for teaching and learning and/or science education faculty, who can oversee the implementation and provide a dose of reality. Junior faculty members who have the most at risk in adapting educational innovations should be paired with experienced senior faculty.

There was a consensus on the need to affect a cultural shift within departments that do not currently reward faculty who are involved in undergraduate research or curricular innovation. Several approaches were suggested. One is for faculty and administrators to work to change the criteria for promotion and tenure to include research supervision. Another is for departmental and senior administrators to provide financial support to faculty and/or administrators to go to conferences to gain new ideas to share with the department. Demonstrated success in one course can enable the extension of an idea to other courses in a department. Directors of undergraduate research can be valuable sources of support. Graduate and professional schools that do not teach undergraduates can be leveraged to provide research opportunities for undergraduates.

At some universities, changes have originated with the faculty rather than the administration. A department at one university has implemented a single-champion model by choosing a set of “torchbearers” for undergraduate research to be contact people for other faculty. These cases are noteworthy because the changes have arisen from faculty/faculty interactions. Reaching significant numbers of students requires curriculum reform initiatives in which research and research-related activities are embedded in specific courses.

Recommendations:

• In order to encourage more faculty to participate in curriculum reform and undergraduate research, institutions should partner junior faculty with more senior faculty. Partnerships between faculty in traditional science fields and science education specialists should also be encouraged.

For the Reinvention Center

• Create resources for faculty seeking inter-institutional collaboration opportunities. This could take the form of a website (consisting of a listing of resources and/or a forum for an exchange of ideas) or regional conferences.
• There is a need for a cultural shift in academia such that educational work is regarded as equal in importance to research work. Administrators and faculty need to seek ways to encourage such a shift to take place. The Reinvention Center can play a role in bringing together administrators and faculty from numerous campuses to articulate this message and work collaboratively to develop strategies and programs that will help bring about the shift.

References/Resources:

Publications

1. National Science Board (2002). Science and Engineering Indicators – 2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2002 (NSB-02-1).
2. National Science Board (2004). Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (volume 1, NSB 04-1; volume 2, NSB 04-1A).
3. Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., and Lerner, J. S. (1998). Undergraduate Student-Faculty Research Partnerships Affect Student Retention. The Review of Higher Education, 22, 55-72.
4. Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., and Deantoni, T. (2004). Establishing the Benefits of Research Experiences for Undergraduates in the Sciences: First Findings from a Three-Year Study. Science Education, 88, 493-534.
5. Gosser, D. K. J., and Roth, V. (1998). The Workshop Chemistry Project: Peer-Led Team Learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 185-187.

Websites

1. The NSF Undergraduate Research Center: http://www.caspie.org.
2. The Web site for the national Peer-Led Team Learning project: http://www.pltl.org.