The National Academies Press

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24622 SHARE

   
Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students:

Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities
DETAILS
278 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-45280-9 | DOI 10.17226/24622
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK James Gentile, Kerry Brenner, and Amy Stephens, Editors; Committee on
Strengthening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students; Board on
Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education;
FIND RELATED TITLES Board on Life Sciences; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students: Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities
Committee on Strengthening Research Experiences

for Undergraduate STEM Students
James Gentile, Kerry Brenner, Amy Stephens, Editors
Board on Science Education

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
Board on Life Sciences

Division on Earth and Life Studies
A Report of
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This study was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or rec-
ommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of
any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-45280-9

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-45280-5
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/24622
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017937426
Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National
Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800)
624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu/.
Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

(2017). Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students: Successes,
Challenges, and Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24622.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Con-

gress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution
to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are
elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia
McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the c harter
of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to
advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary con-
tributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to
advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their
peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau
is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and
advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems
and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage
education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and
increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine at www.national-academies.org.

Reports document the evidence-based consensus of an authoring committee of

experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations
based on information gathered by the committee and committee deliberations.
Reports are peer reviewed and are approved by the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Proceedings chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, sym-

posium, or other convening event. The statements and opinions contained in
proceedings are those of the participants and have not been endorsed by other
participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies,
please visit nationalacademies.org/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON STRENGTHENING RESEARCH EXPERIENCES

FOR UNDERGRADUATE STEM STUDENTS
James Gentile (Chair), Hope College, Holland, MI

Ann Beheler, Collin County Community College, Frisco, TX
Janet Branchaw, University of Wisconsin–Madison, WI
Deborah Faye Carter, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA
Melanie Cooper, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Edward J. Coyle, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Sarah C.R. Elgin, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
Mica Estrada, University of California, San Francisco, CA
Eli Fromm, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA
Ralph Garruto, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY
Eric Grodsky, University of Wisconsin–Madison, WI
James Hewlett, Finger Lakes Community College, Canandaigua, NY
Laird Kramer, Florida International University, Miami, FL
Marcia C. Linn, University of California, Berkeley, CA
Linda A. Reinen, Pomona College, Claremont, CA
Heather Thiry, University of Colorado Boulder, CO
Kerry Brenner, Study Director

Jay Labov, Senior Scientist/Program Director for Biology Education,
Board on Life Sciences
Amy Stephens, Program Officer (since December 2015)
Michael Feder, Senior Program Officer (until October 2015)
Miriam Scheiber, Program Assistant
Charles Morgan, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy
Fellow (Spring 2016)

BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION
Adam Gamoran (Chair), William T. Grant Foundation (president),

New York, New York
Melanie Cooper, Department of Chemistry, Michigan State University
Rodolfo Dirzo, Department of Biology, Stanford University
Rush Holt, Jr., American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Washington, DC
Matthew Krehbiel, Achieve, Inc., Washington, DC
Michael Lach, Urban Education Institute, University of Chicago
Lynn S. Liben, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State
University
Cathy Manduca, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College
John Mather, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
Tonya Matthews, Michigan Science Center, Detroit, MI
Brian Reiser, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern
University
Marshall “Mike” Smith, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, Stanford, CA
Roberta Tanner, Retired Physics Teacher, Thompson School District,
Loveland, Colorado
Suzanne Wilson, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut
Heidi Schweingruber, Director
vi

BOARD ON LIFE SCIENCES
James Collins (Chair), School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University

Nancy Connell, Department of Medicine, New Jersey Medical School
Joseph Ecker, Genetics and Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for
Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA
Sarah C.R. Elgin, Department of Biology, Washington University in
St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
Linda Griffith, Biological and Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Richard Johnson, Global Helix LLC, Bethesda, MD
Judith Kimble, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Medical
Genetics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, WI
Mary Maxon, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
Jill Porter Mesirov, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Karen Nelson, J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD
Claire Pomeroy, Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, New York,
New York
Mary Power, Department of Integrative Biology, University of California,
Berkeley, CA
Margaret Riley, Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA
Lana Skirboll, Academic and Scientific Affairs, Sanofi, Washington, DC
Janis Weekes, Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Frances Sharples, Director
vii


Preface
I have had the privilege and honor to be involved in undergraduate

research throughout my more than 50-year career in science. I did research
as an undergraduate, and I was fortunate to be a research mentor to more
than 100 undergraduate students as a professor at a liberal arts college.
As a departmental chair and academic dean, I hired and mentored faculty
colleagues, assisting them in developing their own undergraduate research
mentoring talents. As a foundation president, I was charged with leading
an organization whose mission included sustaining and creating programs
that supported institutions, faculty, and students engaged in undergraduate
research.
As an undergraduate student at a small liberal arts college, I was ini-
tially focused on “fast tracking” toward medical school and a career as a
practitioner of the healing arts. Along the way I met an outstanding pro-
fessor who convinced me to take the opportunity to work with him and a
team of a few other students on an ecology-focused research project. The
summer research experience and science adventure involving hands-on sci-
ence learning was eye opening and motivating for me. That adventure in
science—and the amazing empowerment of discovering something known
by no one else at that time and discussing those results with faculty both
on and off campus in a collegial and professional manner—empowered and
convinced me to pursue graduate school (instead of medical school) and
look toward a career as a science educator and scholar.
The value of research is not merely intuitive, and it goes well beyond
the fact that undergraduate laboratory work encourages graduate work.
Undergraduate research is in itself the purest form of both faculty teaching
ix

x PREFACE
and student learning. The research involvement not only deepens student
learning in both the content and context of science but also promotes col-
laborations with faculty members and other student colleagues in a manner
that builds and sustains a community of scholars who have the confidence
to both ask the “What if?” questions in science and then engage in the
exciting journey to find the answers.
The evolution, interest in, and adaptation of undergraduate research
experiences (UREs) by all types of institutions (two- and four-year col-
leges and universities) have grown substantially, particularly so in the past
two decades. Furthermore, expansion of UREs beyond the sciences to the
broader academic community has grown significantly, adding to a new
ecology of teaching, learning, and research that is currently embraced by
increasing numbers of institutions across our nation. A report published
by the Project Leap Project (under the auspices of the American Asso-
ciation of Colleges and Universities [AAC&U]) notes that many of the
benefits of undergraduate research are aligned with three of the essential
learning outcomes espoused by the AAC&U: intellectual and practical
skills, personal and social responsibility, and integrative and applied learn-
ing. Undergraduate research embraces and promotes precisely the suite of
experiences that have the potential to transform the way students perceive
and understand what they are learning and how it is applied in authentic,
real-world situations.1
Faculty at all categories of academic institution are working to improve
mechanisms and pathways for embedding UREs into science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses, as well as expanding un-
dergraduate research opportunities to students. These efforts cut across
disciplines and include both mentored experiences with professors and
course-embedded research that is a more formal part of the curriculum.
Multiple benefits have been noted or claimed for students engaged in under-
graduate research—both personal and professional. Personal benefits may
include increased self-confidence, independence, readiness for the next level
of challenge, and ability to tolerate obstacles. Professional benefits may
include gaining both experience that will advance career opportunities and
skills such as enhanced critical thinking. UREs may provide opportunities
for developing intellectual tools that encourage students to always ask ques-
tions as they seek to understand, and these experiences may allow students
to build upon the answers in ways that enhances their education. This
report provides perspective and insight into impact on students engaged in
apprentice-style undergraduate research with faculty mentors, as well as ed-
ucational impacts for students who participate in course-embedded UREs.
1 See https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/research-and-discovery-across-
curriculum [December 2016].

PREFACE xi
UREs can add an important dimension to undergraduate STEM edu-

cation, in particular providing students with an opportunity to test and
reaffirm their interest in a STEM career. This report by a committee ap-
pointed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
provides unique and informed insight into the “educational value-added”
that accrues to students engaged in undergraduate research either through a
faculty-mentored research experience in a laboratory or in the field, through
active engagement in research that was embedded within a course, or other
forms of UREs.
James Gentile, Chair

Committee on Strengthening Research Experiences
for Undergraduate STEM Students


Acknowledgments
This report represents the work of thousands of individuals, not only

those who served on the committee, wrote papers for it, and participated
in the committee’s open sessions, but also those who conducted and were
the subjects of the research on which the committee’s conclusions and
recommendations are based. We recognize their invaluable contributions
to our work.
This report was made possible by the important contributions of the
National Science Foundation (NSF). We particularly thank our program
officer Dawn Rickey and Susan Singer (division director, NSF Division of
Undergraduate Education).
Members of the committee benefited from discussion and presentation
by many individuals who participated in our three fact-finding meetings.
• At the first meeting, different perspectives were presented on under-

graduate research experiences (UREs), existing work to build upon,
sources to evaluate, and the changing URE landscape. Presenters
included Beth Ambos (Council on Undergraduate Research), D avid
Asai (Howard Hughes Medical Institute), and Jo H andelsman
(Office of Science and Technology Policy).
• At the second meeting, the following topics were explored:
— Institutional-level data gathering and analysis. Presenters included
Stephany Hazel (George Mason University), Marco Molinaro
(University of California, Davis), and Bethany Usher (George
Mason University).
xiii

xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
— Institutional change. Presenters included Paul Hernandez (West

Virginia University) and Mitch Malachowski (University of San
Diego).
— Additional perspectives and commentary on presentations. Pre-
senters included Erin Dolan (The University of Texas at Austin)
and Tuajuanda Jordan (St. Mary’s College of Maryland).
• The third meeting included three panels of subject matter experts:
— Panel 1 discussed UREs in mathematical sciences. Panelists in-
cluded Michael Dorff (Brigham Young University), Suzanne
Weekes (Worcester Polytechnic University), and Michal Wolf
(Rice University).
— Panel 2 discussed faculty perspectives on undergraduate re-
search. Panelists included Ariel Anbar (Arizona State Univer-
sity), Tracy Johnson (University of California, Los Angeles), and
Sandra Laursen (University of Colorado Boulder).
— Panel 3 discussed engineering perspectives on undergraduate
research. Panelists included Lisa Benson (Clemson University)
and Ann Saterbak (Rice University).
The committee is very grateful for the efforts of the three authors who
prepared background papers on specific topics for the committee’s use in
drafting the report:
• Erin Dolan, on current knowledge and future directions of course-

based UREs;
• Christine Pfund, on the role and impact of mentoring on UREs; and
• Linda Blockus, on the co-curricular model of the URE.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen

for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this
independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will
assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible
and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments
and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review
of this report: Cristina H. Amon, Mechanical Engineering, University of
Toronto; Gita Bangera, RISE Learning Institute, Bellevue College; Sara
E. Brownell, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University; Thomas
R. Cech, BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado Boulder; Michael
Dorff, Department of Mathematics, Brigham Young University; Paul R.
Hernandez, Department of Learning Sciences and Human Development,
College of Education and Human Services, West Virginia University; Cathy

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xv
A. Manduca, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College; Maria

Ruiz-Primo, School of Education and Human Development, University of
Colorado Denver; David W. Schaffer, Department of Educational Psychol-
ogy, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Gabriela C. Weaver, Center for
Teaching and Faculty Development, University of Massachusetts Amherst;
and Huntington F. Willard, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com-
ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the
report nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The
review of this report was overseen by Joseph Krajcik, Department of Teacher
Education, Michigan State University, and Bruce Alberts, Department of
Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco. They
were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of
this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and
that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the
final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and
the institution.
Thanks are also due to the project staff. Kerry Brenner of the Board
on Science Education directed the study and played a key role in the report
drafting process. Amy Stephens (program officer for the Board on Science
Education) stepped in to help with the study in the middle and was im-
mensely helpful with organizing the report and revising the writing. Joanna
Roberts managed the administrative tasks associated with getting the project
started. Mary Ghitelman managed the first meeting’s logistical and admin-
istrative needs. Miriam Scheiber managed the rest of the study’s logistical
and administrative needs, along with manuscript preparation. Jay Labov
(senior advisor for education and communication with the Teacher Advi-
sory Council) contributed to the writing and provided guidance throughout
the course of the project. Michael Feder (former program officer with the
Board on Science Education) helped to get the project started on the right
foot. Heidi Schweingruber (director of the Board on Science Education)
provided thoughtful advice and many helpful suggestions throughout the
entire study. We are also grateful to two Christine Mirzayan Science and
Technology Fellows: Charlie Morgan provided many helpful and enthu
siastic contributions during the initial report writing process, and Ryan
Stowe assisted with information gathering at the start of the project.
Staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
also provided help: Robert Katt substantially improved the readability of
the report; Kirsten Sampson Snyder expertly guided the report through
the report review process; and Yvonne Wise masterfully guided the report
through production.


Contents
Summary 1
1 Introduction 11
History of UREs, 13
Context of the Study, 15
Charge to the Committee, 19
How Learning Science Informs the Discussion, 23
Standards of Evidence, 25
Report Organization, 27
References, 28
2 Heterogeneity of Undergraduate Research Experiences:

Characterizing the Variability 33
Attributes of UREs, 36
The Variety of URE Programs, 41
Preparatory Courses and Extensions of URE Programs, 61
Stages of Research Engagement, 64
Summary, 64
References, 65
3 Undergraduate Research Experiences in the Larger System of

Higher Education: A Conceptual Framework 69
Goals for Students Participating in Undergraduate Research, 70
Design Principles for UREs, 76
Systemic Factors Impacting UREs, 81
xvii

xviii CONTENTS
Summary, 89
References, 90
4 Research Documenting Student Participation in UREs 97

Tools for Measuring Outcomes, 98
Increased Participation and Retention of STEM Students, 100
Promoting STEM Disciplinary Knowledge and Practices, 106
Integrating Students into STEM Culture, 112
Participation of Women and First Generation College
Students in UREs, 117
Negative Outcomes from UREs, 118
Assessment of Evidence and Need for Additional Evidence, 119
Summary, 120
References, 121
5 The Role of Mentoring 129

Mentor Defined, 130
Who Is Mentoring in UREs?, 131
Roles That Mentors May Play, 133
Impacts of Effective Mentoring Relationships, 136
Need for Additional Research, 139
Developing URE Mentoring Programs, 139
Summary, 141
References, 141
6 Faculty Impact and Needs 147

Teaching-Research Nexus, 148
Impacts on Faculty, 150
Faculty Needs, 155
Summary, 156
References, 157
7 Need for Research About UREs 163

Challenges to Research About UREs, 165
Approaches to Research About UREs, 168
Recommendations for Future Studies, 172
Role for Funders of Research on UREs, 176
Summary, 177
References, 178

CONTENTS xix
8 Considerations for Design and Implementation of

Undergraduate Research Experiences 181
Practical Questions, 183
Initial Design Considerations, 185
The Importance of Inclusion, Access, and Equity, 189
Considering the Goals of All Participants, 191
Resources, 192
Decisions About Implementation, 200
National Organizations That Support UREs, 203
Campus Culture and Systemic Change, 206
Summary, 207
References, 208
9 Conclusions and Recommendations 211

Research on UREs, 212
Construction of UREs, 219
Current Offerings, 221
Mentoring, 224
Priorities for the Future, 226
References, 230
Appendixes
A STEM Participation Rates 233
B Committee Questions to Undergraduate Institutions and
Selected Responses 237
C Committee and Staff Biographies 249


Summary
Undergraduate research has a rich history, and many practicing re-

searchers point to undergraduate research experiences (UREs) as crucial
to their own career success. One of the most prominent opportunities for
undergraduate research has been through the National Science Founda-
tion’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, but many other
funders (large and small) have contributed to the opportunities available.
Organizations such as the Council on Undergraduate Research and the
National Conferences on Undergraduate Research have provided a show-
case for undergraduate work and a network for faculty to learn from each
other about UREs.
There are many ongoing efforts to improve undergraduate science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education that focus
on increasing the active engagement of students and decreasing traditional
lecture-based teaching. UREs have been proposed as an opportune way to
actively engage students and may be a key strategy for broadening par-
ticipation in STEM. Multiple reports have focused on the potential high
impact of UREs and the often limited availability of the experiences.1 These
reports often call for an expansion in UREs to allow for greater access
1 Three important examples of such reports are Engage to Excel: Producing One Million
Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math-
ematics from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; High-Impact
Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter
from the Association of American Colleges and Universities; and Science in Solution: The
Impact of Undergraduate Research on Student Learning by David Lopatto and published by
the Research Corporation for Science Advancement.

2 UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR STEM STUDENTS
to a wider array of students. Current efforts are working to increase the

number of students participating in UREs and to increase the diversity of
those participants.
The National Science Foundation commissioned this study by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to examine
what is known about UREs and, if possible, to identify best practices
that should be applied to future UREs. The committee was also asked to
discuss the needs of involved faculty and administrators, to examine costs
and benefits, and to provide recommendations for research and practice.
The committee approached its analysis of UREs by considering them
as part of a learning system that is shaped by forces related to national
policy, institutional leadership, and departmental culture, as well as by the
interactions among faculty, other mentors, and students. The committee
also considered UREs in the context of the goals for students and what
research on learning says about how such experiences should be designed
to reach those goals. Many existing studies that provide information on
how students learn can inform URE designers.
DIVERSITY OF URES
The classic image of a URE is a student spending the summer working
directly with a faculty member on a project related to that faculty member’s
research, but UREs have diversified beyond this traditional apprentice
model. Course-based undergraduate research experiences are becoming
increasingly common. Students also participate in research via internships
and co-ops, where they do academically relevant work outside of academia.
In addition, undergraduate research can be part of wrap-around programs
that may offer combinations of mentoring, scholarships, courses in study
skills, and courses in research approaches and ethics. As well as these
variations in structure, UREs can also differ in location (on campus or off
campus, in a variety of settings) and rewards to students (e.g., academic
year course credit, service credit, stipends). A discussion of the great variety
of UREs and a definition of URE is provided in Chapter 2.
College students today are more diverse than in the past, and faculty
and administrators implementing UREs need to consider how they include
historically underrepresented students, first generation college students,
STEM majors, non-STEM majors, beginning students, students enrolled in
capstone experiences, and pre-service teachers.2 Many of the more extensive
2 Capstone experiences are large projects done by upper-level students that bring together
multiple aspects of their undergraduate education. First generation students are the first gen-
eration in their family to attend college. Pre-service teachers are undergraduates preparing to
become teachers in grades from kindergarten through 12th grade.

SUMMARY 3
studies of UREs have focused on participation by historically underrepre-

sented groups of students in a comprehensive program. Further research
is needed to see whether the conclusions drawn from those studies can be
applied more widely to other student populations and other types of UREs.
IMPLEMENTATION OF URES
The culture and values of campuses and departments affect how UREs
are implemented and perceived. On some campuses, UREs are a promi-
nent feature of undergraduate education for all students, whereas on other
campuses, they are known (and hence available) only to a small pool of
students. There are wide variations across departments and institutions
in the degree to which faculty are expected to include undergraduates in
research. Incentives for faculty to participate can be tied to traditions and
attitudes, as well as to the potential for their participation to be consid-
ered in promotion and tenure decisions. These expectations and attitudes
can influence the level of administrative support available to help faculty
develop, implement, refine, and study UREs. Campus culture also impacts
many more-practical issues, such as the availability of resources (e.g., space,
equipment, libraries and journal access). The availability of external and
internal funding can also affect the creation and sustainability of UREs. Na-
tional networks, including disciplinary and educational societies, can play
an important role in connecting faculty members with others with similar
interests in a supportive “community of practice.” New UREs are often
modeled on or adapted from existing UREs, and this raises issues about
the best ways to learn from the experiences of others. These networking
connections can be very important on campuses where teaching expecta-
tions are high and few faculty members have maintained an active research
program of their own.
Mentoring is a key aspect of the research experience for many under
graduates. In addition to the mentoring done by faculty members, undergrad-
uates are frequently mentored by instructors, postdoctoral fellows, graduate
students, and even fellow undergraduates. Faculty engage in UREs in many
ways. In addition to serving as mentors they generally make decisions about
the structure and design of the URE, including making decisions about goals
and evaluation. A URE program has the potential to drive faculty research
and create synergy between the teaching and research responsibilities of
individual faculty members. Faculty incentives and rewards for engaging in
UREs vary across departments and institutions. The opportunity for faculty
and other mentors to engage in relevant professional development also varies.
Little research has been done on how working with undergraduates doing
research or establishing a URE program impacts the professional life of the
faculty.

WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT URES

Studies of UREs have examined many potential outcomes of participa-
tion in UREs. They have looked at the impact on persistence and retention
of students in a STEM major or STEM career, promoting understanding of
STEM, and integration into the STEM culture. From the available evidence,
the committee concludes that UREs impact graduation rates and retention
in STEM, and they may increase students’ feelings of belonging and their
confidence in understanding STEM content, data analysis, and the nature of
experiments. In addition, there is a large body of literature available on how
people learn that can be applied to UREs. However, the extent to which
those designing and implementing UREs have explicitly relied upon the
studies about UREs or on the knowledge of how students learn is unclear.
As the focus on UREs has grown, so have the questions about their
impact. There is an emerging body of literature describing specific UREs
and surveys of student participants, as well as unpublished evaluations
that provide additional information about UREs. Although these sources
provide a rich description of UREs, they do not currently answer ques-
tions about the ways that UREs lead to benefits to students and which
aspects of UREs are most powerful. In addition, it is difficult to evaluate
the costs of UREs because many schools seek to leverage already available
resources or use in-kind donations, such as nonmonetized (uncompensated)
faculty time, in building their URE program.
Taken together, there are many unanswered questions and opportuni-
ties for further investigation of the role of UREs in the undergraduate learn-
ing experience and the mechanisms by which UREs might support various
student, faculty, and institutional goals. Different types of questions rely
on different research methodologies, and attention to study design as UREs
are planned will facilitate research on them. Carefully designed studies can
enable the community to develop a more robust understanding of how
UREs work for different students, why they work, and how to evaluate the
reported outcomes for URE participants. Such studies need to be based on
sound research questions and use valid methods to measure outcomes. The
committee’s research agenda in Chapter 7 proposes specific areas where
additional studies would be particularly informative.
To maximize the return on the investment in URE programs, it will
be useful to collect additional data comparing programs to ascertain those
design features that contribute to student success. Student success includes
many different aspects, such as learning important content of a discipline,
understanding practices of STEM researchers, and gaining a sense of be-
longing to the STEM enterprise; markers of success can be measured in
both the short term (e.g., by grade point averages) and the long term (e.g.,
by career choice). Despite this need for additional research, much is known

SUMMARY 5
that can inform the decisions and actions of the many interacting people
and administrative units influencing UREs.
Practitioners designing or improving UREs can build on the experi-
ences of colleagues and learn from both the literature about UREs and the
research on how students learn. During the design process, practitioners
should consider the goals of the students, goals of the program, goals of the
faculty member, and goals of the campus. Other factors to consider include
the available resources, how the program or experience will be evaluated or
studied, and how to build in opportunities to improve the experience over
time, based on new evidence. Analysis of the current offerings on campus
can inform decisions and help create a culture of improvement in which
faculty are supported in their efforts to continually refine UREs based on
the evidence currently available and evidence that they and others generate
in the future.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Following its analysis of the available information, the committee
reached consensus on a set of conclusions and recommendations. The con-
clusions and recommendations discussed in Chapter 9 are included in this
summary. In addition, Chapter 7 identifies five additional recommendations
for future research about UREs.
Conclusions
Conclusion 1: The current and emerging landscape of what constitutes
UREs is diverse and complex. Students can engage in STEM-based under-
graduate research in many different ways, across a variety of settings, and
along a continuum that extends and expands upon learning opportunities in
other educational settings. The following characteristics define UREs. Due
to the variation in the types of UREs, not all experiences include all of the
following characteristics in the same way; experiences vary in how much a
particular characteristic is emphasized.
• They engage students in research practices including the ability to
argue from evidence.
• They aim to generate novel information with an emphasis on dis-
covery and innovation or to determine whether recent preliminary
results can be replicated.
• They focus on significant, relevant problems of interest to STEM
researchers and in some cases a broader community (e.g., civic
engagement).
• They emphasize and expect collaboration and teamwork.

• They involve iterative refinement of experimental design, experi-

mental questions, or data obtained.
• They allow students to master specific research techniques.
• They help students engage in reflection about the problems b eing
investigated and the work being undertaken to address those
problems.
• They require communication of results, either through publication
or presentations in various STEM venues.
• They are structured and guided by a mentor, with students assum-
ing increasing ownership of some aspects of the project over time.
Conclusion 2: Research on the efficacy of UREs is still in the early stages of

development compared with other interventions to improve undergraduate
STEM education.
• The types of UREs are diverse, and their goals are even more d iverse.
Questions and methodologies used to investigate the roles and
effectiveness of UREs in achieving those goals are similarly diverse.
• Most of the studies of UREs to date are descriptive case studies
or use correlational designs. Many of these studies report positive
outcomes from engagement in a URE.
• Only a small number of studies have employed research designs
that can support inferences about causation. Most of these studies
find evidence for a causal relationship between URE participation
and subsequent persistence in STEM. More studies are needed to
provide evidence that participation in UREs is a causal factor in a
range of desired student outcomes.
Taking the entire body of evidence into account, the committee concludes
that the published peer-reviewed literature to date suggests that participa-
tion in a URE is beneficial for students.
Conclusion 3: Studies focused on students from historically underrepresented

groups indicate that participation in UREs improves their persistence in
STEM and helps to validate their disciplinary identity.
Conclusion 4: The committee was unable to find evidence that URE designers
are taking full advantage of the information available in the education lit-
erature on strategies for designing, implementing, and evaluating learning
experiences. STEM faculty members do not generally receive training in
interpreting or conducting education research. Partnerships between those
with expertise in education research and those with expertise in implementing
UREs are one way to strengthen the application of evidence on what works
in planning and implementing UREs.

SUMMARY 7
Conclusion 5: Evaluations of UREs are often conducted to inform program

providers and funders; however, they may not be accessible to others. While
these evaluations are not designed to be research studies and often have
small sample sizes, they may contain information that could be useful to
those initiating new URE programs and those refining UREs. Increasing
access to these evaluations and to the accumulated experience of the pro-
gram providers may enable URE designers and implementers to build upon
knowledge gained from earlier UREs.
Conclusion 6: Data at the institutional, state, or national levels on the

number and type of UREs offered, or who participates in UREs overall
or at specific types of institutions, have not been collected systematically.
Although the committee found that some individual institutions track at
least some of this type of information, we were unable to determine how
common it is to do so or what specific information is most commonly
gathered.
Conclusion 7: While data are lacking on the precise number of students

engaged in UREs, there is some evidence of a recent growth in course-based
undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), which engage a cohort of
students in a research project as part of a formal academic experience.
Conclusion 8: The quality of mentoring can make a substantial difference

in a student’s experiences with research. However, professional develop-
ment in how to be a good mentor is not available to many faculty or other
prospective mentors (e.g., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows).
Conclusion 9: The unique assets, resources, priorities, and constraints of

the department and institution, in addition to those of individual mentors,
impact the goals and structures of UREs. Schools across the country are
showing considerable creativity in using unique resources, repurposing cur-
rent assets, and leveraging student enthusiasm to increase research oppor
tunities for their students.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Researchers with expertise in education research
should conduct well-designed studies in collaboration with URE program
directors to improve the evidence base about the processes and effects of
UREs. This research should address how the various components of UREs
may benefit students. It should also include additional causal evidence for
the individual and additive effects of outcomes from student participation
in different types of UREs. Not all UREs need be designed to undertake

this type of research, but it would be very useful to have some UREs that
are designed to facilitate these efforts to improve the evidence base.
Recommendation 2: Funders should provide appropriate resources to sup-

port the design, implementation, and analysis of some URE programs that
are specifically designed to enable detailed research establishing the effects
on participant outcomes and on other variables of interest such as the con-
sequences for mentors or institutions.
Recommendation 3: Designers of UREs should base their design deci-

sions on sound evidence. Consultations with education and social science
researchers may be helpful as designers analyze the literature and make deci
sions on the creation or improvement of UREs. Professional development
materials should be created and made available to faculty. Educational and
disciplinary societies should consider how they can provide resources and
connections to those working on UREs.
Recommendation 4: Institutions should collect data on student participa-

tion in UREs to inform their planning and to look for opportunities to
improve quality and access.
Recommendation 5: Administrators and faculty at all types of colleges and

universities should continually and holistically evaluate the range of UREs
that they offer. As part of this process, institutions should:
• Consider how best to leverage available resources (including off-
campus experiences available to students and current or potential
networks or partnerships that the institution may form) when
offering UREs so that they align with their institution’s mission
and priorities;
• Consider whether current UREs are both accessible and welcom-
ing to students from various subpopulations across campus (e.g.,
historically underrepresented students, first generation college
students, those with disabilities, non-STEM majors, prospective
kindergarten-through-12th-grade teachers); and
• Gather and analyze data on the types of UREs offered and the stu-
dents who participate, making this information widely available to
the campus community and using it to make evidence-based deci-
sions about improving opportunities for URE participation. This
may entail devising or implementing systems for tracking relevant
data (see Conclusion 4).
Recommendation 6: Administrators and faculty at colleges and universities

should ensure that all who mentor undergraduates in research experiences

SUMMARY 9
(this includes faculty, instructors, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students,

and undergraduates serving as peer mentors) have access to appropriate
professional development opportunities to help them grow and succeed in
this role.

universities should work together within and, where feasible, across institu-
tions to create a culture that supports the development of evidence-based,
iterative, and continuous refinement of UREs, in an effort to improve stu-
dent learning outcomes and overall academic success. This should include
the development, evaluation, and revision of policies and practices designed
to create a culture supportive of the participation of faculty and other
mentors in effective UREs. Policies should consider pedagogy, professional
development, cross-cultural awareness, hiring practices, compensation, pro-
motion (incentives, rewards), and the tenure process.

universities should work to develop strong and sustainable partnerships
within and between institutions and with educational and professional
societies for the purpose of sharing resources to facilitate the creation of
sustainable URE programs.


Introduction
I hear and I forget.

I see and I remember.
I do and I understand.
—Confucius
Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) are a meaningful oppor-

tunity for undergraduates to learn about the work and perspectives of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) researchers.
Many faculty members and other scientists recall that their own research
experiences as an undergraduate were pivotal to their career success. Today,
there are various forms of UREs available to students at a wide variety
of institutions. However, while many students report that they enjoy the
experiences and learn a lot from them (Harsh et al., 2011), there has been
little analysis of which types of UREs might best serve students at different
academic institutions and with diverse career aspirations.
Attention to UREs has grown significantly in the last few years as
policy actions have promoted their expansion. In 1998, the Boyer Commis-
sion on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University considered a
capstone research experience as an essential element in the reinvention of
undergraduate education (Miller, 2013). However, the most prominent call
was from a committee of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST). The second recommendation of its 2012 report,
Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates
with Degrees in STEM, is to “advocate and provide support for replac-
ing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses”
11

(President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012, p. 25).

Specifically, the report discussed how undergraduates working on faculty
projects can allow students to experience real discovery and innovation and
to be inspired by STEM subjects. The PCAST report recommended that
all relevant federal agencies examine their programs and make changes in
an effort to decrease any policy or practice that creates barriers to early
engagement of students in research. It also called on the agencies to “en-
courage projects that establish collaborations between research universities
and community colleges or other institutions that do not have research
programs” (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,
2012, p. v).
As efforts have been made to expand opportunities for UREs, many
questions have arisen. This report provides a comprehensive overview of and
insights about the current and rapidly evolving types of UREs, in an effort to
improve understanding of the complexity of UREs in terms of their content,
their surrounding context, the diversity of the student participants (includ-
ing the educational pathways of those students), and the opportunities for
learning provided by a research experience. The report discusses the various
types of UREs and the crosscutting characteristics that most UREs exhibit.
The type and level of evidence available on the efficacy of UREs and how the
evidence base might be strengthened are examined. The way that UREs cur-
rently fit with the educational “ecosystem” in higher education is discussed,
as well as the problems that designers and implementers of such programs
often encounter within the current structures for governance and funding
of higher education. Recommendations are presented on how such barriers
might be overcome in the future by rethinking how academic departments,
institutions, and funding agencies might support UREs and how UREs could
be assessed and evaluated more effectively and comprehensively.
As noted in Chapter 2 and discussed throughout the report, the author-
ing committee has examined many varieties of UREs. Students engage in
research during capstone experiences, co-ops,1 and internships; as part of
community engagement projects; and as part of bridge programs to assist
with transitions between high school and college or between college and
graduate school. Traditionally, two general categories of UREs are most
often discussed and analyzed in the literature: the apprentice model and
the course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE). Other varia-
tions of UREs exist and will also be discussed throughout this report. In an
apprentice model experience, one or a small number of students work with
1 Undergraduate co-ops are full-time paid educational experiences designed to provide an
opportunity for students to apply knowledge and skills from their coursework while working
in a professional setting such as in industry. They are particularly common for students in
engineering programs.

INTRODUCTION 13
an individual or small group of established scientists, technologists, engi-

neers, or mathematicians on a research or design problem, typically outside
of the classroom. Individual students may play different roles depending on
the wishes and needs of the sponsoring individual and the background
of the student. In a CURE, small to large groups of students enrolled in
a formal course or sequence of courses participate in a discovery-based
project designed to engage them in the use of STEM practices, discovery,
collaboration, iteration, and pursuit of broadly relevant or important work
(
Auchincloss et al., 2014; Brownell and Kloser, 2015; Litzinger et al.,
2011). These course experiences may be offered over part of an academic
term/semester, for full semesters, or for multiple semesters in a sequence of
courses. Some CUREs are developed by individuals, while others are part
of large national consortia. CUREs appear to have increased in popular-
ity in recent years and are the subject of several new studies (discussed in
Chapter 4).
HISTORY OF URES
Undergraduate research is sometimes thought to be a relatively recent
development in higher education. However, faculty-mentored, apprentice-
based undergraduate research has a long and rich history, dating back more
than 200 years to Wilhelm von Humboldt (Zupanc, 2012). Many U.S.
institutions of higher education adopted the “Humboldtian Ideal” of an
unceasing process of inquiry that unified teaching and research (Kinkead,
2012). In keeping with this ideal, the National Science Foundation launched
a program supporting undergraduate research participation in 1958. The
program was canceled in 1981 but relaunched in its current form as Re-
search Experiences for Undergraduates in 1987 (Bennett, 2015).
The Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR), founded in 1978, is a
national organization that helps connect faculty and college administrators
across institutions engaged with undergraduate research. Many of the first
participants involved with CUR were faculty from liberal arts colleges who
saw undergraduate research as good pedagogy that could expand horizons
for the students while furthering basic or applied research being undertaken
by faculty members themselves.
Many different types of academic institutions have now explored and
established strong undergraduate research programs; the types of offer-
ings have varied depending on the academic environment, the research
infrastructure available, and the culture of the particular institution or
discipline. With new avenues of funding through public and private foun-
dations to support these efforts, programs have been replicated, modified,
and expanded. As discussed in Chapter 4, the reported benefits of UREs
include increasing the number of students who choose to major in STEM

disciplines, continue throughout the program, and subsequently graduate

with a STEM degree, in addition to helping students develop an interest
and identity as a STEM researcher. They may also encourage more faculty
members and other academic personnel to engage in some kind of basic or
applied research.
The committee chose to take an inclusive view of the individual dis-
ciplines included in the definition of STEM by considering the social sci-
ences, natural sciences, engineering, and mathematics. We attempted to find
examples and identify literature from all of these fields that would provide
evidence to inform the discussion of UREs. However, the relevant literature
is limited for many of these specific disciplines, so examples and references
cited in the report are not evenly distributed across all intended STEM
disciplines. In particular, the discipline of engineering received attention in
the committee’s discussions and review of the literature. Engineering has a
long history of capstone courses and other opportunities for undergradu-
ate students to engage in work done by engineers (Rowles et al., 2004).
However, much of the work on UREs has focused on examining the ways
that students learn science. Therefore, throughout the report where those
studies are discussed, the language may appear to be ignoring the engineer-
ing perspective.
As research has become a more institutionalized component of under-
graduate education, faculty members have created links with colleagues
at other campuses. In addition to CUR, other national groups that have
joined the conversation on UREs include the National Conferences on
Undergraduate Research, which started in 1987 and merged with CUR
in 2010, and Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL). PKAL began in 1969 under
the auspices of the Independent Colleges Office, and is now operating as
a component of the American Association of Colleges and Universities
(AAC&U). Founded on the principle of “discovering what works,” PKAL
has focused on catalyzing professional development for STEM faculty in
ways that will enhance their success as scholar-educators who can then
promote undergraduate student learning through hands-on approaches and
through research in the classroom, laboratory, engineering design environ-
ment, or field.
Many professional and disciplinary societies have initiatives to fund
student research or engage faculty in discussions about improving under-
graduate research. For example, the Mathematical Association of America
works to provide avenues for undergraduate students to engage in research
and hosts a special interest group devoted to research in undergraduate
mathematics education. Moreover, the American Society for Engineering
provides access to programs that sponsor undergraduate research. Individu-
ally and collectively, these national organizations have played a significant
catalytic role by bringing a strong and professional framework and culture

INTRODUCTION 15
to the affirmation and expansion of undergraduate research in all types of

institutions across the nation.
Although initial efforts emphasized the classic apprenticeship model,
often based on a summer experience in the lab, recent years have seen an
expansion of CUREs in which undergraduate students are engaged in re-
search as part of a formal course. The creation of a CURE is often driven
by a desire to provide research experiences for a larger group of students
than can be accommodated in a faculty member’s research environment
(the member’s laboratory or field site). Alternatively, it can be part of the
fieldwork for a given course. Some institutions see CUREs as a way to
further engage students and encourage them to pursue and continue their
education in a particular major or to continue their studies at that institu-
tion (Rodenbusch et al., 2016). These courses often have been developed
by individual faculty members and are sometimes based on the faculty
member’s own research. Some CUREs have served as models and have been
adapted or replicated at other institutions, including two-year colleges—for
example, the Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education (Weaver
et al., 2006). The Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Net-
work was initiated in 2012 to help faculty address challenges inherent to
integrating research experiences into undergraduate courses in the biologi-
cal sciences.2
CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

In the past decade, discussions of undergraduate research have inten-
sified among various national and regional groups across campuses, in
response to the need to better prepare an increasingly diverse student popu-
lation to face 21st century challenges (Auchincloss et al., 2014; Bangera and
Brownell, 2014; Brownell et al., 2015; Litzinger et al., 2011). Conversations
have centered not only on student outcomes such as fostering students’
learning and other psychosocial factors (e.g., engagement, belonging, inter-
est in research) and how these may influence retention, but also on the costs
inherent in expanding the availability of UREs. Recent years have also seen
an increase in the numbers of students from underrepresented groups who
are enrolled in undergraduate courses and programs (Bangera and Brownell,
2014; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016),
thereby increasing the need to ensure that students from all groups are con-
sidered in the design of UREs. More discussion of student demographics and
inclusion follows later in this section.
Multiple national reports have both stimulated and captured these
discussions and called for expanding UREs. AAC&U reports that address
2 For more information, see http://www.lifescied.org/content/13/1/29.full [November 2016].

undergraduate research include College Learning for the New Global Cen-
tury; High Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access
to Them, and Why They Matter; and The LEAP Vision for Learning: Out-
comes, Practices, Impact, and Employers’ Views (respectively, Association
of American Colleges and Universities, 2007, 2008, 2011). These reports
present UREs as one of the high-impact practices that can dramatically
influence undergraduate education. Another report, Vision and Change in
Undergraduate Biology Education (American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, 2011), called for integrating UREs into curricula. Follow-
on activities prompted by that report have included formation of the PULSE
(Partnership for Undergraduate Life Science Education) online community,
conferences, and sharing of resources.
As discussed earlier in this introduction, the PCAST report Engage to
Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees
in STEM (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012)
specifically highlighted the potential of UREs to improve the nation’s under
graduate STEM education during the first 2 years of college and recom-
mended their expansion so that eventually all undergraduates are afforded
this kind of learning opportunity. The report recommended that current and
future STEM faculty learn about and incorporate effective teaching methods
into their STEM courses, particularly including the opportunity for students
to generate or apply knowledge through research. The N ational Science
Foundation has taken the lead in many aspects of implementing the PCAST
report because enhancing the quality of STEM education is a high priority
for that agency. However, questions remain about how best to achieve this
goal, and some of those questions motivated this study.
The emphasis on UREs is part of a larger effort to improve and broaden
participation in undergraduate STEM education, which has been the focus
of numerous efforts and projects by a range of groups. In addition to the
organizations mentioned above (American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, AAC&U, PCAST), work has been done by the American
Association of Universities through its Undergraduate STEM Initiative,
including the Framework for Systemic Change. Funding from the National
Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Howard Hughes
Medical Institute, and numerous other funding entities has also driven ef-
forts in undergraduate STEM education that have increased undergraduate
opportunities to participate in research.
Consensus studies and other activities of the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) have ad-
dressed the topic in multiple ways over the past 6 years. The 2011 report
Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and
Technology Talent at the Crossroads (National Research Council, 2011)
examined the role of diversity in the STEM workforce and called for efforts

INTRODUCTION 17
to increase demand for and access to postsecondary STEM education and

technical training by historically underrepresented students. Community
Colleges in the Evolving STEM Education Landscape (National Research
Council, 2012a) reported on a summit that addressed the relationships
between community colleges and four-year institutions, with a focus on
partnerships and articulation processes that can facilitate student success
in STEM. It also considered how to expand participation of students from
historically underrepresented populations in undergraduate STEM, as well
as how subjects such as mathematics can serve as gateways or barriers to
college completion. The 2012 report Discipline-Based Education Research:
Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and
Engineering (National Research Council, 2012b) studied the new field
that combines knowledge of teaching and learning with deep knowledge
of discipline-specific science content. It analyzed empirical research on
undergraduate teaching and learning and the extent to which the resulting
evidence influences undergraduate instruction. Reaching Students: What
Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and
Engineering (National Research Council, 2015) presented information from
Discipline-Based Education Research and additional examples in a format
designed to be more practical for faculty and instructors.
The recent report Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year
STEM Degrees (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi-
cine, 2016) addressed the changing demographics of college students and
the multiple pathways they take in their education. It also described the
challenges of needing to take developmental courses before being able to
enroll in credit-earning courses, as well as the complications of transferring
credits. This report includes recommendations about ways policy makers
and institutions can learn more about students’ varied pathways to better
support them in reaching their goals and completing their degrees.
The National Academies publication most closely related to this project
is the report of a convocation on Integrating Discovery-based Research
into the Undergraduate Curriculum, convened to explore aspects of recom-
mendation #2 of the 2012 PCAST report. The convocation report presents
efforts to improve instruction through engaging students in research, with
a focus on the opportunities and challenges of CUREs (National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015).
As mentioned above, another important aspect of the study context
is the changing demographics of today’s undergraduate students, includ-
ing more historically underrepresented students, first generation college
students,3 and nontraditional (e.g., part-time, delayed start, financially
independent, and caregiver) students. Many private and publicly funded
3 First generation students are those who are the first in their families to attend college.

programs have focused specifically on providing UREs to historically under-

represented minorities, women, and first generation students because mem-
bers of these groups are less likely to persist in STEM fields once they enter
their undergraduate education and CUREs are proposed as a mechanism
for broadening access to research for members of underrepresented groups
(Bangera and Brownell, 2014). Although students from historically under-
represented groups express greater interest in pursuing a STEM degree now
compared with 30 years ago, there has not been a corresponding increase
in the overall completion rates in STEM degrees, nor has there been a
decrease in the notable disparities among historically underrepresented
groups (Eagan et al., 2013, 2014; Estrada et al., 2016; Hurtado et al., 2012;
National Science Foundation, 2014). Data on different participation rates
of various groups are presented in Appendix A.
Overall, enrollment by women in STEM majors has increased in recent
years; however, this change is not consistent across all disciplines. Of stu-
dents pursuing STEM degrees in 1971, 62 percent were men and 38 percent
were women. In 2012, 48 percent of those pursuing STEM degrees were
men and 52 percent were women (Eagan et al., 2014). However, within
specific STEM disciplines, there is still evidence of a gender gap. Men are
more likely than women to pursue a degree in engineering (79 percent
men versus 21 percent women) or in math or computer science (75 per-
cent men versus 25 percent women). However, the pattern is reversed for
the biological sciences (60 percent women versus 40 percent men) and the
social sciences (70 percent women versus 30 percent men). In addition,
even in fields with roughly equal numbers of women, concerns still remain
with respect to discrimination in the selection of students to participate in
UREs, discrimination during a URE, and the potential for sexual harassment
(Clancy et al., 2014; Eddy and Brownell, 2016; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).
Faculty and administrators at community colleges face additional or
enhanced challenges compared to other types of institutions, particularly
with respect to resources, including lower levels of funding for research
and lack of appropriate facilities. This can make it difficult to imple-
ment and support UREs. In addition, the student populations at community
colleges are generally quite diverse. Community colleges are more likely
to serve first generation students and students who are slightly older, have
families, or are working. Notably, students from Hispanic/Latino back-
grounds were more likely to be enrolled in community college compared
to students from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. Moreover, students in
community colleges were on average less prepared than those in four-year
institutions, often requiring some form of developmental education in their
first year, especially in mathematics (Van Noy and Zeidenberg, 2014).
Although data exist on the demographics of students attending colleges
and universities today, there is very limited information on how many stu-

INTRODUCTION 19
dents from historically underrepresented groups or at particular types of

institutions participate in UREs. That is, there is currently no standardized
metric used at educational institutions to track the type and duration of
undergraduate research engagement for students. Programs that receive fed-
eral funding collect and maintain some information regarding the students
involved in such UREs, but this represents only a fraction of the undergrad-
uate research programs available to students. Thus, these data provide an
incomplete picture of the demographics of students participating in UREs.
CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

In response to a request from the National Science Foundation, the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a
16-member expert committee to evaluate the state of knowledge on the cur-
rent broad array of UREs. The committee charge was to recommend ways
to design, evaluate, and study UREs, based on a review of the available re-
search evidence and taking into account the needs and resources of colleges
and universities (see complete Statement of Task in Box 1-1). Membership
on the committee included faculty from various STEM disciplines who have
been involved in research opportunities for undergraduates at two- and
four-year institutions, experts in education research and policy, and those
with experience in higher education leadership.
Interpreting the Charge

The committee met five times over a 10-month period in 2015 and
2016 to gather information and explore the range of issues associated
with UREs. In addition to reviewing published materials pertaining to the
committee’s charge, committee members heard from many experts and
commissioned three papers during the information-gathering phase of the
committee process (see below).
The committee spent a great deal of time discussing the charge and the
best ways to respond to its call. We gathered evidence from literature re-
views and presentations, by contacting faculty and administrators at numer-
ous colleges and universities, and by sharing the members’ own experiences
and expertise. The conversations with faculty and administrators provided
information about the range of UREs offered, examples of how students
and faculty are compensated, and various examples of institutional sup-
port mechanisms, among other topics. The literature reviews searched for
information on UREs, undergraduate research opportunities, research ex-
periences for undergraduates, CUREs, mentors, apprentices, advisors, iden-
tity, and persistence. We also searched for evaluations of URE programs.
Although some evaluations were found in the literature, the committee

BOX 1-1
Charge to the Committee
A committee will synthesize the broad range of literature on models for

providing undergraduate students with authentic research experiences in STEM
disciplines or professions. The committee will define what qualifies as “authentic
undergraduate research experiences” and assess the quality of research on
various types of these research experiences. If possible and based on the

strength of the literature, the committee will compare the effectiveness of dif-
ferent m echanisms and programs for providing undergraduate research experi-
ences and provide best-practice examples of successful strategies for involving
undergraduates in research experiences. The committee will review the empirical
evidence of benefits across a range of outcomes associated with the multitude of
educational, student, and institutional goals. It will critically assess the associated
costs involved in providing authentic research experiences within the context of
undergraduate STEM education across all types of post-secondary institutions
of higher learning, and provide recommendations for research and practice. The
committee will also discuss the needs of faculty and departmental administra-
tors in order to successfully implement or improve and expand undergraduate
research opportunities. The committee will develop a conceptual framework for
designing and evaluating undergraduate research opportunities and create a
research and development agenda to clarify what additional research is needed
to robustly assess the quality and outcomes of undergraduate research experi-
ences. The committee will balance the potential value added of making research
or practice experiences more “authentic” with the potential additional investment
of time, institutional capacity and financial support needed, and suggest strate-
gies for implementing undergraduate research experiences for various goals
and outcomes, and for a variety of institutions with different types and levels of
resources at their disposal.
could not determine a way to systematically examine the program evalua-

tions that have been prepared. The National Science Foundation and other
funders require grant recipients to submit evaluation data in their annual
reports, but that information is not currently aggregated and published.4
Over the course of this study, members of the committee benefited from
discussion and presentations by the many individuals who participated in
our three fact-finding meetings. At the first meeting, Jo Handelsman (Office
of Science and Technology Policy), David Asai (Howard Hughes Medical
Institute), and Beth Ambos (CUR) described different perspectives on UREs,
existing work to build upon, sources to evaluate, and the changing land-
4 Personal knowledge of Janet Branchaw, member of the Committee on Strengthening
Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students.

INTRODUCTION 21
scape. During the second meeting, the committee heard expert testimony on
institutional-level data gathering and analysis from Bethany Usher (George
Mason University), Stephany Hazel (George Mason University), and Marco
Molinaro (University of California, Davis). Mitch Malachowski (University
of San Diego) and Paul Hernandez (West Virginia University) provided in-
formation on institutional change. Erin Dolan (The University of Texas at
Austin) and Tuajuanda Jordan (St. Mary’s College of Maryland) provided
a commentary on the presentations and helped provide additional perspec-
tives on the day’s topics.
The third meeting involved some panel discussions. The first panel
included Michael Wolf (Rice University), Suzanne Weekes (Worcester Poly-
technic University), and Michael Dorff (Brigham Young University), who
discussed UREs in mathematical sciences. The second panel on faculty
perspectives on undergraduate research was presented by Sandra Laursen
(University of Colorado Boulder), Tracy Johnson (University of California,
Los Angeles), and Ariel Anbar (Arizona State University). The third panel
involved Lisa Benson (Clemson University) and Ann Saterbak (Rice Uni-
versity), who discussed engineering perspectives on undergraduate research.
The committee commissioned three papers to provide in-depth input
on specific topics. Erin Dolan (The University of Texas at Austin) authored
an analysis of CUREs. Christine Pfund (University of Wisconsin–Madison)
wrote a summary of current thinking about mentorship and how it relates
to UREs. Linda Blockus (University of Missouri) prepared a document on
issues related to co-curricular research experiences. In addition, the com-
mittee built upon the information and experience of the Convocation on
Integrating Discovery-based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum,
described above.
Discussions about the evidence engaged the full committee, and mem-
bers shared their expertise in designing and running URE programs; train-
ing other faculty to run URE programs and to mentor students; evaluating
URE programs; and designing and conducting research on learning, STEM
education, higher education, and learning in UREs. The committee’s discus-
sions frequently grappled with contrasts between the large body of positive
descriptive evidence, the lack of extensive causal evidence, the impassioned
calls for expansion of UREs, and the numerous creative UREs that have
already been established. We worked to reconcile the perspectives in order
to provide guidance to the field. This report synthesizes the committee’s
findings based on the evidence reviewed and the expertise of its members.
Request to Define Authentic Research

The committee’s charge (see Box 1-1) includes providing a definition
for authentic undergraduate research experiences. While discussing which

characteristics were appropriate and necessary to include in a definition of

UREs, the committee grappled with the inclusion of the term “authentic”
in their charge. The committee sought out examples in which others had
used the term “authentic” to inform their discussion. The term “authentic”
in the context of STEM education is used in the PCAST report Engage to
Excel and in multiple other documents. “Authentic” has also been used by
researchers, notably in previous work on education in STEM fields (e.g.,
Spell et al., 2014) and on education generally (Newmann, 1996). In addi-
tion, a framework is forthcoming from the federal government that defines
and explains an authentic STEM experience. In this framework, a URE
would be one example of an authentic STEM experience, but the federal
approach encompasses more than undergraduates and more than research.
Its definition states that “an Authentic STEM Experience is an experi-
ence inside or outside of school designed to engage learners directly or
indirectly with practitioners and in developmentally-appropriate practices
from the STEM disciplines that promote real world understanding.”5 It lists
the characteristics of an “Authentic STEM Experience” as an active-doing,
collaborative, meet learners where they are, appropriate learning approach/
practice, leading to real-world understanding.
With these precedents in mind, the committee again discussed the wide
variety of UREs and which features of UREs are essential to a definition.
The committee found that an attempt to sort them into binary categories
of “authentic” or “unauthentic” would not help to achieve a useful con-
struct. The committee’s definition of UREs is detailed in Chapter 2, which
provides a discussion of the characteristics that make up a URE. Many of
these characteristics are similar to the activities identified by Auchincloss
and colleagues (2014) and by Brownell and Kloser (2015) in their work
on CUREs. In this report the committee considers a URE to mean that the
student is doing the type of work that STEM researchers would typically
do; that is, the student is engaging in discovery and innovation, iteration,
and collaboration as the student learns STEM disciplinary knowledge and
practices while working on a topic that has relevance beyond the course. A
URE is structured and guided by a mentor; the students are intellectually
engaged and assume increasing ownership of some aspects of the project
over time. The extent and focus on each particular activity will vary across
different types and examples of UREs. Students can engage in STEM-based
undergraduate research in many different ways, across a variety of settings,
and along a continuum that extends from and expands upon learning op-
portunities in other educational settings. UREs therefore include many
5 Personal communication from Susan Camarena, National Science Foundation, to the Com-
mittee on Strengthening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students, Novem

ber 10, 2016.

INTRODUCTION 23
different types of research. For example, undergraduates may participate

in wet bench research (such as characterizing human genetic diversity in
Pacific Island populations), non–wet bench research (such as exploration
and analysis of a genome), hypothesis-driven research (such as hypothesiz-
ing that the depths of aftershocks from the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, which
was a magnitude 9.0, will be deeper to the west due to the direction of plate
subduction), or nonhypothesis-driven research (such as case comparisons
done to analyze the geological record).
HOW LEARNING SCIENCE INFORMS THE DISCUSSION

One of the major claims about UREs is that they can motivate students
to persist in STEM by providing a window into the creation of knowledge,
by strengthening student identity as a member of the STEM community,
and by showcasing career options. Claims are also made that research
experiences promote the development of robust, integrated, conceptual
knowledge by engaging participants in STEM practices (Brownell and
Kloser, 2015; Litzinger et al., 2011). Though there is a lack of strong causal
and mechanistic evidence to support these claims, research from the learn-
ing sciences provides some very strong principles that are relevant to UREs
and from which URE designers and researchers can benefit in their efforts
to create and study UREs. To develop hypotheses about how UREs might
promote the outcomes described above, it is important to draw both on
research in the learning sciences broadly (National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, 2005; National
Research Council, 1999) and on research that specifically examines STEM
learning (National Research Council, 2006, 2009, 2012a).
Research from the learning sciences provides a way of thinking about
how students engage with their education (Johri and Olds, 2011). This
research indicates that prior knowledge and experiences shape learning:
in other words, the learners’ existing understanding, skills, and beliefs
significantly influence how they remember, reason, solve problems, and ac-
quire new knowledge. Therefore, providing students with the opportunity
to engage in the work of a STEM professional—focusing on the requisite
research and disciplinary skills—through a URE can encourage deeper
learning (Auchincloss et al., 2014; Brownell and Kloser, 2015; Johri and
Olds, 2011; Litzinger et al., 2011). It is important to remember that when
students have misconceptions—ideas, beliefs, and understandings that dif-
fer from accepted STEM-specific explanations—they may have difficulty
integrating new knowledge with their inaccurate notions. This is because
learning is a process of actively constructing knowledge via the process of
conceptual reorganization. Individuals actively seek to make sense of new
knowledge by connecting it with prior knowledge and experience (diSessa,

1996; Linn, 1995; Linn and Eylon, 2011). The act of discovery can allow
students to work through ambiguous results and use evidence-based reason-
ing (Auchincloss et al., 2014).
The role of metacognition—the mind’s ability to monitor and control
its own activities—in this process is important. Students who are encour-
aged to reflect on their learning have a better chance of constructing deeper,
more robust knowledge (Litzinger et al., 2011). They monitor their com-
prehension as they learn—for example, by asking themselves if they truly
understand when they encounter a new concept or by pausing to consider
whether their strategy is working when they tackle a problem (National
Research Council, 2012b).
Students often have difficulty applying their knowledge in a new con-
text. For students to be able to use what they have learned, they need to
understand the core concepts and use them as a structure for organizing
their knowledge. Spending a lot of time studying material and practic-
ing in rote ways is not sufficient to promote transfer of knowledge; what
matters is how this time is spent. The goal is to spend time on activities
that promote deeper learning, such as engaging in the work of a STEM
professional, as this can develop the necessary expertise to know how the
research fits within the landscape of the discipline (Litzinger et al., 2011).
Evidence suggests that collaborative activities can enhance the effectiveness
of student-centered learning over traditional instruction and improve reten-
tion of content knowledge (see, for example, Cortright et al., 2003; Johnson
et al., 1998, 2007; National Research Council, 2015). When students work
together on well-designed learning activities, they sometimes establish a
community of learners, which provides cognitive and social support.
As discussed in Chapter 4, researchers have examined many questions
about UREs. For instance, does the opportunity to participate in a sustained
research experience where the student takes on increasing ownership foster
the development of a sense of agency and efficacy (a belief that one’s actions
can lead to improved understanding)? In typical STEM courses, students
often find that they are following a set procedure and have little choice
or opportunity for creativity. Does following a procedure that involves
STEM practices help students develop a personal belief that they can learn
disciplinary content and use the knowledge to solve relevant problems?
Do research experiences promote agency by giving students choices in
managing their experiment, recognizing and addressing problems, refining
the research design, and exploring alternative explanations? Do students
develop a sense of belonging, acceptance, and identity as a STEM profes-
sional when they feel they are participating in a community that is solving
novel problems, have choices to make, and have the opportunity to provide
creative input?
A well-designed URE builds on the evidence generated by researchers

INTRODUCTION 25
seeking to answer these types of questions. It builds on evidence-based

principles and seeks to provide an inclusive culture in which students from
diverse backgrounds feel welcome in the program and are able to generate
deeper learning that is relevant to their interests and perhaps values (Johri
and Olds, 2011). By its very nature, a research experience requires that
students do more than “know” something; it requires that they use their
knowledge to “do” something. At various stages, across the various forms
of UREs, students may design and carry out experiments or build and test
new products or applications. They may analyze and interpret data, using
the evidence that they have generated to make arguments; they may design
solutions to problems, and almost always, they will need to communicate
their work to other audiences. Their knowledge is not generated solely for
academic purposes but rather to use in a research setting, and the latter
objective enables more robust, deeper learning and integration to occur, tied
into current practice within the STEM profession. For some students, the
URE also provides a place to explore how the goals of the relevant STEM
discipline relate to their personal and perhaps cultural values, which may
or may not be reflected in the dominant culture. Furthermore, the setting of
most UREs provides an experience that offers the potential for collabora-
tion—engaging others from diverse backgrounds—as well as opportunities
for these undergraduate researchers to think about, reflect on, and con-
solidate what they are doing and learning, which can potentially connect
to what is meaningful to the student. In short, the experience provides
opportunities both for metacognitive reflection and for integration of their
personal and budding professional identities.
STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE
This committee was charged in part with the task of reviewing “the
empirical evidence of benefits across a range of outcomes associated with
the multitude of educational, student, and institutional goals.” In approach-
ing this task, we found it useful to build on an earlier report, Scientific
Research in Education (National Research Council, 2002). The committee
that authored that report distinguished among three types of research ques-
tions: descriptive, causal, and mechanistic. Descriptive questions simply
ask what is happening without making claims as to why it is happening. In
the present context, one might ask how students experience undergraduate
research and the degree to which their understanding of key concepts or
procedures, or their beliefs in their capacity as a scientist or researcher,
changes over the course of their research. Note that this description makes
no claims as to whether the research experience caused these changes, only
that these changes occurred over the same period of time during which
students were engaged in undergraduate research. Causal questions seek

to discover whether a specific intervention leads to a specific response;

whether, for example, a summer URE reduced the chances that students
would subsequently switch out of STEM fields to pursue degrees in other
majors. Finally, questions of mechanism or of process seek to understand
why a cause leads to an effect. Perhaps the URE enhances a student’s con-
fidence in her ability to succeed in her chosen field or deepens her commit-
ment to the field by exposing her to the joys of research, and through these
pathways it enhances the likelihood that she will persist in STEM.
Approaches to answering descriptive, causal, and mechanistic questions
require a combination of theory, method, and measurement. In plain terms,
you need to know the question you want to test (theory), know how to
look for the outcome of that test (method), and be able to measure that
outcome. The committee views the question of URE benefits to be one of
cause: did the URE support the student in the career path she was on? Did
it provide insights into the nature of STEM and a STEM career that the stu-
dent would not have gained absent the experience? Did the student acquire
new knowledge regarding the STEM discipline to which she was exposed?
Implicit in the causal claim is what social science researchers call a
counterfactual: an alternative outcome an individual would have expe-
rienced in the presence of a different cause, or absent the cause under
investigation. Examining differences between comparable students allows
for causal claims. For example, a claim that UREs increase persistence in
STEM fields is equivalent to the counterfactual claim that persistence rates
in STEM would be lower in the absence of UREs. What is the warrant for
such claims? One can never know for sure what would happen to a given
individual subject to two different treatments—say a course with a strong,
classroom-based research component and one that consists of lectures only.
The student takes one class or the other. One could, however, make claims
about average differences across groups of students experiencing these dif-
ferent approaches to instruction if one believes the groups are, on average,
more or less identical prior to enrolling in these disparate courses. The
design of the study, and fidelity to that design, forms the foundation of the
belief that the groups of students subject to these different experiences are
truly comparable.
In evaluating the research on the benefits of UREs, the committee
looked for designs that would support not only descriptive but also causal
and mechanistic claims. The latter designs would have (1) a clearly identi-
fied treatment, (2) a treatment group and at least one comparison group,
and (3) an approach to assignment to treatment, or retrospective matching,
that would lead one to have some confidence that groups in the two (or
more) conditions were likely the same on average, prior to treatment. We
were able to find very few such studies. However, some studies used plau-
sible strategies for supporting the claim that the groups on average were

INTRODUCTION 27
equivalent prior to the URE. These studies offered evidence suggestive of

various benefits of UREs, in particular in retention of students in STEM
programs (e.g., Rodenbusch et al., 2016). For example, Lopatto (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015; Appendix B)
showed the effectiveness of quasi-experimental designs to study UREs.
Finally, many of the studies we reviewed lacked a control or compari-
son group. The committee considers studies of this sort to be descriptive
but not causal or mechanistic. They offer a good foundation for developing
hypotheses about causes, and they may be informative regarding potential
mechanisms. Descriptive studies may provide a warrant for looking for
causal relationships (benefits), but individually they do not offer hard
evidence about those benefits. Many of the studies in this category relied
either on student self-reports of their increased knowledge of the research
process, confidence in their ability to participate, development of their
research identity, or some other attribute, with student responses collected
either retrospectively or at the beginning and end of the URE being studied.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report examines the types of UREs available and considers the roles
of students, faculty, administrators, funders, and others involved with UREs.
Variations in types of UREs are examined in Chapter 2, including their
structure, location, and the ways they reward students. This chapter also
provides examples of the many creative approaches to UREs that can be
found at institutions around the country.
Chapter 3 provides a framework for looking at the interacting actors
and the situational components influencing UREs. The forces operating on
students, faculty, nonfaculty mentors, academic departments, and institu-
tions are complex and multilayered. This chapter also discusses the claims
that are made about the benefits of UREs within the context of what is
known about learning and learning science.
Chapter 4 examines the evidence for impact of UREs on students by
analyzing the available research literature. Many of the most robust studies
focus on historically underrepresented groups of students. There are many
unanswered questions and opportunities for further research into the role
of UREs in student learning and the mechanisms through which UREs have
an impact on retention.
Faculty and mentoring are the topics of Chapters 5 and 6. URE pro-
grams are not always run by faculty; undergraduates are frequently men-
tored by nonfaculty instructors, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students,
and even fellow undergraduates. Mentoring is a key aspect of the research
experience for undergraduates and is therefore discussed in detail here.
Mentoring has been studied extensively in many different settings, and there

is much to be learned from the literature on this topic. The faculty role in
UREs is much larger than the opportunity to serve as a mentor. Faculty
incentives and rewards for engaging in UREs vary across departments and
institutions. The opportunity for faculty or staff to engage in relevant pro-
fessional development also varies. Little research has been done on these
aspects of faculty roles.
Chapter 7 presents a research agenda that describes topic areas where
further studies could greatly improve understanding of how UREs work.
Potential questions to be answered, as well as potential methodologies for
pursuing the answers, are included in the agenda. Although the chapter
advocates for a broad range of research, it stresses the importance of con-
ducting research on the causal effects of UREs. It also discusses the different
kinds of evidence and the importance of designing good studies that can
provide insight into cause and mechanism.
Chapter 8 presents considerations in designing and implementing
UREs. Although the committee advocates for further studies to better
understand UREs and identify optimal approaches, we also recognize
that many campuses are currently expanding the UREs available to their
students. Therefore, this chapter aims to provide guidance based on the
currently available information for institutions, campus leaders, and URE
designers and implementers. It looks at the current policy context and con-
siders campus culture as well as the perspectives of students and faculty.
There is a section on the importance of considering equity and access. In
addition, big-picture issues and practical questions are presented, as well as
topics to consider in the design, implementation, evaluation, and improve-
ment of UREs. While the committee was not able to find the information
that would be necessary to do a cost-benefit analysis of UREs, this chapter
does address the topic of financial, human, information, space, and equip-
ment resources.
The final chapter lays out the committee’s conclusions about UREs
and the recommendations for future actions involving the implementa-
tion and analysis of UREs.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and Change in Under-
graduate Biology Education: A Call to Action. C. Brewer and D. Smith (Eds.). Washing-
ton, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College Learning for the New
Global Century. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Available: https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/GlobalCentury_final.pdf
[November 2016].

INTRODUCTION 29
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2008). High Impact Educational Prac-
tices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them and Why They Matter. Washington,
DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Available: http://provost.tufts.
edu/celt/files/High-Impact-Ed-Practices1.pdf [November 2016].
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2011). The LEAP Vision for Learning:
Outcomes, Practices, Impact, and Employers’ Views. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges and Universities. Available: https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/
files/LEAP/leap_vision_summary.pdf [November 2016].
Auchincloss, L.C., Laursen, S.L., Branchaw, J.L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D.I., Lawrie,
G., McLinn, C.M., Pelaez, N., Rowland, S., Towns, M., Trautmann, N.M.,Varma-Nelson,
P., Weston, T.J., and Dolan, E.L. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate re-
search experiences: A meeting report. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 29-40.
Bangera, G., and Brownell, S.E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences can
make scientific research more inclusive. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 602-606.
Bennett, N. (2015). Overview of the NSF REU Program and Proposal Review. Presentation
at the GRC Funding Competitiveness Conference [February 18-21, 2015], Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation.
Brownell, S.E., and Kloser, M.J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the
effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biol-
ogy. Studies in Higher Education, 40(3), 525-544.
Brownell, S.E., Hekmat-Scafe, D.S., Singla, V., Seawell, P.C., Conklin-Imam, J.F., Eddy, S.L.,
Stearns, T., and Cyert, M.S. (2015). A high enrollment course-based undergraduate
research experience improves student conceptions of scientific thinking and ability to
interpret data. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14(2), ar21. Available: https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477737/pdf/ar21.pdf [January 2017].
Clancy, K.B.H., Nelson, R.G., Rutherford, J.N., and Hinde, K. (2014). Survey of academic
field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PLOS ONE, 9(7),
e102172. Available: http://dx. Doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172 [January 2017].
Cortright, R.N., Collins, H.L., Rodenbaugh, D.W., and DiCarlo, S.E. (2003). Student reten-
tion of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. Advances in Physiol-
ogy Education, 27, 102-108.
diSessa, A.A. (1996). Faculty opponent review: On mole and amount of substance: A study
of the dynamics of concept formation and concept attainment. Pedagogisk Forskning i
Sverige, 1(4), 233-243.
Eagan, M.K., Hurtado, S., Chang, M.J., Garcia, G.A., Herrera, F.A., and Garibay, J.C. (2013).
Making a difference in science education: The impact of undergraduate research pro-
grams. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 683-713.
Eagan, K., Hurtado, S., Figueroa, T., and Hughes, B. (2014). Examining STEM Pathways
among Students Who Begin College at Four-Year Institutions. Paper prepared for the
Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2- and 4-Year STEM Degrees.
Washington, DC. Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/
documents/webpage/dbasse_088834.pdf [November 2016].
Eddy, S.L., and Brownell, S.E. (2016). Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in
undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines.
Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2). Available: http://journals.aps.org/
prper/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020106 [January 2017].
Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A.G., Campbell, P.B., Denetclaw, W.F., Gutierrez, C.G.,
Hurtado, S., John, G.H., Matsui, J., McGee, R., Okpodu, C.M., Robinson, T.J., S ummers,
M.F., Werner-Washrune, M., and Zavala, M. (2016). Improving underrepresented minor-
ity student persistence in STEM. Cell Biology Education, 15(3), es5. Available: http://
www.lifescied.org/content/15/3/es5.full [November 2016].

Harsh, J.A., Maltese, A.V., and Tai, R.H. (2011). Undergraduate research experiences from a
longitudinal perspective. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(1), 84-91.
Hurtado, S., Eagan, M.K., and Hughes, B. (2012). Priming the Pump or the Sieve: Institu-
tional Contexts and URM STEM Degree Attainments. Paper presented at the annual
forum of the Association for Institutional Research [June 2-6, 2012], New Orleans, LA.
Available: http://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/downloads/AIR2012HurtadoPrimingthePump.
pdf [November 2016].
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to col-
lege: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30, 26-35.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in
postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15-29.
Johri, A., and Olds, B.M. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering edu-
cation research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1),
151-185.
Kinkead, J. (2012). What’s in a name? A brief history of undergraduate research. CUR on the
Web, 33(1). Available: http://www.cur.org/assets/1/7/331Fall12KinkeadWeb.pdf [August
2016].
Linn, M.C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer
science: The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 4(2), 103-126.
Linn, M.C., and Eylon, B.S. (2011). Science Learning and Instruction: Taking Advantage of
Technology to Promote Knowledge Integration. New York: Routledge.
Litzinger, T.A., Lattuca, L.R., Hadgraft, R.G., and Newstetter, W.C. (2011). Engineering
education and the development of expertise. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1),
123-150.
Miller, R.E. (2013). The Almost Experts: Capstone Students and the Research Process. Paper
presented at the Association of College & Research Libraries, Indianapolis, IN. Available:
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/
papers/Miller_Almost.pdf [January 2017].
Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J., and Handelsman, J. (2012).
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474-16479.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Integrating Discovery-
Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum: Report of a Convocation. Commit-
tee for Convocation on Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate
Curriculum. Division on Earth and Life Studies. Division of Behavioral and Social Sci-
ences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Barriers and Opportuni-
ties for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students’ Diverse
Pathways. S. Malcom and M. Feder (Eds.). Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in
Two- and Four-Year STEM Degrees. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Higher Education and the Workforce. Policy
and Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medi-
cine. (2005). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Committee on Facilitating Inter
disciplinary Research. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

INTRODUCTION 31
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific Research in Education. R. Shavelson and L.

Towne (Eds.). Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Center for
Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School
Science. S. Singer, M. Hilton, and H. Schweingruber (Eds.). Committee on High School
Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Board on Science Education, Center for Educa-
tion, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People,
Places, and Pursuits. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. Shouse, and M. Feder (Eds.). Committee
on Learning Science in Informal Environments. Board on Science Education, Center for
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation:
America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. Committee on Under
represented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce Pipe-
line. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Policy and Global Affairs.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012a). Community Colleges in the Evolving STEM Educational
Landscape: Summary of a Summit. S. Olon and J. Labov (Rapporteurs). Committee on
Evolving Relationships and Dynamics Between Two- and Four-Year Colleges and Univer-
sities. Board on Higher Education and Workforce. Policy and Global Affairs. Board on
Life Sciences. Division on Earth and Life Studies. Board on Science Education; Teacher
Advisory Council. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washing-
ton, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012b). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding
and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Committee on the
Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research.
S. Singer, N. Nielsen, and H. Schweingruber (Eds). Board on Science Education, Divi-
sion of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National Research Council (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says about Effective
Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. N. Kober (author). Board on Sci-
ence Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
National Science Foundation. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington,
VA: National Science Board.
Newmann, F. (1996). Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to Excel: Produc-
ing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in STEM. Washington, DC:
Executive Office of the President. Available: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541511.
pdf [February 2017].
Rodenbusch, S.E., Hernandez, P.R., Simmons, S.L., and Dolan, E.L. (2016). Early engagement
in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineer-
ing, and mathematics degrees. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar20. Available:
http://www.lifescied.org/content/15/2/ar20 [February 2017].
Rowles, C.J., Koch, D.C., Hundley, S.P., and Hamilton, S.J. (2004). Toward a model for cap-
stone experiences: Mountaintops, magnets, and mandates. Assessment Update, 16(1),
1-2, 13-15.

Spell, R.M., Guinan, J.A., Miller, K.R., and Beck, C.W. (2014). Redefining authentic research
experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to their implementation.
CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13, 102-110.
Van Noy, M., and Zeidenberg, M. (2014). Hidden STEM Knowledge Producers: Community
Colleges’ Multiple Contributions to STEM Education and Workforce Development.
Paper prepared for the Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2- and
4-Year STEM Degrees. Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/
documents/webpage/dbasse_088831.pdf [November 2016].
Weaver, G., Wink, D., Varma-Nelson, P., Lytle, F., Morris, R., Fornes, W., Russell, C., and
Boone, W. (2006). Developing a new model to provide first and second-year under
graduates with chemistry research experience: Early findings of the center for authentic
science practice in education (CASPIE). Chemical Educator, 11, 125-129.
Zupanc, G.K. (2012). Undergraduate research and inquiry-based learning: The revitalization
of the Humboldtian ideals. Bioscience Education, 19(1), 1-11.

Heterogeneity of
Undergraduate Research Experiences:
Characterizing the Variability
Students can engage in undergraduate research experiences (UREs) in

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in many differ-
ent ways, to varying degrees, and across a variety of settings.1 UREs them-
selves are heterogeneous and vary in leadership, mentoring, format, and
duration. They vary in expectations for students, value for career t rajectory,
goals and outcome measures, and population served. Institutional support,
disciplinary and multidisciplinary expectations, and faculty motivation and
rewards also differ. As a result, UREs vary widely even within the same
institution.
Outcomes that students gain from UREs are shaped by how the experi-
ences are constructed by faculty and supported by the academic department(s)
and institution, by professional organizations in some disciplines, and by ex-
ternal policy and funding structures at the state and national level. Student
characteristics may affect the design of the program or the outcomes for
the students themselves. A broad goal beyond simply student persistence in
STEM would be for students to develop not only conceptual understanding
of relevant disciplinary and/or multidisciplinary knowledge, but also the
abilities to conduct an investigation and develop STEM literacy. For some
UREs, the goal might be to have students persist in a STEM discipline, but
for other UREs the goal may be to have students become an informed citizen
1 This chapter includes content from papers commissioned by the committee titled Strength-
ening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students: The Co-Curricular Model of
esearch Experience by Linda Blockus (Blockus, 2016) and Course-based Undergraduate
the R
Research Experiences: Current Knowledge and Future Directions by Erin Dolan (Dolan, 2016).
33

and a savvy consumer of STEM information, in order to know how to make

informed decisions based on the strength of evidence.
In developing a definition for UREs, the committee considered the
diverse types of programs available and synthesized descriptions from re-
ports throughout the literature to arrive at a way to describe UREs. The
Council on Undergraduate Research defines undergraduate research as “an
inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that makes
an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline.”2 Faculty
associated with the group CUREnet proposed a definition of a course-based
undergraduate research experience (CURE) that requires the integration of
five dimensions: use of scientific practices, discovery, broadly relevant or
important work, collaboration, and iteration (Auchincloss et al., 2014).
Building on the work of that group, the committee included those five
dimensions in our definition of a URE (the first five bullets below). Four
additional characteristics are also included in the committee’s definition in
order to broaden the scope to include UREs that are not CUREs and to be
inclusive of all STEM disciplines.
In preparing this list, the committee considered which aspects of an
experience would allow a URE to more closely align with the work of re-
search professionals, while keeping in mind that this work varies across the
many STEM disciplines. Due to the variation in the types of UREs, not all
experiences will include all of the following characteristics in the same way;
experiences vary in how much a particular characteristic is emphasized. The
committee includes the following characteristics in our definition of a URE:
• They engage students in research practices including the ability to

• They aim to generate novel information with an emphasis on dis-
• They focus on significant, relevant problems of interest to STEM
researchers and, in some cases, a broader community (e.g., civic
engagement).
• They emphasize and expect collaboration and teamwork.
• They involve iterative refinement of experimental design, experi-
• They allow students to master specific research techniques.
• They help students engage in reflection about the problems b
eing in-
vestigated and the work being undertaken to address those problems.
• They require communication of results, either through publication
2 See http://www.cur.org/about_cur/frequently_asked_questions_ [November 2016].

HETEROGENEITY OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH EXPERIENCES 35
• They are structured and guided by a mentor, with students assum-

Auchincloss and colleagues (2014) pointed out that many of the in-
dividual characteristics listed can be found in courses that are not UREs,
but it is the integration of these characteristics that makes the experience a
URE. For example, a course focused on reviewing published articles may
expose students to the way that research is performed and communicated,
but not engage them in doing research themselves. A research methods
course may teach the details of specific procedures without engaging the
students in an actual research project. A course may contain a component
for which undergraduates perform experiments in the laboratory, but these
tasks may be done in a predetermined step-wise manner, sometimes called
a “cookbook laboratory” (Brownell and Kloser, 2015), that requires little
problem solving or analysis on the part of the student.
UREs can be designed to meet the needs of undergraduate students at
various career stages and from various backgrounds; some of the charac-
teristics listed above may be more crucial for certain learning objectives or
for specific populations of students. The degree to which the characteristics
are emphasized for an individual URE varies depending on many factors
(e.g., discipline, goals for students, time, resources) and the emphasis on a
particular characteristic may also change over time within a single URE.
For example, developing technical skills and knowledge is often a focus
in early research learning experiences, while opportunities to learn how
to deal with failure and develop resiliency tend to emerge as students get
more deeply involved in a research project. Ideally, formative assessment by
research mentors, program directors, and instructors can be used to moni-
tor student development and achievement throughout the experience and
to make appropriate adjustments along the way.
Many different names have been used to describe types of UREs. These
names vary across disciplines and are not used consistently in practice or in
the literature. To help demonstrate the wide variety of experiences that have
developed, this chapter groups UREs into the following types:
• Individual faculty research group (apprentice-style);

• Capstone experiences and senior theses;
• Internships and co-ops;
• CUREs;
• Wrap-around experiences;
• Bridge programs;
• Consortium/project-based programs; and
• Community-based research programs.

ATTRIBUTES OF URES
There are several attributes—duration, costs, research topic, mentor-
ing, student expectations—of UREs that can have significant impact on the
quality of and access to the URE. These attributes have been identified in
several recent reports (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 2011; National Research Council, 2006, 2007, 2012; Next Genera-
tion Science Standards Lead States, 2013) and are summarized in Table 2-1,
where they are presented as a series of questions with possible answers to
be considered when designing UREs. A more nuanced discussion on many
of these questions and their answers follow the table.
Mentor
An important component of the URE is the research mentor and the role
the mentor plays. In UREs, students often work in groups under the super
vision of a mentor. Positive mentoring relationships can expose students to
the culture of STEM, and mentorship is one of the aspects of UREs that may
promote students’ identities as STEM professionals. Mentorship refers to
a relationship between a seasoned, experienced person—the m entor—and a
less experienced person—the protégé (Rhodes, 2005). Within the context of
TABLE 2-1 Questions About the Attributes of UREs

Question Possible Answers
Who is the research • Faculty member
mentor? • Postdoctoral scholar
• Industry researcher
• Laboratory manager
• Graduate student
• Peer
• Combination of the above
What roles might • Guide students and acclimate them to the social and cultural
the mentor(s) play? norms of the research environment (e.g., identity, self-efficacy,
self-confidence, specific experiences around gender and race in
STEM)
• Guide students in learning about and exploring future
educational or career pathways
• Construct research experience appropriate to students’ skills and
understanding of disciplinary material
• Introduce relevant concepts, ways of thinking, and skills
• Assign research tasks
• Encourage lab participation
• Monitor progress of students

TABLE 2-1 Continued
Question Possible Answers
For how many • Smaller ratios are typical in co-curricular research experiences
students is each (assistantships, interns, or as part of programs); one mentor
mentor responsible? responsible for 1-10 students
• Medium ratios of 12 to 25 students per faculty member are
typical in long-term project-based research experiences
• Larger ratios are likely in classroom research experiences; may
have 1 faculty member mentoring 40 or more students. Larger
ratios are typically offset by graduate teaching assistants or
postdoctoral scholars/lecturers as instructors
How long is the • Short course or portion of a quarter/semester (1 to several weeks)

research experience? • Quarter or semester course (10-16 weeks; ~4-5 hours per week)
• Summer research experiences (8-10 weeks; ~40 hours per week)
• Academic year research placement (30 or more weeks)
• Multiple academic years of experience as part of a research team
Is the student • Uncompensated

compensated and if • Academic credit
so how? • Hourly wage
• Stipend
How are students • Home institution students versus national recruitment

recruited to • Recruitment of specific targeted populations
participate? • Enroll in a course (may need to satisfy prerequisites)
What costs are • Students pay tuition for academic credit

associated with • Students receive wages or stipends
offering UREs, and • Mentor salaries
who pays them? • Lab space and materials
• Travel to and housing at the research site
• Travel to conferences for student presentations
How is the research • Assigned by faculty/instructor

topic selected? • Assigned with options decided by the student
• Choice of student (within material relevant to the course or
research area)
• Open-ended with resources limited to those available
What, if any, • Final reports

presentation • Posters
requirements for • Oral presentations
students are there? • Peer-reviewed published research papers
What other factors • Accreditation requirements (capstone experiences)

impact UREs? • Culture of the discipline or department
• Integration of UREs (especially CUREs) as part of the normal
introductory and/or upper-level curriculum
• Cultural background of the participating students and faculty

this relationship, there is an expectation that the protégé will develop pro-
fessionally under the guidance of the mentor (Eby et al., 2007). Substantial
variability exists not only for who serves as the mentor but also with respect
to the number of mentors a given student might have, as well as the contri-
butions that the mentors provide throughout the research experience. For
example, the research question might be designed with the principal investi-
gator for the project; however, many of the daily mentoring functions may
be carried out by a postdoctoral fellow, graduate student, or lab manager
with oversight by the principal investigator (Russell et al., 2009). Mentors
provide instrumental support by providing resources and opportunity to the
protégé to engage in goal attainment (Kram, 1985) and psychosocial sup-
port when a mentor enhances “an individual’s sense of competence, identity,
and effectiveness in a professional role” (Kram, 1985, p. 32). Relationship
quality has been shown to be related to positive mentorship outcomes. Issues
related to mentorship are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
Costs
Students can be compensated for their participation through primarily
two different mechanisms: stipend (salary or hourly wage), academic credit,
or both. Stipends are typically provided for summer research experiences
and academic-year extensions of those experiences. When the experience is
part of the curriculum, the student is more likely to receive academic credit
than a stipend. The need for student compensation is intimately connected
to program costs and sustainability. Student stipends are often provided by
external funding, providing an opportunity for faculty grant leadership but
also introducing a threat to the sustainability of the program. Credit-based
courses may be easier to sustain but also impose costs on the student, fac-
ulty, and institution. Additional costs may include faculty and staff salaries,
lab space and materials, travel to and housing at the research site, and
travel to conferences for students’ presentations.
Research Focus
The focus of research in a URE can be driven by faculty preferences,
departmental or institutional constraints, or student interest; it may also
be influenced by the direction of research in the disciplinary field. In
apprentice-style UREs and some long-term CUREs, the topic of research is
typically aligned with the faculty member’s or instructor’s program of re-
search and is often supported on some level by the faculty member’s grants.
Advanced undergraduate research students may progress to develop their
own research questions but would typically remain in the same general area
of research as their advisor. CUREs of one- or two-semester duration are

also frequently related to the faculty member’s area of research, but they
are more likely to differ, particularly when a faculty member’s research
topic is not optimal for undergraduates due to a lack of facilities or the
students’ limited background knowledge. Divergence from the mentor’s
area of research can also occur when CUREs build on pre-existing examples
developed on another campus. In some cases these CUREs become part
of a network that provides resources, or even training, for faculty on the
approach and subject. A student’s research topic can also be influenced by
a need to meet requirements of the student’s major or program—for ex-
ample, a capstone course required by the accreditation requirements in an
engineering department.
Presentation of Research
Many experiences replicate the dissemination mechanisms of STEM
researchers by offering the opportunity, or requiring students, to make
presentations and prepare publications. As addressed in Chapter 4, being
able to describe not only the methods one uses but also the importance
of the research question situated within the field has been linked with im-
proved learning outcomes and with development of the student’s identity
as a STEM professional. Many forms of UREs, including both indepen-
dent UREs and CUREs (described in the next section), typically embed
delivery of posters and/or presentations within the experience, often as a
culminating event that involves presenting to the program’s faculty, staff,
and participants. For example, many institutions hold annual on-campus
research conferences to celebrate student research. These conferences may
be scheduled to maximize attention to the undergraduate research on cam-
pus (e.g., a conference held on alumni weekends, during visits by prospec-
tive students, or even during trustee meetings). In some cases, students are
encouraged to present at a professional society conference, exposing them
to the broader STEM enterprise and to peers and graduate students from
other institutions. Many professional societies have a funding mechanism
to which undergraduate students can apply and which will subsidize their
travel expenses. Moreover, students also may develop manuscripts for
submission or may be included in publications as a coauthor with others,
depending on the research group’s policies.
Institution Type
As characterized in Chapter 3, the type of institution can have a sub-
stantial impact on the types of UREs offered. Some institutions might have
UREs as a prominent feature of undergraduate education for all students,
whereas for other institutions only a select few may have the opportunity

to participate in a URE. Moreover, there could be differences in the avail-

ability of resources (e.g., space, equipment, libraries, journal access) across
different institutions. Relying upon national networks, including disci-
plinary and educational societies, could help facilitate a “community of
practice” enabling institutions with limited resources to develop and refine
existing practices.
Department and Academic Program

The access to and attributes of UREs may also differ across depart-
ments on a single campus, as discussed in Chapter 3. Some departments
have a disciplinary history or local tradition of offering or requiring under
graduates to do research or requiring students to do a senior capstone
project that includes research and/or design as part of accreditation (e.g.,
engineering departments accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engi-
neering and Technology [ABET]).
Departmental decisions not only have an impact on faculty expectations
and course assignments (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6), but also
can impact undergraduates’ access to research experiences. Departments
that encourage faculty to take actions that embed research experiences into
the curriculum through the use of independent studies, credit-bearing sum-
mer research programs, academic year seminars, and CUREs may increase
the number of students who participate in UREs (Free et al., 2015). Many
scholars have reported on models for integrating research experience into the
curriculum (Gates et al., 1999; Hakim, 2000; Kierniesky, 2005; Kortz and
van der Hoeven Kraft, 2016; Lopatto et al., 2014; Merkel, 2001; P ukkila et
al., 2007; Reinen et al., 2007; Rueckert, 2007; Temple et al., 2010).
Students who participate in research experiences should be aware of
the importance of ethics and responsible conduct, and some UREs provide
students with this type of training. In some instances, this training can be
embedded within the research experience, whereas other programs might
require this training before participation in the URE can begin. The litera-
ture has suggested that although ethics training may be a requirement for
students to engage in research, it can have the added benefit of helping
students to better understand the importance of ethical awareness. For
example, Hirsch and colleagues (2005) reported on a summer URE that
was part of a National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported Engineering
Research Center in Bioengineering. The objective of the study was to ex-
amine the results of core competency instruction in ethics and communica-
tions as they were integrated in students’ research experiences outside of
formal courses. Students were presented with case studies, and the results
showed that they developed greater ethical awareness of key concepts, such
as respect for persons (informed consent), beneficence, justice, and integrity.

THE VARIETY OF URE PROGRAMS

UREs do not fit neatly into discrete categories. As stated above, they
contain the definitional characteristics the committee described above to
some degree. That is, some UREs might place a higher premium on collab-
orative teamwork, whereas others place less of an emphasis on this charac-
teristic and instead devote significant time to improving presentation skills
(Russell et al., 2009). Moreover, students may participate in multiple UREs
during their undergraduate education, but there is not a consensus around
a clear progression of the types of experiences a student should have. Given
this variability, it can be challenging to organize and catalogue the different
programs and systematically collect data on the students who participate in
UREs. This lack of data collection can be observed not only at a national
level but also at an institutional level. Box 2-1 summarizes the challenges
encountered by one university official in his efforts to determine how many
students participated in UREs at the University of California, Davis.
BOX 2-1
Efforts to Document the Number of
Undergraduate Researchers
Professor Marco Molinaro, Assistant Vice Provost for Undergraduate Educa-

tion at the University of California, Davis, recently summarized many of the most
important challenges and opportunities in this area. He indicated that the diversity
of types of experiences makes it difficult to document participation, activities, and
outcomes and also hinders accountability. Difficulty in documenting participation
means that institutions also probably do not know the number of women, histori-
cally underrepresented minorities, first generation college students, students with
disabilities, etc., who are participating in the UREs. When examining course cata-
logs or transcripts, it is often difficult to determine from a course’s name whether
it is a CURE. The variety of different types of course names for CUREs, as well
as the variety of formats and goals, makes it difficult to document the content of
the course and the research-based aspects of the course. The lack of clear paths
for students to become involved in research and the lack of centralized tracking
systems for research participation means that UREs will not all be documented on
a student transcript. Prof. Molinaro pointed out that creating a transcript notation
to document student participation in any type of research activity would provide a
permanent record of their research participation, which students could use when
applying for graduate school and as a credential with future employers.
SOURCE: Presentation to the committee by Marco Molinaro, University of California, Davis;

September 16, 2015.

Moreover, UREs can vary on other dimensions, such as the size of the
research group or the timing of when the research project might take place.
For example, individual or small group experiences typically fall under the
purview of apprentice-style research projects, with a few students working
with an individual faculty member, as compared to group-oriented UREs
in which undergraduates are organized into teams of moderate to signifi-
cant size to enable more students to benefit from participation in research.
Whether the design of the URE is more apprentice-style (one or several
students who work mainly as individuals) or more group-based, these expe-
riences can be offered during the academic year or outside of the academic
year, with many programs spanning this particular dimension.
Summer bridge programs, like other summer URE programs, are of-
fered outside of the academic year but are shorter than a full year. However,
summer bridge programs are more likely to be group-based, whereas sum-
mer URE programs cover a wide variety of program styles ranging from
group-based efforts to students working independently within a research
environment (e.g., a faculty member’s lab or field opportunity, an industry
setting). CUREs are more likely to be offered within the academic year (or
even over multiple academic years, depending on the nature of the research
question and project) and range in size from classes that have smaller
groups to larger programs. Finally, internships are more likely to involve
independent work in an industrial or corporate setting.
What we present next are brief descriptions of several of the more
commonly used types of UREs, with examples of each type from actual
URE programs. This discussion is meant not as an exhaustive list but as
an illustration of the variability of programs, depending on the intended
goals of the experience and its other attributes. The examples provided for
each program type were chosen to cover the range of different settings and
disciplines. Appendix B contains additional examples of UREs.
Individual Faculty Research Group

A common pathway to research is for students to begin working on a
part-time basis in a faculty research lab or team and to work for a semester
or more to “learn the ropes” before taking ownership of advanced respon-
sibilities. Faculty may pair inexperienced students with an intermediary
supervisor, such as a graduate student or lab technician, for day-to-day
training. Although some students develop their research skills and inde-
pendence over an extended period of time, other students (visiting summer
interns, for example) may enter a research environment with previous
experience and have a shorter and steeper learning curve. This approach to
situational and observational learning in the context of a URE is sometimes
labeled an “apprentice model.”

During the academic year, generally 10-15 hours per week is the stan-
dard expectation for the student to participate in the lab; however, full-
time immersive summer programs are also pervasive and last between
8-12 weeks, during which the student typically works full-time on research.
Students may earn credit, experience (voluntary basis), or receive monetary
compensation (although some institutions have policies against students
earning money and credit simultaneously). Moreover, students are expected
to be engaged in the research process, including the dissemination of results
whether by presenting at a national conference or publishing within a peer-
reviewed journal.
Summer programs in this category are more typically funded by an
extramural funding agency or by a host institution. These programs can
be more formally structured and include a professional development pro-
gram designed to support students as they progress through their research
experience. For example, NSF supports a wide range of projects across the
STEM subdisciplines through the Research Experiences for Undergraduates
(REU) programs.3 Students typically apply for REUs through a competitive
process so that they can spend the summer in a laboratory or at a field site
(domestic or international) conducting research in their desired discipline.
Box 2-2 describes a summer apprentice-style program in mathematics devel
oped by Willamette University in Oregon.
Collaborations with industry and other government agencies can also
be forged to develop and fund projects on a topic of mutual interest. For
example, Box 2-3 highlights a URE program that is jointly funded by NSF
and the Department of Defense to provide undergraduates with an oppor
tunity to learn more about, and conduct research on, particular issues asso
ciated with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Capstone Experiences and Senior Theses

Capstone experiences not only can be a requirement for graduation
but also are part of the accreditation of particular programs—for example,
ABET accreditation for engineering programs.4 These experiences have
been defined as “a culminating experience in which students are expected
to integrate special studies with the major and extend, critique, and apply
knowledge gained in their major” (Wagenaar, 1993, p. 209). Many of these
programs occur during the senior year, with variability in administration:
the course may be a single semester, a full academic year, or even interleaved
3 For more information on NSF’s REU initiative, see https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_
summ.jsp?pims_id=5517 [November 2016].

4 The website for the ABET accreditation is at http://www.abet.org/accreditation/ [November
2016].

BOX 2-2
Summer Apprentice-Style Program:
Willamette Mathematics Consortium REU
The summer immersive URE offered by the Willamette University Mathemat-

ics Consortium and funded by NSF was designed to provide students with an
intensive 8-week research experience. The goal of the URE is to recruit students
from underrepresented populations or those with limited access to research
opportunities, in order to promote a more diverse research community within
mathematics. Each summer, three teams are formed, consisting of three under-
graduate students with one faculty mentor, which develop a research question
centered on a common theme (e.g., ring and matrix theory, statistics and random
processes, graph theory and combinatorics). In addition to exposure to research
and the potential to create new mathematics, the program activities include ca-
reer development workshops and training, as well as opportunities to present at
regional and national conferences. Students receive a $4,000 stipend, $400 for
travel costs to present their work at conferences, travel support to and from the
URE, and shared on-campus housing.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the consortium website at http://www.willamette.edu/

cla/math/reu [November 2016].
BOX 2-3
Summer Apprentice-Style Program:
Auburn University REU on Smart UAVs
NSF, in collaboration with the Department of Defense, has provided funds

for a program that brings together faculty from computer science and aerospace
engineering to work with 9 to 12 undergraduate students over the course of 8
weeks during a summer. The goals of the program are to develop research skills
and promote an interest in UAVs. Students are expected to work at least 36 hours
per week, which includes attending weekly seminars and programs. All students
are required to submit a written report, give an oral presentation of the work per-
formed, and design a web page that describes their project and experience. The
program provides students with up to $8,000 in compensation including housing.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the website for the Smart UAV REU at http://www.
pathwaystoscience.org/programhub.aspx?sort=SUM-AuburnU-UAVs [November 2016].

BOX 2-4
Capstone Experiences:
Olin College of Engineering
Olin College of Engineering provides students with the opportunity to work

with an industry sponsor on a capstone experience that is intended to address and
provide a novel solution to a real-world problem of importance to the sponsoring
company. For example, students worked with Facebook to investigate how to
improve Facebook’s application on Android systems. Students explored different
technologies to better understand how to reduce the amount of data consumed
by the application and created technologies within the Facebook application to
improve its usability. Other students have worked with imaging technology, such
as computed tomography scans, to help create nontraditional lesion detection
methods for patients with lung cancer, to ensure that biopsied tissue was from
the cancerous lesion and not from surrounding healthy tissue. This detection
technique can be used in the early detection and diagnosis of cancer, with the
ultimate goal of improving survival rates.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the website at http://www.olin.edu/projects-research/

capstone-culminating [November 2016].
with cooperative education (co-op) or internship experiences (discussed

next) in industry (Saad, 2007). In 2014, the Council on Undergraduate
Research devoted an issue to capstone experiences to illustrate the classic
role that these experiences play in undergraduate research.5 Moreover, there
are several programs published in the literature that have found promising
practices spanning topics such as chemistry (Kovac, 1991), electrical and
computer engineering (Saad, 2007), civil engineering (Gnanapragasam,
2008; Hanna and Sullivan, 2005), and statistics (Spurrier, 2001). Box 2-4
highlights a few research topics from Olin College of Engineering that can
serve as a capstone experience and illustrate the impact these experiences
can have on real-world problems.
Internships and Co-ops

Internships and co-ops are professional experiences that often involve
doing research, typically take place in the private sector, and are paid posi-
tions (usually at a rate commensurate with the student’s experience and the
disciplinary field). The internship or co-op experience can be for a summer,
a semester, or an academic year. Examples include positions working with
5 The issue can be found at http://www.cur.org/download.aspx?id=3035 [November 2016].

BOX 2-5
Cooperative Education Program at Northeastern University
Founded a century ago, this co-op program is one of the largest globally.
In this URE, students alternate academic instruction with full-time employment
in positions related to their chosen field. Northeastern uses a practice-oriented
education model that blends liberal arts and science curriculum with a focus on
practical skills in the classroom, practice, and application. Physics majors have
opportunities ranging from engineering jobs at New York Power Authority and
Raytheon to assistantships in Northeastern’s physics labs, hospitals, and more.
The concept behind these experiences is to add depth to the classroom studies,
provide exposure to different career paths and options, and encourage students
to delve deeper and pursue greater academic challenges.
Through three phases of the co-op (preparation, activity, reflection), students
are able to earn experiential education credit after completion of each step. For
the first phase (preparation), students actively participate in structured group and
individual projects with the Physics Cooperative Education Faculty Coordinator.
This stage helps students with job readiness, including resume and cover letter
development, interview skills, and business behavior and conduct. In the second
phase (activity), the faculty coordinator provides guidance and oversight to stu-
dent job searches. The third phase (reflection) involves the faculty coordinator
guiding students to identify activities and experiences they participated in and to
reflect on what they accomplished, how those accomplishments connect to their
studies, and how those experiences added to their intellectual growth. This phase
ends with students interacting at faculty conferences, discussing their employer’s
performance evaluation, debriefing with the faculty coordinator, and delivering an
oral presentation.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the website at http://www.northeastern.edu/physics-coop

[November 2016].
researchers in industry, at government agencies such as the National Insti-

tutes of Health (NIH), or at Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers such as Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or the Jet Pro-
pulsion Laboratory. Although these experiences typically occur off campus,
there are on-campus opportunities as well. These experiences may even be
repeated—the same students with the same researcher—for a number of
semesters or summers. UREs of this type are especially prevalent in engi-
neering and technology fields. An institutional office frequently facilitates
placement into the internship or co-op, and professional staff members in
the office oversee evaluation of the learning experience.
Co-op programs are primarily based on partnerships between academic
universities and private-sector companies. Students who participate in a co-

op program or internship often alternate between academic theory-based

classroom learning and off-campus hands-on research experiences. Students
apply classroom knowledge to work situations, gain knowledge, and de-
velop skills that further clarify their academic focus and career interests.
See Box 2-5 for an example of a cooperative education program developed
at Northeastern University.
Co-ops and internships can be a bit more complicated than other
types of UREs, as these opportunities are typically located off campus.
That is, students need to be able to get to the research site and they need
to fit the URE around their traditional courses or take a semester to f ocus
exclusively on the co-op or internship. Moreover, there needs to be a
mutual interest that is based on both the researchers’ interest in working
with undergraduates and the possibility for the students to make at least
modest contributions to the overall research effort. These experiences are
also highly individualized, with the mentoring skills of the researchers
involved playing an important role in the depth of the experience and the
level of outcomes.
The primary costs of this type of URE are (1) the researchers’ time in
mentoring the student or small team of students; (2) the cost of space and
equipment needed to support the research experience of the student or small
team of students; (3) the cost of a stipend for each student that is paid to
participate, if payment for participation is an option; and (4) the adminis-
trative costs of matching students with researchers. Box 2-6 highlights the
components in costs and mentoring at Drexel University for co-op experi-
ences offered there.
Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences

In CUREs, students investigate novel research questions and therefore
contribute new knowledge to the field. These courses can provide students
with opportunities to engage in research in a more controlled fashion
and are designed for cohorts of students, allowing faculty to engage large
numbers of students in research projects at one time. They can also be
scaled and adapted to fit the needs and resources across a variety of insti-
tutions. For example, the Genomics Education Partnership, sponsored by
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, and funded by the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and NSF, organizes research
projects and provides training/collaboration workshops for faculty from
multiple institutions on an established curriculum in which students anno
tate sections of the Drosophila fruit fly genome.6
6 For more information, see the Genome Education Partnership website at https://gep.wustl.
edu [November 2016].

BOX 2-6
Cooperative Education Program at Drexel University
At Drexel University, the Provost office provides a small number of oppor-

tunities for students and faculty to engage in undergraduate research during a
6-month full-time period that coincides with students’ participation in a co-op. In
this initiative, 50 percent of the student’s co-op salary is funded by the university
and the other 50 percent comes from the faculty member’s grant-funded research
program. The salary levels of these positions are equivalent to private-sector
employment. Students often also work with research faculty during the academic
year for minimal or no remuneration but may receive course credits.
In the case of full-time research during the co-op period, if the faculty member
has a lapse in research grant support, the department leadership has the challenge
of providing the resources needed to maintain continuity for both the student and
the research initiative itself. Continuity is important to the student to enable continu-
ous engagement with the topic of research throughout the student’s undergraduate
tenure. A quality involvement, whether in full-time opportunities or more traditional
part-time work with a faculty member, requires faculty time dedicated to mentoring
of the undergraduate, as well as teaching the specific scientific or technical aspects
related to the research. For the student, this opens a horizon to relate classroom
work to real research problems, but without continuity in the research component,
the student may lose interest. From the institution’s perspective, involvement in this
initiative enhances the student retention objective.
Drexel also tracks students’ cooperative education experiences, identified
through specific employer position descriptions. During any 6-month period, ap-
proximately 500 students are doing research as part of a co-op with a private-
CUREs can be a required course in a discipline or a core elective. These

experiences can be multidisciplinary as well, such as a course developed
by Miller and Watson (2010) in mathematical biology to bridge the gap
between mathematics and the life sciences. Because these experiences might
be a standard part of the curriculum, this type of URE is automatically ac-
cessible to students of almost all skill levels and backgrounds. That is, there
is no screening of students other than that they have had the required pre-
requisite course and/or they meet a given minimum standard of academic
accomplishment, such as a grade point average above a probationary level.
In a CURE, the research projects investigated by the class are typically,
though not always, linked to a faculty member’s research program. Students
earn academic credit for participating in the CURE, which may replace
required traditional course labs in some cases. Some CUREs offer the
opportunity to continue research in the summer. Given the short period of
time available for a CURE, the depth of the experience provided may vary

sector or government employer. In this instance, in contrast with the student

having a research position with a Drexel faculty member, the responsibilities for
supplying adequate facilities and supplies to enable a quality research experience
rest with the employer.
In 2012-2013, approximately 1,000 students and employers were surveyed
on the co-op experience. Students answered questions that focused on rating
their opportunities during their research experience to demonstrate their own
initiative, develop leadership skills, network and engage in professional develop-
ment, and have progressive responsibilities. The survey found that the fraction
of students who rated their experience as meeting or exceeding their expecta-
tions was 92 percent for opportunities to demonstrate own initiative, 84 percent
for development of leadership skills, 89 percent for networking and professional
development, and 92 percent for opportunities for progressive responsibilities. The
employers were surveyed on the students’ overall performance and on their ability
to contribute original ideas, to critically analyze and solve complex problems, and
to make well-reasoned arguments based on the evidence. Approximately 83 per-
cent of employers reported that they would hire the students who participated in
the program, with a comparable percentage rating the students’ overall perfor-
mance as good or exemplary. Moreover, approximately 73 percent of employers
rated the students’ ability to make a novel contribution to the work as exemplary
or good. Students also received high ratings (good or exemplary) for complex
problem solving (69 percent) and making well-reasoned arguments (78 percent).
SOURCES: Committee developed from the Drexel websites on co-op experiences, http://
drexel.edu/difference/co-op and http://drexel.edu/scdc, and from personal communication
from Stephanie Sullivan, Assistant Director, Program Assessment & Operations, Steinbright
Career Development Center, Drexel University, to the committee, September 8. 2015.
significantly, based on the design of the CURE, the nature of the discipline,
and the cost of research efforts in the area covered by the CURE. Some
CUREs are a single semester, others last for two semesters (see Box 2-7 on
the SEA-Phages program and Box 2-8 on the Binghamton University Lyme
and Other Tick-Borne Disease Project), whereas others can last three or
more semesters (see Box 2-9 on the Freshman Research Initiative at The
University of Texas at Austin).
Wrap-Around Experiences
UREs have been integrated into programs that span multiple semesters
or multiple academic years and include academic support services such
as tutoring. See Box 2-10 for a program designed to build a community
through a residential program. These comprehensive programs frequently
target students who enter college less well prepared and students who are

BOX 2-7
Science Education Alliance-Phage Hunters CURE
The Science Education Alliance-Phage Hunters (SEA-Phages), spearheaded

by Graham Hatfull (University of Pittsburgh) with funding from HHMI, involves
thousands of introductory biology students at diverse institutions in identifying and
characterizing soil bacteriophage with the collective aim of studying their genetic
diversity and evolutionary mechanisms (Hatfull et al., 2006). The course begins
the first semester with students digging in the soil to find viruses; by the end of
the second semester students are using a variety of bioinformatics techniques to
annotate genomes. Jordan and colleagues (2014) provided additional information
about the program and associated outcomes.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the website on the SEA-Phages CURE, see http://
seaphages.org/ and http://phagesdb.org/phagehunters [November 2016].
members of underrepresented groups in the discipline and may be more

likely to face challenges as they navigate the majority culture of their dis-
cipline. For example, the psychology department at CUNY Baruch C ollege
uses funding from an NSF REU grant to fund an academic year–long
research experience with the purpose of enhancing graduate school enroll-
ment of individuals from underrepresented groups.7 Trainee activities in-
clude a minimum of 10 hours per week working with a faculty-led research
team and contributing to ongoing research through collecting and analyzing
data during the fall and spring semesters. In addition, students enroll in
a year-long preparation course for graduate school and receive financial
compensation for their research in the lab.
A program sponsored by NIH, Maximizing Access to Research Careers
(MARC), is a national-level program that provides financial support to
historically underrepresented minority students for a 24-month period to
improve their preparation for high-caliber graduate training at the doctoral
level.8 MARC institutions select the trainees, typically students in the last
2 years of undergraduate study who have expressed interest in pursuing an
advanced degree. MARC institutions are encouraged to design programs
that address their unique mission, strengths, and demographics; however, a
cornerstone of the funding is that each program must provide students with
7 For more information on this program, see http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/
psychology/NSFUndergraduateResearchExperience.htm [November 2016].

8 See https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/MARC/Pages/USTARAwards.aspx [November 2016]
for details about this program.

BOX 2-8
A Cross-Disciplinary CURE:
Binghamton University Lyme and
Other Tick-Borne Disease Project
The Binghamton University Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Disease Project

combines field and laboratory research experience as part of a two-course se-
quence. Students conduct original research as part of five cross-disciplinary
research teams (field ecology, reservoir and vector trapping, behavioral and de-
mographic analysis, molecular pathogen identification, and mathematical model-
ing). The project includes faculty from the disciplines of anthropology, biological
sciences, and biomedical engineering and system science. The overall goal of the
program is to understand the human risk of Lyme disease and other tick-borne
diseases in built environments: those areas where humans live, work, and recre-
ate on a daily basis. All participating students are required to conduct research
10 hours per week in the field and laboratory. Students must join at least two
teams, a field team and either the laboratory team or modeling team, to obtain an
appropriate cross-disciplinary perspective on the project.
Students who wish to receive credit for their research must take the two-
course sequence, with once-weekly lectures on research design and the ethical
conduct of research, in addition to their 10 hours per week in the field and labora-
tory. Students in the first course in the sequence work as a group throughout the
semester to develop a research project and present their work at the end of the
semester as a team PowerPoint presentation. They must also individually develop
an annotated bibliography and a research paper on a related topic by the end of
the semester. The second-semester course is an extension of the first but with a
primary focus on the development of an independent research project while the
student still attends lectures once every 3 weeks. Faculty and graduate students
act as mentors to assist students with their individual project proposals. Students
in the second course of the two-course sequence are required to present their
individual research projects using a PowerPoint briefing in lieu of an annotated
bibliography and paper.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the website on the Binghamton University Lyme and
Other Tick-Borne Disease Project, see https://www.binghamton.edu/undergraduate-research/
hhmi/current-projects.html#five [November 2016].
a summer research experience at a research-intensive institution outside

of the MARC institution. During the academic year, institutions may also
provide research training/experience opportunities as appropriate.
Bridge Programs
Bridge programs are usually UREs incorporated into an extended ori-
entation program that serves to support student transitions. The targeted

BOX 2-9
CURE: Freshman Research Initiative Program
The Freshman Research Initiative at The University of Texas at Austin is a

program in which students are able to participate in natural science research from
the beginning of their college career. The program integrates laboratory and class-
room experiences, and students enrolled in the program earn three credit hours
for each semester they participate. Throughout the program students participate in
experiences that lead to publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations
at national conferences.
All entering freshman are enrolled in a research methods course or another
preparatory course for their major. Then students enter a “research stream” where
they are able to earn credit for spring, summer, and fall research courses. To
provide varying experience opportunities, professors shape each research stream
according to their own research. Each research stream includes 6-12 hours of
guided inquiries, techniques ranging from basic to advanced, and results ranging
from known to unknown, based on the skill level of the student. Responsibility is
delegated to a research educator (either a long-term Ph.D.-level educator or a
postdoctoral fellow), who works under a faculty member and manages a research
team that includes graduate and undergraduate students (approximately 15-35
students per stream). Professors oversee the research goals on a broad scale and
conduct classes, while the day-to-day operations of lab teaching and research are
conducted by the research educators. The program has grown from 40 students
in 2005-2006 to roughly 900 freshmen enrolled each year in 2016, which is just
more than 40 percent of the entering class. Over the course of 10 years, the
program has involved more than 6,200 freshmen; built bridges between industry,
philanthropy, and academia; and led to more than 170 scientific papers with
student co-authors.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the Freshman Research Initiative website at https://
cns.utexas.edu/fri [November 2016].
transition can be at the start of college—students transitioning from high

school or transferring from another institution—or at the transition from
undergraduate to graduate school. The latter programs are typically re-
ferred to as postbaccalaureate programs. Bridge programs can serve to in-
troduce research early in a student’s career, when they not only provide the
opportunity to begin making connections between classroom and learning
within the research environment, but also can provide access to research
faculty with whom undergraduate students would not otherwise interact
until they took more advanced courses. Box 2-11 illustrates two examples
of partnerships with community colleges that serve to bridge the transition
from two-year to four-year institutions.

BOX 2-10
Wrap-Around Experiences:
Living/Learning Residence Hall UREs
The Michigan Research Community was developed more than 15 years ago
as an add-on residential option for freshmen participating in the University of Mich-
igan’s undergraduate research opportunity program (UROP) for underclassmen.
Current residents in the community include 113 first-year students and 35 return-
ing students. The community is not limited to STEM majors; however, 40 percent
of the residents are in engineering and greater than 50 percent of residents are
enrolled in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts. The Michigan Research
Community residents hold their own research symposium in addition to attending
the larger UROP symposium.
Based on the success at Michigan, the L.E.A.R.N. (Learning Environment
and Academic Research Network) at the University of Central Florida was estab-
lished in 2011 with funding from NSF. L.E.A.R.N. participants receive a scholar-
ship, enroll in a two-semester “introduction to research” course, and participate in
a 12-week research apprentice experience. The program is limited to fewer than
30 first-year students but is open to all STEM disciplines. The program seeks to
build pathways for students to apply for upperclass research programs such as
McNair or the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation.
The programs at both University of Michigan and University of Central F lorida
were developed by leadership from the institutions’ undergraduate research
offices. The concept of a residential community for undergraduate researchers
is currently being adopted at Florida Atlantic Universitya and Western Carolina
University.b More detailed information can be found in Schneider and Bickel
(2015) and Schneider and colleagues (2015).
aSeehttp://www.fau.edu/class/learning-community [November 2016] for more information

bFormore information, see http://www.wcu.edu/learn/academic-success/learning-communities
[November 2016].
SOURCES: Committee developed from the University of Michigan’s UROP website at http://
www.lsa.umich.edu/mrc [November 2016] and the University of Central Florida’s L.E.A.R.N.
website at htt;P//www.our.ucf.edu/learn/freshman.php [November 2016].
Bridge programs are also offered for incoming graduate students,

for whom they provide an opportunity to begin research group rotations
before their formal graduate training program begins. Generally lasting
1-2 years, these postbaccalaureate programs provide intensive research
experiences and academic preparation for students who have completed
their undergraduate degrees but would benefit from additional experi-
ence and preparation before beginning a graduate training program. For
example, students participating in the NIH-supported (through an R25

BOX 2-11
Undergraduate Bridge Programs:
Partnerships with Community Colleges
and Research Labs (Bay Area)
The NIH-sponsored Bridge to Baccalaureate Program (funded through an

NIH R25 grant) provides institutional support to students to make the transition
from a two-year institution to a four-year institution, with the aim of increasing the
pool of students who pursue research careers in biomedical sciences.a Numerous
partnerships have been funded across the country, in 21 states. One of these is
the partnership between City College of San Francisco, Skyline College, and San
Francisco State University. During their first summer in the program, students
participate in an academic success and leadership workshop and a research
training class. For their second summer, the program matches the community
college students with a faculty mentor at San Francisco State University for an
independent research project, which typically lasts 8 weeks.
The Bridge to Biotech (B2B) partnership between City College of San
Francisco and the University of California, San Francisco, is funded by an NSF
Advanced Technology Education grant. It supports community college biotech-
nology students as they gain an introduction to biosciences and strengthen their
skills in math and communication through learning communities, problem-based
learning, and hands-on training in research and industry laboratories. B2B focuses
on supporting economically disadvantaged and historically underrepresented
students in sciences (participants are 76 percent African American, Asian, or
Hispanic), and most participants are adults with prior work experience who want to
transition to the biotechnology workforce. A unique aspect of this program is that
mentors at the university, who are often senior graduate students or postdoctoral
fellows, complete a multiday workshop on becoming effective mentors, led by
the career development office staff and B2B faculty. Following completion of a
semester of training in math, science, and lab skills at the community college, the
participating students complete an unpaid 4-month, part-time (10-20 hours per
week) internship, at the laboratory assistant level, in Bay Area labs and biotech
companies. B2B students can then go on to complete a certificate or AS degree
in biotechnology.
aFor additional information on NIH’s Bridges to Baccalaureate Program (R25) see https://
www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/Mechanisms/Pages/BridgesBaccalaureate.aspx [November
2016].
SOURCES: Committee developed from the Bridge to Baccalaureate Program website at

http://biology.sfsu.edu/faculty-pages/bridges_main [November 2016] and the Bridge to Bio-
tech website at https://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/Biotech_Training/bridge.htm [November
2016].

BOX 2-12
Keck Geology Consortium
This consortium began in 1987 as a collaboration of faculty at private liberal

arts colleges who were interested in pooling resources and opportunities for field
and lab research in the geological sciences. The consortium now has 18 member
institutions and has been successful in securing funding from Exxon and NSF.
Undergraduate students apply to participate in summer research teams of five
to eight students and two or more collaborating faculty. In addition to field sites
in North America, many teams travel abroad, gaining both geology research
experience and exposure to other cultures. Funding from NSF has enabled a
greater diversity of student participants from underrepresented backgrounds and
nonmember institutions, as well as underclassmen. In a typical summer, there are
six projects, two of which are earmarked for underclassmen. A key feature of the
program is the annual Keck Symposium, hosted each April by a different member
institution. Students present posters and attend workshops, while faculty men-
tors have opportunities to sustain their research collaborations and discuss best
practices. Over the past 2.5 decades, more than 1,400 students have participated
in the Keck program.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the Keck Geology Consortium website at http://www.
keckgeology.org [November 2016].
grant) Post-Baccalaureate Research Education Program are paired for their

research experience with a faculty mentor and work in the mentor’s lab at
one of the graduate-level institutions.9 In addition, students also receive
supplemental training in scientific writing, literature evaluation, and inter
action with the academic community. Many of these postbaccalaureate
bridge programs are funded by extramural sources. Students earn academic
credit for the courses they complete and a stipend for the research they do.
Upon program completion, students are better positioned for admission to
top-tier graduate programs, often the program at the institution where they
participated in the postbaccalaureate program.
Consortium/Project-Based Programs
Consortiums allow for collaboration with faculty and students from
different colleges and universities, which serves to create a multidisciplinary
context for the work. The scale of the research and the questions that can
be addressed are beyond what could be accomplished through more tradi
9 See https://www.training.nih.gov/programs/postbac_irta [November 2016].

tional apprentice-style models because teams of researchers (faculty and

students) can work on specific themes of research. Consortiums can provide
opportunities for a pooling of resources across institutions to allow more
students an opportunity to participate in research. Box 2-12 provides an
example of this approach developed by the Keck Geology Consortium.
Moreover, these programs span across multiple semesters, including the
summer, and may be a larger commitment on the part of the student than
some other forms of UREs. Box 2-13 provides an example of a program—
the Vertically Integrated Projects Program—that highlights an innovative
process for engaging teams of undergraduate students over multiple years
in research and for sustaining the functionality of the team for many years,
even decades.
Consortiums also allow for more creative ways to increase under-
graduate research, such as by providing opportunities for faculty to develop
skills, through workshops, that they can use throughout the academic year.
Box 2-14 provides an example of this type of approach for mathematics.
Moreover, these programs have encouraged diversity in research by specifi-
cally supporting programs geared toward students from groups historically
underrepresented in STEM. Box 2-15 highlights two such programs, one
at the undergraduate level (HHMI Exceptional Research Opportunities
Program) and the other geared specifically toward getting students into
graduate programs (Leadership Alliance).
Community-Based Research Programs

Often linked to service-learning courses, community-based research
experiences are a unique type of URE that includes service to the com-
munity as an outcome of the research. They may take the form of a CURE
or an individual faculty research group URE as described above, but they
also have a component in that in addition to a research mentor, students
interact with a community partner who contributes to the design of the
research project and provides the venue in which the research takes place.
Ultimately, the goal of this type of research is to provide results and un-
derstanding that advance the work of the community partner in using
evidence-based approaches. For example, public health is a priority for
many of the participating organizations, with research examining a variety
of topics from environmental health to infectious diseases. Box 2-16 illus-
trates the range of these topics through three programs. The first two use
different approaches to address environmental health, whereas the third is
a program geared toward infectious disease.

BOX 2-13
The Vertically Integrated Projects Program and Consortium
The Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program supports long-term, large-

scale, multidisciplinary teams of undergraduates that are embedded in the
research efforts of faculty and other researchers on or near campus (Coyle et al.,
2006, 2016). Each team is vertically integrated, which means it is composed of
sophomores, juniors, seniors, graduate students, and the faculty.
A VIP team is typically launched with 6 to 10 undergraduates from different
years and from all disciplines needed for the success of the research effort. Over
time, a team grows to a size that best suits its mission. The average size of a
mature team is 16 students, but teams with as many as 35 undergraduates each
semester exist. A team size of 12 or more undergraduates essentially guarantees
that a sufficient number of students return from one semester to the next for the
team to grow and pass on its knowledge and skills over many semesters or years.
The longest functioning teams are now 16 years old; they started when the VIP
Program started.
Each undergraduate student on a VIP team can register for academic credit
for up to six semesters, receiving a letter grade each semester. When seniors
graduate, everyone else on the team moves up in responsibility and new sopho-
mores and juniors are added. The students who return to the team run the process
that introduces new students to the team and helps them acquire the knowledge
and skills to become productive team members. This peer mentoring process
saves the faculty and graduate students considerable time and effort and helps
the new undergraduates fit quickly into the team.
Each team has a primary adviser and may have one or two co-advisers who
are faculty, research staff, or members of off-campus organizations that are partners
in the project. Teams have been started at the request of faculty from the STEM
disciplines of computing, engineering, and science and by faculty from architecture,
liberal arts, and public policy. The VIP Program is thus broadly multidisciplinary. In
fact, every team is multidisciplinary.
During the first year a team is in operation, the task of educating the team
falls primarily on the faculty advisers and their graduate students. By the second
year, returning students take over this process and the faculty and graduate stu-
dents oversee the process. Thus, from year 2 onward, the students on the team
are producing benefits for a faculty members’ research, receiving significant edu-
cational benefits from the experience, and receiving credit toward their degrees.
As of 2016, 22 four-year universities, 17 of which are within the United States,
had joined the VIP Program. They represent a variety of institutions: large, small,
public, private, universities classified as R1 through R3, historically Black col-
leges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, etc. These institutions, with
the assistance of a grant from the Helmsley Charitable Trust, have formed the VIP
Consortium. Its purpose is to facilitate the growth and dissemination of the VIP Pro-
gram, to share tools and processes between VIP sites, and to conduct evaluation
of the impact of the program on students, faculty, and institutions.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the VIP Program website at http://www.vip.gatech.

edu [November 2016].

BOX 2-14
Center for Undergraduate Research in Mathematics
The Center for Undergraduate Research in Mathematics (CURM) provides

an interesting model for expanding the practice of undergraduate research in
the mathematical sciences. Each summer, approximately 16 mathematics faculty
gather for a 3-day professional workshop to prepare to mentor teams of 2-5 under-
graduates during the academic year at their home institution (approximately 45
students per year). Funding is provided by CURM to the faculty/home institution
to reduce the teaching load of the mentor, and students receive a $3,000 stipend.
All participants gather at an annual CURM meeting, and students and faculty are
encouraged to attend other regional and national professional conferences. Ac-
cording to the CURM website, approximately 350 students (27 percent minority,
52 percent female) and more than 100 faculty have participated in the program.
The major source of funding for CURM is NSF. CURM was recognized by the
American Mathematical Society in 2015 for its impact on efforts to promote the
study of mathematics to underrepresented students.
SOURCE: Committee developed from the CURM website at http://curm.byu.edu [November

2016].
BOX 2-15
Two Programs for Increasing Diversity in STEM Research
The HHMI Exceptional Research Opportunities Program was established by

HHMI to diversify the next generation of scientists. It brings together outstanding
undergraduates (nominated by HHMI-funded educational program directors, HHMI
research professors, or from a Science Education Alliance school) and pairs the
selected students with HHMI research professors across the country for a summer
research experience. Student applications and matching with HHMI professors
are coordinated by HHMI staff. Local arrangements and educational programming
occur as appropriate for the HHMI mentor’s institution. Although not a true consor-
tium, the commonalities are a target audience of outstanding underrepresented
students from institutions with some connection to existing HHMI funding and
high-profile HHMI professors serving as mentors. Approximately 70 students each
year are selected. They participate in a student conference at HHMI facilities in
May before their experience and return a year later for a follow-up meeting. The
professional development and networking at the May conference is a purposeful
component of the program. HHMI has recently begun offering a second summer
of funding for qualified students from the program to continue their research at an

BOX 2-15 Continued
accelerated pace in the same HHMI lab. According to the HHMI website, approxi-
mately 45 percent of program alumni enter graduate programs.
The Leadership Alliance was begun in 1992 with 23 member institutions.
The current 35 institutional members include research institutions (including all of
the Ivy League universities, University of Chicago, Stanford University, University
of Virginia, and New York University), historically Black college and universities
(such as Howard University, Xavier University, and Spelman College), and institu-
tions with substantial numbers of underrepresented students in STEM disciplines
(including University of Maryland, Baltimore County; North Carolina A&T State
University; University of Puerto Rico). The goal of the alliance is to increase the
number of underrepresented students in graduate programs and to develop these
students for leadership positions in academia, industry, and the public sector.
Although there is a heavy STEM focus, opportunities are available for students
in the humanities and social sciences. The signature program of the Leadership
Alliance is the Summer Research Early Identification Program, which provides ac-
cess to undergraduate research internships for almost 300 students per year at 22
Alliance institutions. Students from any institution can apply for a position at up to
three institutions through a common application. Each institution coordinates and
funds its own program. A national symposium is held at the end of the summer for
more than 600 undergraduate interns, faculty from the Alliance member institutions,
and program alumni (either still in graduate school or having finished advanced
degrees). The Leadership Alliance reports that more than 700 program alumni have
completed terminal degrees. The Doctoral Scholars program and a newly estab-
lished alumni organization are essential to the networking mission of the Alliance. A
newly established First Year Research Experience initiative aims to encourage best
practices among Leadership Alliance institutions. Additional information, including
demographic data, can be found on the Leadership Alliance website.
SOURCES: Committee developed from the programs’ websites at http://www.hhmi.org/

programs/exceptional-research-opportunities-program [November 2016] and http://www.the
leadershipalliance.org [November 2016].
BOX 2-16
Community-Based Research Programs
The Great Lakes Innovative Stewardship through Education Network

(GLISTEN) is “a collaborative effort by local colleges, universities and environ-
mental community partners to engage students in direct-action efforts to preserve
and restore the environmental health of the Lake Michigan watershed.” The pro-
gram was established in 2010 through a grant to the National Center for Science
continued

BOX 2-16 Continued
and Civic Engagement at Harrisburg University from the Learn and Serve America
Higher Education Program of the Corporation for National and Community Ser-
vice. GLISTEN not only provides undergraduate students with an opportunity
to conduct research during the summer, but also has developed courses that
contextualize the project and learning experiences.
The National Center for Earth-Surface Dynamics 2 at the University of
Minnesota received funding from the NSF Science and Technology Center to
develop a program that introduces undergraduate students to research with a
focus on community-based participatory research and diverse disciplinary teams.
Students work on one of three teams on projects that integrate Earth-surface dy-
namics, geology, ecology, and other disciplines using quantitative and predictive
methods. The research teams, in addition to ongoing projects at the University of
Minnesota, are hosted on two Native American reservations, with projects devel-
oped in collaboration with the tribes’ resource management divisions.
To develop more than just the technical research skills, the program is
designed to increase intellectual understanding of the project and the participants’
self-confidence working as a STEM professional. These objectives are accom-
plished through weekly writings and blog posts, a research paper of 15-plus
pages, posters, and conference presentations. Emphases of this NSF REU pro-
gram are to increase participation in STEM of nontraditional students and those
from underrepresented groups, potentially help them develop an identity as a
STEM professional, and encourage STEM persistence.
The Biomedical Anthropology program at Binghamton University has collabo-
rated with the Ministry of Health of the 83-island nation of Vanuatu (68 of which
are inhabited), which is going through a health transition as a result of mod-
ernization, market integration, tourism, and inter-island migration. Binghamton
University and the government of Vanuatu have established a memorandum of
understanding to facilitate an inter-island, community-based research program on
the health transition. The overall goal of this community-based research program
is to improve the health of the people of Vanuatu and to gain a better understand-
ing of the factors involved in the development and impact of chronic diseases
such as overweight, obesity, diabetes, and hypertension on transitioning Vanuatu
communities. Students at both undergraduate and graduate levels participate in
the research during 1-to 3-month summer experiences, working on chronic and
infectious diseases. Students’ research can be taken for academic credit or as
part of a formal internship and usually results in students presenting their research
at regional and national scientific conferences, becoming authors or co-authors
on peer-reviewed research publications, or both.
SOURCES: Committee developed from the following websites: Quoted passage and other
details about GLISTEN are from the program’s website at http://www.iun.edu/glisten [No-
vember 2016]. For the National Center for Earth-Surface Dynamics 2, see http://www.
nced.umn.edu/research-experience-undergraduates [November 2016]. For the Binghamton
University– Vanatu project, see https://www.binghamton.edu/anthropology/about-us/
biological-anthropology/research/health-transitions.html [November 2016].

PREPARATORY COURSES AND EXTENSIONS OF URE PROGRAMS

In addition to the variety of UREs discussed above, there are a few dif-
ferent types of approaches that could prepare students for or serve as exten-
sions of UREs. These approaches include more preparatory classes, like an
introductory methods course, or are extensions such as bridge programs to
prepare students for future graduate work. The format for these experiences
exhibit the same variability as has been discussed throughout this chapter.
Introductory Course on Reviewing Scientific Literature

An important skill to have when conducting research is the ability to
think critically about research and the existing literature. Gottesman and
Hoskins (2012) developed a course at the City University of New York
that uses a strategy called CREATE: Consider, Read, Elucidate hypotheses,
Analyze and interpret data, and Think of the next Experiment. Freshmen
students were enrolled in this introductory, one-semester course that used
targeted readings to develop these analytical skills. Through this course,
students self-reported gains in their ability to think critically and under-
stand primary STEM literature.
A different program has been created to teach first- and second-year
students at the University of California, Los Angeles, about research. In that
program students hear a full seminar by an invited biologist and then spend
5 weeks deconstructing the speaker’s research, reading his or her papers,
and learning about the speaker’s motivations, decisions, and methods. The
speaker then returns for the students to ask questions based on their new
found knowledge (Clark et al., 2009).
Introductory Courses on Research Methods

Inquiry-based activities—namely, activities that do not have simple
“right or wrong” answers but instead generate results that are “messy” and
open to interpretation—can be integrated into traditional laboratory (or
field-based) courses. These types of learning experiences would not neces-
sarily meet the committee’s definition of a URE, as they do not typically
generate new knowledge, but they could lay the groundwork for students
to participate in a later URE or could occur alongside a student’s first URE
to give the student a structured introduction to the relevant approaches and
topics. These introductory experiences with open-ended inquiry might be in
the form of a research methods class that allows students to perform many
aspects of the research experience—formulating, executing, and presenting
the results of a research project—with the goal of developing the skills,
motivation, and confidence to engage further as a STEM professional.

Courses that follow instructional approaches such as Modeling Instruc-

tion10 or Investigative Science Learning Environment,11 as well as some
Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning courses,12 engage students in
discovery-based experiences in which the content is not novel but well
established. The activities are designed for students to discover the laws of
nature by carrying out experiments, making rules or models, and iterating
and refining their models after additional experimentation or discovery.
The curricula and pedagogy facilitate a discovery-as-if-new experience,
build collaboration skills, and support development of science/engineering
identity.
For example, selected geology undergraduate students at Hope
College completed two international field expeditions to Sweden in the
past 10 years.13 Goals of the program included reinforcing how research
questions are formulated and answered with field observations. Students
gained field mapping experience, and the research project highlighted the
international collaborative process with fellow Swedish scientists. Project
funding was assembled from a faculty development grant, supplemental
departmental funding, and student research grants from the Geological
Society of America.
Graduate Bridge Programs

Similar to undergraduate bridge programs, graduate-level bridge pro-
grams support a student’s transition from a master’s program to a doctoral
program. For example, there is an NSF-sponsored program at Fisk Univer-
sity in collaboration with Vanderbilt University in Nashville, T ennessee,
developed to improve demographic diversity within STEM disciplines.
Through this program, students earn a master’s degree at Fisk University in
physics, biology, or chemistry with full funding support. Students are then
recommended to specific departments by the Fisk-Vanderbilt committee and
the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Vanderbilt. Students then
take various courses depending on their undergraduate preparation and
specific area of studies. They also receive research experience with faculty,
connection with Vanderbilt professors, and support in the application to
Vanderbilt’s Ph.D. program. The program provides full instructional op-
portunities to undertake Ph.D. coursework completion at both Fisk and
Vanderbilt.
10 For more information on the Modeling Instruction approach, see http://perg.fiu.edu/
resources/modeling-instruction/ and http://modelinginstruction.org [November 2016].

11 See http://paer.rutgers.edu [November 2016].
12 See https://pogil.org [November 2016].
13 See http://www.hope.edu/pr/nfhc/current/nfhc1214pg14-15.pdf [November 2016].

Pre-Research
• Minimal
i i l iintellectual
ll l engagement iin researchh
• Learn about research outside the research setting
• Develop basic technical skills in the research setting by supporting a
research team through assigned tasks (e.g., washing dishes, preparing
solutions)
Research Project
•MModerate
d iintellectual
ll l engagement iin research
h
• Join a research team and assume responsibility for part of an ongoing
research project under the guidance of a mentor
• Develop technical research skills
• Learn data management practices and analysis skills
• Construct explanations or develop arguments based on evidence
Research Experience
• Extensive
i iintellectual
ll l engagement iin researchh
• Participate in a research team’s community of practice by attending team
meetings, journal clubs, etc.
• Assume responsibility for a novel independent research project from
beginning to end
• Review, evaluate, and integrate findings from the primary literature to
design and interpret the results of the project
• Conduct research under the guidance of a mentor and make decisions to
adjust or change the direction of the project when necessary
• Analyze data, draw conclusions, and communicate research findings
verbally or in writing to the research team
• Define directions for future studies based on research results
Research Program
• Extensive intellectual engagement in research and professional
development
• Develop contextual understanding through peer review by
communicating research findings beyond the immediate research
community of practice
• Build a research professional network by socializing into the culture of
research beyond the immediate research community of practice
• Explore research careers
• Develop research identity through guided reflection and self-evaluation
FIGURE 2-1 Model for student research engagement.

SOURCE: Committee adapted from Blockus (2016) commissioned paper.

STAGES OF RESEARCH ENGAGEMENT

The extent to which each type of URE includes each of the various
characteristics and attributes discussed at the beginning of this chapter dif-
fers, but a continuum of experiences reflecting student development from
observer to independent researcher can be articulated (see Figure 2-1). That
is, students may first be exposed to the research environment primarily
as observers, so that they can become physically involved in the business
of research while acclimating themselves to the culture and community of
practice. The expectation of intellectual engagement at this stage may be
minimal, as it is merely intended to provide students with opportunities
to develop basic research skills appropriate to their discipline. As students
participate in more and different experiences, the level of engagement may
increase as the student becomes more fluent with the practices of research,
which may lead to greater independence in the work they undertake.
In addition to increasing intellectual engagement, students increasingly
develop technical research skills (i.e., using instrumentation and appropri-
ate methods) and begin to explore and understand the data that are being
collected. Students involved in a research project may conduct minimal
analysis, as this is the first stage at which students begin to develop the
ability to think through the research questions to conduct proper analyses.
As students are engaged in a research experience or research program, they
not only can articulate how the data were collected and analyzed, but also
can draw conclusions and communicate the findings to a broader audience.
Lastly, as students transition to becoming a STEM researcher, they have
extensive engagement with research, developing their own research identity.
This includes critically reading and actively reflecting upon primary STEM
literature.
This trend in engagement can be articulated as a continuum that re-
flects different stages and levels of engagement in a research experience.
Although these stages are additive in nature, a student need not progress
through each stage sequentially; that is, a student can immediately partici-
pate at the highest level of engagement (termed the “Research Program” in
Figure 2-1). An important point is that students can realize the benefits of
research at any stage.
SUMMARY
As highlighted throughout this chapter, there is substantial variability
in programs of undergraduate research. That is, students can engage in
UREs in STEM in many different ways, to varying degrees, and across a
variety of different settings. Given the heterogeneity of UREs, it is difficult
to draw conclusions that apply generally to all types of UREs. Moreover,

the lack of systematic data collection makes it difficult to know how many
students participate in UREs, where UREs are offered, and if there are gaps
in access to UREs across different institutional types, disciplines, or groups
of students. Although learning objectives differ across the various types of
UREs, there are some crosscutting characteristics that all UREs exhibit and
that form the basis for the committee’s definition of UREs. UREs engage the
students in the type of work that STEM researchers do, including discovery,
iteration, and collaboration as the students learn STEM disciplinary knowl-
edge and practices while working on a topic that has relevance beyond the
course. UREs are structured and guided by a mentor, and they intellectually
engage students with the goal that students assume increasing ownership
of some aspects of the project over time. The frequency and intensity of
approaches varies among UREs due to choices made by faculty, program
directors, and others in response to their goals, constraints, and prefer-
ences. Information about which attributes of UREs are most significant for
their effects on students outcomes would be helpful to those planning and
implementing UREs; the currently available research on this topic will be
discussed in Chapter 4.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). Vision and Change in
Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action. C. Brewer and D. Smith (Eds.).
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Auchincloss, L.C., Laursen, S.L., Branchaw, J.L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D.I.,
Lawrie, G., McLinn, C.M., Pelaez, N., Rowland, S., Towns, M., Trautmann, N.M.,
Varma-Nelson, P., Weston, T.J., and Dolan, E.L. (2014). Assessment of course-based
undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE–Life Sciences Education,
13(1), 29-40.
Blockus, L. (2016). Strengthening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students: The
Co-Curricular Model of the Research Experience. Paper commissioned for the Committee
on Strengthening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students. Board on Sci-
ence Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Life
Sciences, Division of Earth and Life Studies. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine.
Brownell, S.E., and Kloser, M.J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring
the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate
biology. Studies in Higher Education, 40(3), 525-544.
Clark, I.E., Romero-Calderon, R., Olson, J.M., Jaworski, L., Lopatto, D., and Banerjee, U.
(2009). Deconstructing scientific research: A practical and scalable pedagogical tool to
provide evidence-bases science instruction. PLoS Biology, 7(12), e1000264. Available:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000264 [December
2016].

Coyle, E.J., Allebach, J.P., and Garton Krueger, J. (June 2006). The Vertically Integrated
Projects (VIP) Program in ECE at Purdue: Fully integrating undergraduate education
and graduate research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL. Pp. 11.1336.1-11.1336.16. Available: https://
peer.asee.org/1421 [November 2016].
Coyle, E.J., Krogmeier, J.V., Abler, R.T., Johnson, A., Marshall, S., and Gilchrist, B.E. (2016).
The Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program: Leveraging faculty research interests to
transform undergraduate STEM education. Pp. 223-234 in G.C. Weaver, W.D. Burgess,
A.L. Childress, and L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming Institutions: Undergraduate STEM
Education for the 21st Century. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Dolan, E. (2016). Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: Current Knowledge
and Future Directions. Paper commissioned for the Committee on Strengthening Re-
search Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students. Board on Science Education, Divi-
sion of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Life Sciences, Division
of Earth and Life Studies. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Eby, L.T., Rhodes, J.E., and Allen, T.D. (2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring. Pp. 1-20
In T.D. Allen and L.T. Eby (Eds), Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Free, R., Griffith, S., and Spellman, B. (2015). Faculty workload issues connected to under-
graduate research. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(169), 51-60.
Gates, A.Q., Teller, P.J., Bernat, A., Delgado, N., and Della-Piana, C.K. (1999). Expanding
participation in undergraduate research using the Affinity Group model. Journal of Engi
neering Education, 88(4), 409-414.
Gnanapragasam, N. (2008). Industrially sponsored senior capstone experience: Program
implementation and assessment. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
and Practice, 134(3), 257-262.
Gottesman, A.J., and Hoskin, S.G. (2012). CREATE cornerstone: Introduction to scientific
thinking, a new course for STEM-interested freshmen, demystifies scientific thinking
through analysis of scientific literature. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 12(1), 59-72.
Hakim, T.M. (2000). How to Develop and Administer Institutional Undergraduate Research
Programs. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Hanna, A.S., and Sullivan, K.T. (2005). Bridging the gap between academics and practice: A
capstone design experience. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, 131(1), 59-62.
Hatfull, G.F., Pedulla, M.L., Jacobs-Sera, D., Cichon, P.M., Foley, A., Ford, M.E. Gonda,
R.M., Houtz, J.M., Hryckowian, A.M., Kelchner, V.A., Namburi, S., Pajcini, K.V.,
Popovish, M.G., Schleicher, D.T., Simanek, B.Z., Smith, A.L., Zdanowicz, G.M., Kumar,
V., Peebles, C.L., Jacobs Jr., W.R., Lawrence, J.G., and Hendrix, R. (2006). Exploring
the mycobacteriophage metaproteome: Phage genomics as an educational platform. PLoS
Genetics, 2(6), e92. Available: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/
journal.pgen.0020092 [February 2017].
Hirsch, L.S., Kimmel, H., Rockland, R., and Bloom, J. (2005). Implementing pre-engineering
curricula in high school science and mathematics. Frontiers in Education Conference,
35(3), S2F21-S2F26.
Jordan, T.C., Burnett, S.H., Carson, S., Caruso, S.M., Clase, K., DeJong, R.J., Dennehy, J.J.,
Denver, D.R., Dunbar, D., Elgin, S.C.R., Findley, A.M., Gissendanner, C.R., G olebiewska,
U.P., Guild, N., Hartzog, G.A., Grillo, W.H., Hollowell, G.P., Hughes, L.E., Johnson,
A., King, R.A., Lewis, L.O., Li, W., Vazquez, E., Ware, V.C., Barker, L.P., Bradley, K.W.,
Jacobs-Sera, D., Pope, W.H., Russell, D.A., Cresawn, S.G., Lopatto, D., Bailey, C.P., and
Hatfull, G.F. (2014). A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and
genomics for first-year undergraduate students. MBio, 5(1), e01051-13. Available: http://
mbio.asm.org/content/5/1/e01051-13.full.pdf [February 2017].

Kierniesky, N.C. (2005). Undergraduate research in small psychology departments: Two

decades later. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 84-90.
Kortz, K.M., and van der Hoeven Kraft, K.J. (2016). Geoscience Education Research Project:
Student benefits and effective design of a course-based undergraduate research experi-
ence. Journal of Geoscience Education, 64(1), 24-36.
Kovac, J. (1991). A capstone experience in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(11),
907-910.
Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Lopatto, D., Hauser, C., Jones, C.J., Paetkau, D., Chandrasekaran, V., Dunbar, D., M acKinnon,
C., Stamm, J., Alvarez, C., and Barnard, D. (2014). A central support system can facilitate
implementation and sustainability of a classroom-based undergraduate research experience
(CURE) in genomics. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13, 711-723.
Merkel, C.A. (2001). Undergraduate research at six research universities: A Pilot Study for the
Association of American Universities. Pasadena, CA: California Institute of Technology.
Available: http://www.aau.edu/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=1900 [February 2017].
Miller, J.E., and Walston, T. (2010). Interdisciplinary training in mathematical biology
through team-based undergraduate research and courses. CBE–Life Sciences Education,
9, 284-289.
Science. S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber (Eds.). Committee on High
School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Board on Science Education, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Committee on Prospering in the
Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New
K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards:
For States, by States. Available: http://www.nextgenscience.org [February 2017].
Pukkila, P., DeCosmo, J., Swick, D.C., and Arnold, M.S. (2007). How to engage in collab-
orative curriculum design to foster undergraduate inquiry and research in all disciplines.
Pp. 341-357 in K.K. Karukstis and T.E. Elgren (Eds.), Developing and Sustaining a
Research-supportive Curriculum: A Compendium of Successful Practices. Washington,
DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Reinen, L., Grasfils, E., Gaines, R., and Hazlett, R. (2007). Integrating research into a small
geology department’s curriculum. Pp. 331-339 in K.K. Karukstis and T.E. Elgren (Eds.),
Developing and Sustaining a Research-supportive Curriculum: A Compendium of Suc-
cessful Practices. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Rhodes, J.E. (2005). A theoretical model of youth mentoring. Pp. 30-43 in D.L. DuBois and
M.J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Press.
Rueckert, L. (2007). Flexible curricular structures to provide time for research within the class-
room. Pp. 285-294 in K.K. Karukstis and T.E. Elgren (Eds.), Developing and Sustaining
a Research-supportive Curriculum: A Compendium of Successful Practices.Washington,

Russell, C.B., Bentley, A.K., Wink, D.J., and Weaver. G.C. (2009). Materials development for a
research-based undergraduate laboratory curriculum. The Chemical Educator, 14, 55-60.
Saad, A. (March 2007). Senior Capstone Design Experiences for ABET Accredited Undergrad-
uate Electrical and Computer Engineering Education. Paper presented at the Proceedings
of the 2007 IEEE Southeast Conference, pp. 294-299. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.
org/abstract/document/4147435/ [February 2017].
Schneider, K.R., and Bickel, A. (2015). Modeling undergraduate research: Matching graduate
students with first-year mentees. CUR Quarterly, 36(1), 25-31.
Schneider, K.R., Bickel, A., and Morrison-Shetlar, A. (2015). Planning and implementing a
comprehensive student-centered research program for first-year STEM undergraduates.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(3), 37-43.
Spurrier, J.D. (2001). A capstone course for undergraduate statistics majors. Journal of S tatistics
Education, 9(1). Available: http://ww2.amstat.org/publications/jse/v9n1/spurrier.html [De-
cember 2016].
Temple, L., Sibley, T., and Orr, A.J. (2010). How to Mentor Undergraduate Research. Wash-
ington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Wagenaar, T.C. (1993). The capstone course. Teaching Sociology, 21(3), 209-214.

Undergraduate Research Experiences in

the Larger System of Higher Education:
A Conceptual Framework
National reform efforts have begun to look at undergraduate research

experiences (UREs) as a potential mechanism to encourage interest and
retention within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
fields. This interest has resulted in an overall increase in the funding and
implementation of URE-oriented programs over the past decade. From the
committee’s review of the extant literature on UREs, it is clear that there
is a substantial range in the type and design of URE programs. The com-
mittee has developed the conceptual framework presented here to help
designers, researchers, and evaluators organize their thinking about UREs.
The committee sought to create a framework that would take into account
two different components that contribute to the design, implementation,
and evaluation of UREs. The first part of the framework articulates the
goals for students participating in UREs and how these goals are related
to different features of UREs, giving rise to a set of design principles. The
second part characterizes the multiple systemic factors of the higher educa-
tion landscape and how UREs are situated within that context.
The chapter begins with a review of the goals for student outcomes that
have been associated with UREs. This review is followed by a discussion
on the design of UREs that reflect the varied goals for students. The chap-
ter concludes with a review of the relevant systemic factors (institutional,
departmental, disciplinary, and financial), as well as policy issues impacting
undergraduate research.
69

GOALS FOR STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH
Reviewing the extant literature on programs of undergraduate research,
the committee found several different themes for the goals that have in-
formed the design and evaluation of UREs. As described in Chapter 1, pro-
grams of undergraduate research arose from national calls that encouraged
institutions to provide high-impact practices that would allow students
to better face the challenges of the 21st century (Boyer Commission on
Education of Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998). The focus
of these reports was to find opportunities that helped to keep students in
STEM programs to support workforce needs (Auchincloss et al., 2014;
Brownell et al., 2015; Litzinger et al., 2011). Therefore, retention and per-
sistence in STEM fields was a primary motivating factor.
As more programs developed, the emphasis of the research on UREs
began to shift away from simply trying to determine whether UREs led to
retention in STEM (majors and graduation) and toward understanding why
these programs had an effect. Evaluation of the programs began to look at
student outcomes, such as content learning, and affective outcomes, such
as whether URE students like doing research more than non-URE peers.
Framing the questions in this way has begun to set the stage for uncovering
answers about the importance of UREs not only for the purposes of keeping
students in STEM majors or developing the STEM workforce, but also for
their potential to have broader impacts on the citizenry.
Synthesizing across the literature and based upon the committee’s expe-
rience, we identified the primary goals for UREs to include developing and
supporting students’ identities as researchers, increasing student knowledge
of STEM content, increasing feelings of belonging in STEM, improving
the understanding of the research enterprise, promoting greater ability to
engage with STEM issues they will face as citizens, developing academic
skills and strategies, increasing student persistence in STEM fields, and
guiding student decisions about STEM courses and careers (Blockus, 2016;
Dolan, 2016; Pfund, 2016). The outcomes students gain from UREs are
shaped by how the experiences are constructed by faculty and supported
by the department; institution; professional organizations; and external
policy, accreditation, and funding structures at the state and national levels
(Blockus, 2016; Dolan, 2016). As discussed in later sections of this chapter,
these external factors influence which of the potential goals are prioritized
by URE d esigners and implementers and also the details of how, when, and
where UREs are implemented.
We discuss the goals for students participating in UREs under three
major categories: (1) increasing retention and persistence of students in
STEM, (2) promoting STEM disciplinary knowledge and practices, and

URES IN THE LARGER SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION 71
(3) integrating students into STEM culture (see Figure 3-1). These catego-
ries were determined by organizing the literature into themes that captured
the primary motivations discussed above, whether it be participation/
retention (category 1), cognitive outcomes (category 2), or affective out-
comes (category 3). As discussed in Chapter 2, URE designers make choices
about which goals to emphasize depending on their situation (e.g., how the
URE fits into the curriculum, background of the students) and the types of
INCREASE PARTICIPATION & RETENTION OF STEM STUDENTS

Participation in STEM courses (for nonmajors)
Retention in STEM major
Continued enrollment and/or graduation/degree completion
Enrollment in graduate education
Confirmation/clarification of career path
Develop STEM literacy
PROMOTE STEM DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE & PRACTICES

Learn content information Utilize disciplinary research practices:
• Ask questions and define problems
Develop skills/techniques
• Develop and use models
Understand concepts/research questions • Plan and carry out investigations
Know importance of iteration • Analyze and interpret data
Appreciate value of teamwork • Use mathematics and computational thinking
Reflect on one’s work • Construct explanations and design solutions
• Engage in argumentation from evidence
• Obtain, evaluate, and communicate
information
INTEGRATE STUDENTS INTO STEM CULTURE

Increase interest in STEM field
Promote agency and develop STEM identity
Increase ownership of project
Become enculturated or socialized into STEM community
Commit to the discipline
Act professionally
Perform work as collaborative member of team
Develop a sense of belonging/inclusion
Recognize and overcome stereotype threat
FIGURE 3-1 Goals for students participating in UREs.

students participating in the URE. They select methods for implementing

these goals based on their beliefs about how students learn.
For example, an overarching goal of student participation in UREs, as
part of an undergraduate’s overall STEM learning experience, could include
increasing conceptual understanding of relevant disciplinary knowledge,
to learn to conduct an investigation, and to develop “literacy” for STEM.
That is, the goal might not always be to persist in a STEM discipline but
to be an informed citizen and a savvy consumer of scientific information in
order to know how to make reasonable conclusions and arguments based
on the strength of evidence. Any single URE may be designed to emphasize
some goals and not others. For example, for students making decisions
about STEM courses and careers, STEM majors might be inspired by their
URE to continue to graduate school or get a job in a STEM field because of
a love of research, whereas others may decide against these paths because
they do not enjoy research; nonmajors may make progress toward becom-
ing more STEM literate.
Overall, the goals presented here for students participating in UREs
could be viewed through the lens of research on learning and instruction as
it provides a way of thinking about the mechanisms that lead to outcomes
(National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute
of Medicine, 2005; National Research Council, 2000a, 2000b, 2006, 2009,
2012). This research provides a context for considering how learners’ and
designers’ existing understanding and beliefs influence how UREs impact
remembering, reasoning, solving problems, and acquiring new knowledge.
Each of the primary goals are described in more detail below.
Increase Retention and Persistence of Students in STEM

A primary goal of UREs, driven by national-level calls for reform, is to
improve STEM education in an effort to strengthen the STEM workforce.
Research has suggested that participation in UREs could improve student
outcomes such as higher grade point averages and increased retention in
STEM majors, as well as an associated increase in college completion.
(Chapter 4 provides a more nuanced discussion of these outcomes.) In
this context, UREs are seen as a potential way to increase retention of stu-
dents in STEM majors through graduation. Many argue that since UREs
allow students to engage in the work of a STEM researcher, this experi-
ence can provide confirmation/clarification of their intended career paths
(Auchincloss et al., 2014; Corwin et al., 2015). These paths might include
pursuing opportunities outside of STEM by becoming a more literate citi-
zen. Alternatively, the student may matriculate into a graduate program
and/or enter into the STEM workforce.

Promote STEM Disciplinary Knowledge and Practices

To persist in a field, one must acquire knowledge about it. UREs seek
to help students to better understand what it means to do research and
what the process entails. This understanding consists of (at least) three
parts: (1) understanding the disciplinary knowledge related to the topic
under investigation and how the research questions fit within the land-
scape of the discipline, (2) development of the requisite research skills,
and (3) understanding of the research enterprise and how disciplinary
knowledge is built. Understanding the research enterprise includes being
able to use disciplinary research practices (see Figure 3-1 for a list of these
practices), understanding the importance of interaction, and appreciating
the value of teamwork.
For students to develop a conceptual understanding of how a research
question fits within the landscape of the discipline, they must also develop
the relevant content knowledge associated with the field. That is, students
need to understand the nature of the research discipline, be it science, engi
neering, or math. As discussed in How People Learn (National Research
Council, 2000b) and Discipline-Based Education Research (National Re-
search Council, 2012), learning is not only the accrual of information but
also a process of conceptual reorganization. This has been explained as a
process in which individuals actively seek to make sense of new knowledge
by connecting it with prior knowledge and experience (National Research
Council, 2015).
To develop coherent and robust understanding of a URE’s research
question and related content knowledge, students need to sort out their
existing ideas along with the new ideas they encounter as part of that
URE. Often, new ideas have a fleeting trajectory, and the pre-existing
ideas students bring to research experiences (and STEM courses) have been
used and refined over multiple experiences. Therefore, a goal for UREs
is to encourage students to engage in a process of distinguishing among
ideas so that their understanding of the research topic grows, based on
the evidence and their experience (diSessa, 1996; Johri and Olds, 2011;
Linn, 1995; Linn and Eylon, 2011; L itzinger et al., 2011). Meaningful
collaborative experiences can also facilitate student learning about STEM
content as students engage in research (Cortright et al., 2003; Johnson et
al., 1998, 2007).
Research suggests that students can enhance their understanding when
opportunities for reflection are embedded within the learning experience
(Weinstein et al., 2000), despite few students reporting the spontaneous use
of such strategies (Karpicke et al., 2009; National Research Council, 2015).
For example, in engineering education, Svinicki and McKeachie (2011) re-
ported that incorporating reflection steps and self-explanation prompts into

instruction led to improvements in students’ problem solving. In this way,

UREs can promote the goal of developing STEM disciplinary knowledge by
providing students with the opportunity to engage in reflection.
Moreover, to capture the nature of actual STEM research in UREs,
instructors and mentors can broaden student understanding by noting and
explicating their own frustrations when things do not go as planned, thereby
highlighting the importance of iteration and refinement. For example, when
instructors make their own thinking visible, they can reveal the wrong paths
and complexities of software design (Clancy et al., 2003), the struggles in-
volved in mathematical thinking (Schoenfeld, 2010), and the challenges of
scientific reasoning (Clement, 2009). Used this way, UREs can promote an
understanding of the research process in a way that lectures and explana-
tions in traditional STEM course delivery cannot, as these approaches often
articulate the outcome rather than the process that led to the insights from
a line of research. Although in a traditional lecture course, faculty can em-
phasize the process and not just the outcomes, it is possible that this type of
understanding can be solidified when students are active participants in the
process. Situating students within a URE can allow students to get a sense
of the process of conjecture, refinement, redesign, and reconceptualization
involved in the research enterprise, while developing the requisite research
skills (Johri and Olds, 2011; Koretsky et al., 2011; Litzinger et al., 2011).
Integrate Students into STEM Culture

In addition to promoting STEM disciplinary knowledge and practices,
research experiences are intended to promote a sense of agency and iden-
tity as a STEM research professional by engaging students in the work
and situating them in the disciplinary context. Several studies show that
students can develop a sense of identity as a STEM professional by engag-
ing in well-designed activities typical of STEM professionals. Activities that
can promote a sense of agency include being involved in designing their
own studies, choosing experimental methods, and collecting data that are
of intrinsic interest; all these activities encourage autonomy and allow for
a greater sense of project ownership (Corwin et al., 2015). As Corwin and
colleagues noted, providing students with the opportunity to gain a sense
of ownership may increase the students’ motivation to complete projects
even when faced with challenges, which can further develop their sense of
scientific self-efficacy.
Related to the development of agency and STEM identity, provid-
ing opportunities for students to be integrated into the STEM culture or
providing them with a STEM experience that is sensitive to the students’
cultural background may be an additional aspect of this goal. As alluded to
previously, students may have an ill-formed idea of what it means to do re-

search and therefore may not know what it means to be a STEM researcher.
Academic enculturation—situating students in the social and environmental
context of the research so that they can learn/acquire the values of the dis-
cipline—through UREs may help to shape not only student’s learning but
also their identity as a STEM researcher (Mendoza et al., 2015; Prior and
Bilbro, 2012).
Alternatively, dominant STEM culture may be uninviting to students
from nondominant cultures. UREs allow students to “experience” research,
sometimes in a new context, and might help them better understand and
appreciate the work that is involved (Litzinger et al., 2011). For example,
Visintainer and Linn (2015) found that individuals from nondominant
cultures gained a sense of identity by participating in programs led by men-
tors who came from similar cultural backgrounds and imparted respect for
engaging in STEM-based practices such as collecting data, analyzing data,
and presenting their findings to high status individuals. That is, UREs could
make STEM accessible by making the discipline-specific topics understand-
able and relevant to the learner and by providing a culturally aware envi
ronment (National Research Council, 2012). Designing an environment
that communicates these understandings requires a culturally aware design
team.
Substantial research illustrates that students often feel that the STEM
disciplinary topics they encounter in classes are inaccessible and irrelevant to
their lives (Barr et al., 2010). This is especially true for students from non-
dominant cultures who may have met fewer scientists than those from domi-
nant cultures and who hold different value systems (Hurtado et al., 2010;
Ong et al., 2011). Students have reported through surveys or interviews that
mentors helped them learn how to pursue research problems and develop re-
silience to inevitable failures (Adedokun et al., 2012; Hernandez et al. 2013;
Schwarz, 2012). When students embark on personally selected problems
with uncertain outcomes and feel that their work is respected, they have the
potential to learn a great deal about the nature of research and about their
own identity as an investigator, which can create a sense of belonging to the
STEM community of researchers (e.g., Johri and Olds, 2011; Pryor et al.,
2007) and lead to persistence (Estrada et al., 2011).
Another important component associated with the goal of integrating
students into the STEM culture is collaboration and teamwork. To address
complex, systemic problems such as climate change, disease vectors, and the
motility of organisms, multiple perspectives are needed. For such reasons,
many programs of research are multidisciplinary, capitalizing on the mul-
tiple forms of experiences that can lead to innovative methods for solving
complex problems. Learning from others with different experiences who
can give hints and encouragement rather than providing immediate solu-
tions is a hallmark of complex research programs (Johnson and Johnson,

1998; Linn and Hsi, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Although working in groups
can be beneficial, groups often find communicating and collaborating dif-
ficult due to different cultural or methodological practices. To help better
prepare students for working in multidisciplinary and diverse groups, one
goal for UREs is to provide opportunities for collaboration. Hurtado and
colleagues (2008) identified competencies for a multicultural world as in-
cluding the abilities to interact with individuals from different social iden-
tity groups and to negotiate ethical decisions in situations characterized by
inequality and conflict.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR URES

There has been a growing emphasis on engaging students in research
and inquiry and how to make curricular changes that will best support this
high-impact practice (Brew, 2013; Koretsky et al., 2011). The learning sci-
ences provide a grounding for considering the instructional practices that
allow for effective learning experiences (Brew, 2013; Johri and Olds, 2011;
Litzinger et al., 2011). Many STEM disciplines have been using the ideas
developed by learning sciences to ensure that the experiences undergraduate
students receive while conducting research are optimally designed (Brownell
and Kloser, 2015; Litzinger et al., 2011). However, it is not always clear to
what degree existing UREs have been designed using the extent literature on
pedagogy and the learning sciences. To follow up on our discussion of goals
for students in the previous section (increasing retention and persistence
in STEM, promoting STEM disciplinary knowledge and practices, and
integrating students into STEM culture), the committee drew on the robust
research base on how to support students’ learning in STEM and mapped
these goals to the common elements of UREs. This exercise allowed us to
articulate a set of design principles for UREs.
The design, implementation, and evaluation of UREs depend on the
interactions among designers, instructors, researchers, evaluators, students,
and instructional resources. The design team negotiates the goals for the
URE, taking into consideration the systemic factors in the higher edu-
cation setting (such as available resources, reward structure for faculty,
and disciplinary certification programs). To gain some traction on how to
think about the design and evaluation of UREs, the committee identified
characteristics that typify UREs (see Chapter 2 for an in-depth discus-
sion) and might distinguish them from other courses and experiences.
These principles for design are listed in Figure 3-2 and grouped into four
categories: (1) make STEM research accessible and relevant; (2) support
students to learn from each other; (3) make thinking visible; and (4) pro-
mote autonomy. URE leaders need to assist undergraduates to integrate
the experiences, activities, mentoring, and assignments they encounter as

Make STEM research accessible and relevant
• Focus on significant, relevant problems of interest to STEM professionals,

and in some cases a broader community from which students come (e.g.,
civic engagement).
• Allow students to master specific research techniques.
• Understand the process of research and design by generating novel
information and using iterative refinement.
Promote autonomy
• While providing structured guidance from a mentor, also provide

opportunities for student decisions, promoting student ownership over time.
• Engage students in research practices including the ability to argue from
evidence.
Learn from each other
• Emphasize and expect collaboration and teamwork.

• Require communication of results, either through publication or presentations
in various STEM venues.
Make thinking visible
• Help students engage in reflection about their knowledge of problems being

investigated and the work being undertaken to address those problems.
FIGURE 3-2 Characteristics of UREs organized around the committee’s design

principles.
they participate in UREs and to connect these experiences with their prior
experiences and education. Consideration also needs to be given to how stu-
dents will be assessed. Preliminary work by Brownell and Kloser (2015) has
begun to explore this issue for course-based UREs (CUREs). This section
explores how thinking about the four categories of characteristics can assist
in URE design and how to foster knowledge integration for each learner.
Make STEM Research Accessible and Relevant

UREs can help students recognize the relevance of their STEM courses
by situating the investigation in the context of a personally relevant, con-

temporary problem such as climate change, global health, human genetics,

or earthquake safety (e.g., Jordan et al., 2014). UREs can make STEM
accessible by illustrating the role of knowledge, culture, and identity in
STEM and policy decision making (Barton, 1998; Keller, 2016; Lemke,
1990). Relevant topics motivate students to continue to explore the topic
even after the course is completed (Wigfield et al., 2007). Designing UREs
so students can explore a topic that is relevant to their lives can promote
identity in STEM (Johri and Olds, 2011).
Understanding the underlying theories and concepts in a research project
is essential for students to make sense of and engage in STEM practices
(Thiry et al., 2012). Students may not have taken courses that support the
concepts, topics, or ideas that underlie their URE projects. These students,
therefore, may not recognize the importance of the research question or its
relevance for their lives. Some students only begin to feel capable of under-
standing the work of the URE by the third semester of their URE placement
(Feldman et al., 2013). An important role for instructors and mentors is
to design the URE so the rationale for the research questions is accessible.
This may involve activities to help students connect the research design and
potential contributions of the URE project to their prior knowledge. It will
also include explicitly clarifying for students what role they will play in mov-
ing the research project forward and how their contribution will fit in to the
big picture of the research project.
UREs can make STEM disciplinary knowledge accessible by helping
students build on their existing ideas. It is not sufficient for URE instructors
or mentors to articulate accurate ideas and expect students to incorporate
them into their understanding of the field. Instead, students benefit from
making predictions to identify their prior knowledge. UREs can allow
students to distinguish among their own diverse ideas as well as the new
ideas by using evidence from experiments, observations, or other sources
that they obtain during the URE. Research has identified promising ways
to guide students to distinguish among ideas (e.g., Quintana et al., 2004).
To succeed in STEM, students need opportunities to organize often
contradictory, fragmented, and disconnected ideas along with the new
ideas they encounter. Knowledge that is organized and coherent is easier
to remember because there are multiple links between items that can aid
in recall. Organizing knowledge involves noticing patterns, relationships,
and discrepancies among ideas (Reif and St. John, 1979). Moreover, when
students develop integrated, organized understanding, they have knowledge
that can be used to solve new problems.
Students often have difficulty applying their knowledge in a new con-
text. One way to create the potential for transferring ideas about the
process skills or competencies that are most important for UREs is to help
students develop an understanding of the core concepts and patterns, in

addition to the requisite skills, that can serve as a structure for organizing
knowledge (Bransford and Schwartz, 2009). Spending a lot of time studying
material and practicing its application is not sufficient to promote transfer
of knowledge and skills; what matters is how this time is spent (Bjork and
Bjork, 2011). The goal is to spend time on activities that promote deeper
learning. To start, students need complex, realistic problems that encourage
extracting relevant information and analyzing it against prior knowledge.
They need to apply the research process to new situations (Shaffer, 2012).
One way that designers can determine whether they have succeeded in
making the topics of the URE accessible is by assessing the products that
students prepare such as posters, journals, research reports, and presenta-
tions. Other forms of student success will require different assessments that
measure understanding of the research process or of the nature of STEM.
Students are more likely to produce products that feature integrated ideas
and identify patterns in results or data when the problems they study are
accessible and illustrate the process of linking and connecting ideas (Linn
and Eylon, 2011).
Promote Autonomy
A salient aspect of UREs is that they have the potential to promote
autonomy. In a STEM research context, autonomy may be characterized
as the ability to initiate research activities and carry them to completion
by taking advantage of multiple resources including peers, experts, tech-
nologies, and media. This concept of autonomy is consistent with Hurtado
and colleagues (2012, p. 50), who called for developing “habits of mind
[that] involve the way students integrate different sources of knowledge.”
UREs can promote autonomy by giving students the opportunity to make
decisions about the problem to be studied, the research design, and the
appropriate methodology to use (Bjork et al., 2013). Designers of UREs can
carefully design tasks and opportunities for students to gradually develop
skills that are necessary to promote autonomy (Brew, 2013).
As part of promoting autonomy, instructors can take advantage of
reflection. By building a practice of reflecting on their evidence and identify-
ing consistencies and open questions, students may develop autonomy. This
is essential for achieving durable research understanding.
Linn’s (2006) knowledge integration framework calls for engaging
students in distinguishing between their existing ideas and new ideas. In
this process, students use many of the reasoning strategies desired in STEM
fields, such as drawing on evidence and forming arguments to reach conclu-
sions. Activities that require students to generate their own explanations of
concepts or explain a concept to another person are thought of as revealing
an element of reflection. Studies indicate that these “self-explanation” strat-

egies can enhance learning more than just having students read a passage
or examine the diagrams in a textbook (National Research Council, 2012).
To assess student ability to investigate research dilemmas autonomously,
designers can examine the progress students make in UREs as reflected in
the products they create, such as research reports or posters for meetings.
Another approach is to build online miniprojects that could reveal student
progress in developing these skills; some such assessments employ auto-
mated scoring, an advantage when increasing the size of a program (e.g.,
Liu et al., 2016; Quellmalz et al. 2012).
Learn from Each Other

Research increasingly involves collaboration and learning from others
as problems become more and more complex (e.g., Cook-Deegan, 1994).
Many argue that students learn more effectively when they collaborate
(Brown and Campione, 1994; Linn and Hsi, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Yet
collaboration is not universally efficient or effective for learning (Kollar et
al., 2007; Webb, 1997). To benefit from collaboration, students often need
to learn how to learn from each other. When students work together on
well-designed learning activities, they establish a community of learners
that provides cognitive and social support for the efforts of the community’s
individual members. In such a community, students share the responsibility
for thinking and doing. They can help each other solve problems by build-
ing on each other’s knowledge, asking each other questions, and suggesting
ideas that an individual working alone might not have considered (Brown
and Campione, 1994; Okita and Schwartz, 2013). By challenging each
other’s thoughts and beliefs, they can compel the members of the group to
be explicit about what they mean and to negotiate any conflicts that arise,
which in turn fosters metacognition. Social interactions may also have a
positive effect on motivation by making individuals feel they are contribut-
ing something to others (Schwartz, 1999). Facilitating interactions among
various cultural groups could help improve student’s communication skills
while also integrating students into the research enterprise (Hurtado et al.,
2008). Supporting and promoting collaboration has potential for UREs
(Brownell et al., 2015). However, orchestrating collaboration is difficult.
Students must be able to respect the ideas of their peers, negotiate meaning,
and guide peers who are less able.
Make Thinking Visible

Individual students come to UREs with a complex set of ideas stem-
ming from their own cultural identity, previous academic experiences, and
personal reflection. Students might have specific ideas about STEM-related

topics, but they might also have “knowledge in pieces.” That is, the ideas
might be fragmented and contradictory (diSessa, 2000). As noted above,
students may need to distinguish new ideas and prior knowledge.
An important step in helping students learn and gain a better under-
standing of the research enterprise is to ask them to make their ideas vis-
ible. When students are asked to articulate their existing ideas, they reveal
to themselves and their mentors/instructors the current understanding that
they have developed about a topic. Previous research has shown that stu-
dent’s knowledge can be assessed by asking them to make predictions about
phenomena. Students develop better conceptual understanding when they
make predictions than when they do not (Linn and Songer, 1991; Mayer et
al., 2003; White and Gunstone, 1992). In addition, the process of reflecting
and explaining their reasoning often helps students recognize flaws in their
own reasoning (Collins and Brown, 1988).
Encouraging students to make their thinking visible both when they
generate explanations and when they revise them can promote knowledge
integration. These activities can set in motion a process of revisiting STEM-
specific issues when they arise in new contexts, such as news articles or pub-
lic lectures. Autonomous learners sort out their existing ideas and integrate
them with new ideas in order to continue to build coherent understanding.
By practicing reflection regularly, students can develop the ability to moni-
tor their own progress and to recognize new connections as they arise.
Reflection is common when STEM professionals maintain notebooks
where they record results and identify trends. Instructors and mentors can
encourage students to maintain notebooks and use them to make their think-
ing visible. They can ask students to include discussions of their struggles to
conduct their project and the limitations of their work. In CUREs, instruc-
tors can include essay examinations rather than relying on multiple-choice
questions to instill a practice of reflection. This approach has the advantage
of being both part of the instruction and a source of insights into student
progress (Lee et al., 2011).
SYSTEMIC FACTORS IMPACTING URES

Programs of undergraduate research are nested within multiple con-
texts. There are systemic factors—national and state policy, institutions,
and departments and disciplines—that can have a top-down influence by
promoting opportunities or placing constraints on UREs through reforms
and funding. There are also more-local factors involved in the implementa-
tion of UREs—that is, designers (including faculty, mentors, and evaluators)
and students.
As described in Chapter 2, UREs are heterogeneous, which is not
surprising given the variation in systemic factors and the diverse views of

student learning held by the key actors. They vary on multiple dimensions.
Programs of undergraduate research can differ in terms of leadership (i.e.,
who is responsible for the program), design, and duration. UREs also can
vary in expectations or goals for students, mentoring provided, value for
career trajectory (e.g., strengthen likelihood of graduate school admissions
or industry employment, preparation as an informed citizen), and measured
outcomes, as well as the population(s) served (e.g., STEM majors, non-
majors, historically underrepresented students, first generation students).
Moreover, UREs can vary in how they are funded and how they are situated
within the university. Given this variability, it can be challenging to cleanly
categorize UREs and even more difficult to identify how many programs
of any given type are being offered. (Chapter 2 provides a more in-depth
discussion of program types.) In fact, data on the number of students who
participate in UREs nationally is not systematically collected, although
some funders do collect data on programs they sponsor.
Systemic factors include variation in institutional support (e.g., rare
in community college, common in small liberal arts colleges), extramural
funding, disciplinary expectations (e.g., common in chemistry and engineer-
ing, less common in mathematics, and rare in computer science), faculty
motivation (e.g., improve instruction, make the laboratory experience more
relevant and meaningful, meet funding requirement), and faculty rewards
(e.g., no reward, release from course-teaching requirement, enhancement of
research capability, value for promotion). In short, the substantial heteroge-
neity of UREs across multiple dimensions is due in part to the nature of the
higher education system. These systemic factors interact with each other as
shown in Figure 3-3. That is, national and state-level policies interact with
institutional and/or departmental policies to shape opportunities and place
constraints on UREs. A discussion of each of these three systemic factors
and their impacts on UREs follows.
National and State Policy

As highlighted in Chapter 1, there have been many calls for reform
focused on making undergraduate STEM education “more practical, rel-
evant, engaging, and grounded in research on how people learn” (Laursen
et al., 2010, p. 7). One of the major catalysts for this national-level reform
was the Boyer Commission (Boyer Commission on Education of Under-
graduates in the Research University, 1998), which issued a report calling
for research-based learning to become the standard in undergraduate educa-
tion, particularly at research universities. Moreover, national bodies have
called for increasing opportunities that are student-centered and inquiry-
based in STEM disciplines (Kuh, 2008; National Research Council, 1999;
National Science Foundation, 1996).

Na onal Policy Context

-Federal government funding priori es
-Na onal founda on priori es
State Policy Context

-Funding priori es and levels
-Accountability
Ins tu onal Context

-Ini a ves
-Faculty incen ves
-Ins tu onal mission
Department/Academic Program
-Academic major requirements
-Disciplinary expecta ons
-Student career trajectories/op ons
FIGURE 3-3 Connections among systemic factors. The arrows along the side
indicate that the interaction among these factors occurs in both a top-down and
bottom-up direction.
Although these national-level calls for reform can encourage funding

for undergraduate research, new initiatives can also shift research priori-
ties and the types of projects that are funded, which can have substantial
impacts on broader opportunities for students to engage in research. Several
organizations, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and the National Institutes of Health,
have developed funding initiatives specifically targeted at increasing a ccess
to UREs for more diverse students. An external review conducted by R ussell
and colleagues (2007) of NSF’s funding for undergraduate research sug-
gested that engaging students in undergraduate research was associated

with positive outcomes, such as increasing the undergraduates understand-

ing, confidence, and awareness of the importance of research.
For example, the National Institutes of Health has developed two
initiatives geared toward increasing the participation of historically under
represented groups in the biomedical sciences by providing them with
access to resources and preparation for graduate-level work. The Maximiz-
ing Access to Research Careers/Undergraduate Student Training in Aca-
demic Research initiative1 provides support to undergraduate, honors-level,
junior and senior students. In contrast, the Research Initiative for Scientific
Enhance ment (RISE) program aims to reduce the gap between under
represented and non-underrepresented students in Ph.D. degree completions
by providing support to institutions. This RISE funding can be used to pay
salaries to undergraduates participating in research.2
HHMI provides funding through multiple mechanisms and encourages
colleges and universities to build “capacity to effectively engage all students
in science,” which includes transfer students from community colleges, first
generation students, and historically underrepresented students.3 For ex-
ample, HHMI has funded the development, implementation, and expansion
of the Freshman Research Initiative at The University of Texas at Austin.
Thousands of freshmen students have participated in this initiative since
2006 (Rodenbusch et al., 2016). Students in this program (40 percent of
the incoming freshman class) join a “research stream” in which they engage
in progressively more intense research experiences over time. For more
information on this initiative, see Box 2-9 in Chapter 2.
NSF also has a portfolio dedicated to supporting UREs, called Research
Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) that provides funding for programs
and projects that encourage active research participation by undergraduate
students.4 Over the years, REU has experienced increases in both the num-
ber of awards granted each year and the amount of money being awarded.
For this report, the committee used the DIA2 tool5 to extract the number
of awards and the award amount per year for REU grants from 1995 to
2015. Figure 3-4 depicts this gradual increase from 1995 through 2015 in
number of awards (left side) and total award amount (right side); there is a
relative plateau beginning around 2007 for both measures of funding level.
Although external funding provides essential resources, it also imposes
1 See https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/MARC/Pages/USTARAwards.aspx [February 2017].

2 See https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/RISE/Pages/default.aspx [February 2017].
3 See http://www.hhmi.org/programs/undergraduate-science-education-grants [February
2017].
4 See http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5517&from=fund [February 2017].
5 The DIA2 tool is a public search tool that was developed with NSF funding to Purdue
University. The tool currently accesses a database of more than 200,000 grants awarded by
NSF from 1995 to present.

Number of Awards by Year

400
350 $240,000
300 $200,000
250 $160,000
200
$120,000
150
$80,000
100
50 $40,000
0 $0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1995
ar Award Amount by Year

per thousand dollars
$240,000
$200,000
$160,000
$120,000
$80,000
$40,000
$0
10 2015 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
FIGURE 3-4 Overview of NSF REU award numbers and total amount of awards,
1995-2015. The award amount by year is the total amount allocated for the year,
not the average award amount. Data obtained from http://ci4ene04.ecn.purdue.edu/
DIA2/pages [May 2016].
some constraints. Federal and state policy, including the length of time that
individual grants for UREs are awarded, and the funding priorities of major
foundations affect the kinds of undergraduate research that are offered at
colleges and universities nationally. A large problem is nonrenewable fund-
ing that is available to launch and start UREs. To see sustained impacts,

there must be enough time elapsed that cohorts can progress through their
college career, which takes a good deal of time after the initial funding is
available, especially if there is a ramp-up/development stage that prevents
the first cohorts from happening in the first 2 years of the grant award. This
can make it difficult to show the impacts and secure additional funding.
In addition to the availability and kinds of funding for UREs (e.g.,
individual initiatives versus supplements to existing faculty grants), educa-
tion priorities are established through national and state policy making, as
well as through other policy priorities of the government that can affect
the breadth and scope of such programs. For example, it is possible that
recent emphasis on having students complete their degrees as quickly as
possible could discourage institutions from supporting longer-term (e.g.,
multiple semesters) projects if they do not allow students to obtain credit
toward graduation and if the time required to be engaged with them results
in students taking fewer credits per semester. Policies that emphasize keep-
ing tuition and fees as low as possible could discourage development of
CUREs, which sometimes may be funded in part by an increase in student
lab fees or by additional costs for enrolling in STEM courses compared
with those in other disciplines. When a project is funded with external sup-
port, funding agencies determine the amount of resources given to support
research and evaluation of programs or they might request periodic reports
and dictate what type of information to be tracked and measured to dem-
onstrate a programs’ success. Access to program evaluations may not be
widely available unless published in peer-reviewed journals or disciplinary
society publications.
Institutional Context
Institutional initiatives, mission, and culture can impact the degree to
which there is financial and logistical support for the development of UREs
and how those activities may be structured. These institutional priorities,
in turn, are influenced by national and state education policies and priori-
ties. A study that examined the relationship between campus missions and
the five benchmarks for effective educational practice (measured by the
National Survey of Student Engagement) showed that certain programs,
policies, and approaches may work better depending on the institution’s
mission (Kezar and Kinzie, 2006). Other research on this topic shows that
if institutions align policies and practices that support student success, then
students are more likely to persist (Berger, 2001-2002; Kuh, 2001-2002).
Opportunities to participate in UREs may be limited at certain cam-
puses due to those institutions’ mission, priorities, or funding sources.
Institutional support for UREs may be less common in community colleges
than at small liberal arts colleges and research-intensive universities. Uni-

versities with more research funding often have more research opportunities
for undergraduates (Kezar and Kinzie, 2006); however, for large institutions
that have more students, this might not translate into an increase in the
number of opportunities for an individual student.
Institutions also provide the infrastructure and resources to support
undergraduate research more generally. This may include providing space
and assisting in procuring the requisite laboratory and field equipment,
which might be shared among multiple departments and/or faculty. At a
broader level, it might include the creation of an office of undergraduate
research to facilitate the promotion and implementation of such programs.
Moreover, the institution might sponsor campus-wide initiatives that sup-
port UREs by providing supplemental funds to students engaging in re-
search (i.e., funds to help acquire necessary equipment or supplies) or in
the dissemination of research at national disciplinary meetings or through
a campus-sponsored event.
However, institutions can broaden or impede student participation
in UREs through their faculty promotion and reward structures. In some
institutions, involving students in URE programs might take away faculty
time from other activities that are expected by the university’s promotion
and reward system (i.e., publishable funded research). In other institutions,
supporting undergraduates in research is an expected activity.
When individual institutions decide to expand participation in under-
graduate research, they may do so through a variety of approaches. For
example, some colleges or universities may make participation in at least one
URE mandatory rather than optional for the student. This could be achieved
by supporting the development of more course-based experiences to in-
volve more undergraduates per mentor. It could also be achieved through
partnering with other institutions of higher education, local or regional re-
search organizations, or industries that conduct research and development.
Decades-long partnerships between predominantly white institutions and
historically black colleges and universities through undergraduate research
programs are one example of such partnerships (Louis et al., 2015). Simi-
larly, community colleges sometimes partner with baccalaureate-granting
institutions to provide their students with access to faculty and facilities
(Russell et al., 2007). Additional opportunities may exist through study
abroad programs or with local, national, or international consortia.
Departments and Disciplinary Context

Academic departments play an important role in shaping the type of
experiences that are available to the students in their program and the
requirements for participating in UREs, especially as schools are moving
toward a “culture of undergraduate research” (Merkel, 2001). The require-

ments for degree completion in terms of the types of courses one needs to
take can have an impact on students’ options for research. Making a URE
a graduation requirement increases participation, whereas numerous other
requirements could likely decrease participation in research. An evaluation
of the existing curriculum might spur departments to adapt or add courses
to increase accessibility to UREs for their majors, and potentially also for
nonmajors.
Each department’s decisions are influenced by its particular disciplinary
culture and context. The likelihood of participating in UREs is dependent
upon the specific area of STEM considered. For example, one national
study sent out a web-based survey to all recipients of eight NSF-funded
grants that included an undergraduate research component. Almost 15,000
students responded to the survey. Approximately 72 percent of students
that majored in chemistry and 74 percent that majored in environmental
science stated that they had participated in UREs, whereas 34 percent
of students in mathematics and computer science stated they had such
opportunities (Russell et al., 2007). These disciplinary differences may be
driven in part by the various STEM disciplines promoting different kinds of
knowledge, skill sets, and approaches. For example, some fields have differ-
ent expectations for learning specific content because these fields prepare
students for specific professional careers and/or require certification (e.g.,
engineering, business, computer science, and information science). For
other fields, such as mathematics, the learning of content is not specifically
tied to an occupation. For fields such as engineering, where the curriculum
may lead to a career path in certain industries, participating in UREs that
focus on the relevant knowledge may be important.
Faculty participation in UREs may be motivated by a desire to im-
prove instruction, enrich the students’ experience in an existing lab/research
experience, boost research productivity, or satisfy requirements necessary
to receive funding. Success of UREs may depend upon administrators and
institutional policies to support interested faculty, along with the resources
and professional development to encourage/compensate faculty. Further-
more, facilities and time to allow faculty to properly engage undergraduate
students in research are important (Shortlidge et al., 2016).
Disciplinary societies, professional societies, and national networks
also play an important role in the national policy discussion and shape
the context that supports UREs. Societies of STEM research professionals
traditionally have served as a platform for leaders and members from their
respective STEM fields and subspecialties to present their research and to
discuss challenges and opportunities in their field. These meetings provide
opportunities for professional development and provide networking oppor
tunities among members at regional and national levels. Some also have
sessions or entire conferences focused on education, in addition to those

that invite undergraduate researchers to present their research during poster

sessions and/or talks. For example, the National Conferences on Under-
graduate Research are meetings completely devoted to undergraduates
sharing their own research.
Systemic Influences and the Dynamic Interplay

Institutions, departments, and individual faculty each impact the pre-
cise nature of UREs in multiple ways and at multiple levels. The physical
resources available, including laboratories, field stations, engineering design
studios, and testing facilities, can influence the design of the research ques-
tion as well as the ability to access resources in the surrounding community
(including other parts of the campus). Institutions with an explicit mission
to promote undergraduate research may provide more time, resources
(e.g., financial, support personnel, space, equipment), and recognition and
rewards to URE-engaged departments and faculty than those institutions
with another focus. The culture of the institution with respect to innovation
in pedagogy and support for faculty development can impact the extent to
which UREs are introduced or improved.
Departmental and institutional differences affect students’ access to
undergraduate research (Katkin, 2003). Many reform efforts that b egin
in a single department are not broadly adopted across programs, in other
departments, or across colleges/universities in the STEM disciplines. “Stu-
dent advising, faculty professional development, student research men-
toring, academic support programs, clear STEM-focused institutional
articulation agreements, external partnerships with business and industry
related to internships and other research experiences, and many other
critical programs and areas that have been identified as central to student
success are often overlooked within reform efforts” (Elrod and Kezar,
2015, p. 67). These conditions suggest that UREs may need support from
the institutional level in order to become sustainable and widespread in
an institution.
SUMMARY
The goals for students participating in UREs are to increase retention/
participation in STEM, promote STEM disciplinary knowledge and prac-
tices, and integrate students into STEM culture. These goals, coupled with
the design principles—make STEM research accessible, help students learn
from each other, make thinking visible, and promote autonomy—can set
the stage for a robust experience that can help students generate deeper
learning. This process begins by engaging students in research experiences
that require students to do more than “know” something. Many research

experiences are intended to empower students to appreciate their potential

as creative contributors to their chosen discipline. The degree to which
UREs are designed using the existing educational literature on pedagogy
and how people learn is not clear.
The heterogeneity of UREs as described in Chapter 2 stems from vari-
ability associated with the multiple systemic factors, goals, and design
principles described in this chapter. National calls for reform efforts and
opportunities for funding shape UREs on campus. However, institutions,
departments, and faculty play a big role in creating the context that sur-
rounds the URE. Local policies and culture can provide a supportive envi
ronment that promotes undergraduate research as a “normal” part of
STEM undergraduate education. When there is alignment between the
policies and culture, there may be an increase in the likelihood of sustain-
ing a URE.
REFERENCES
Adedokun, O.A., Zhang, D., Parker, L.C., Bessenbacher, A., Childress, A., Burgess, W.D., and
Adedokun, B.O.A. (2012). Understanding how undergraduate research experiences influ-
ence student aspirations for research careers and graduate education. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 42(1), 82-90.
Lawrie, G., McLinn, C.M., Pelaez, N., Rowland, S., Towns, M., Trautmann, N.M.,Varma-
Nelson, P., Weston, T.J., and Dolan, E.L. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergrad-
uate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 29-40.
Barr, D.A., Matsui, J., Wanat, S.F., and Gonzalez, M.E. (2010). Chemistry courses as the turn-
ing point for premedical students. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(1), 45-54.
Barton, A.C. (1998). Reframing “science for all” through the politics of poverty. Educational
Policy, 12(5), 525-541.
Berger, J.B. (2001-2002). Understanding the organizational nature of student persistence:
Empirically-based recommendations for practice. Journal of College Student Retention,
3(1), 3-21.
Bjork, E.L., and Bjork, R. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating
desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Pp. 56-64 in M.A. Gernsbacher, R.W. Pew, L.M.
Hough, and J.R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating
Fundamental Contributions to Society. New York: Worth Publishers.
Bjork, R.A., Dunlosky, J., and Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques,
and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.
and Medicine. Available: http://nas.edu/STEM_Undergraduate_Research_Apprentice.
Boyer Commission on Education of Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Re-
inventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities.
Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook for the Carnegie Founda-
tion for the Advancement of Teaching.

Bransford, J.D., and Schwartz, D.L. (2009). It takes expertise to make expertise: Some
thoughts about why and how. Pp. 748-774 in K.A. Ericsson (Ed.), Development of Pro-
fessional Expertise: Toward Measurement of Expert Performance and Design of Optimal
Learning Environments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brew, A. (2013). Understanding the scope of undergraduate research: A framework for cur-
ricular and pedagogical decision-making. Higher Education, 66, 603-618.
Brown, A.L., and Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided Discovery in a Community of Learners.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Brownell, S.E., and Kloser, M.J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring
the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate
biology. Studies in Higher Education, 40(3), 525-544.
Brownell, S.E., Hekmat-Scafe, D.S., Singla, V., Seawell, P.C., Conklin-Imam, J.F., Eddy, S.L.,
Stearns, T., and Cyert, M.S. (2015). A high enrollment course-based undergraduate
interpret data. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14(2), ar21. Available: https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477737/pdf/ar21.pdf [January 2017].
Clancy, M., Titterton, N., Ryan, C., Slotta, J., and Linn, M. (2003). New roles for students,
instructors, and computers in a lab-based introductory programming course. ACM
SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 132-136.
Clement, N. (2009). Perspectives from research and practice in values education. Pp. 13-25
in T. Lovat and R. Toomey (Eds.), Values Education and Quality Teaching. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Collins, A., and Brown, J.S. (1988). The computer as a tool for learning through reflection.
Pp. 1-18 in M.M Sebrechts, G. Fisher, and P.M. Fisher (Eds.), Learning Issues for Intel-
ligent Tutoring Systems. New York: Springer US.
Cook-Deegan, R.M. (1994). The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome. New
York: Norton.
tion of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. Advances in Psychol-
Corwin, L.A., Graham, M.J., and Dolan, E.L. (2015). Modeling course-based undergraduate
research experiences: An agenda for future research and evaluation. CBE–Life Sciences
Education, 14, es1. Available: http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/1/es1.full.pdf+html
[January 2017].
diSessa, A.A. (1996). Faculty opponent review: On mole and amount of substance: A study
of the dynamics of concept formation and concept attainment. Pedagogisk Forskning i
Sverige, 1(4), 233-243.
diSessa, A.A. (2000). ChangingMinds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Available: http://nas.edu/STEM_Undergraduate_Research_CURE [February 2017].
Elrod, S., and Kezar, A. (2015). Increasing student success in STEM. Peer Review, 17(2).
Available: https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2015/spring/elrod-kezar [February 2017].
Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P.R., and Schultz, P. (2011). Toward a model of social
influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 206-222.

Feldman, A., Divoll, K.A., and Rogan-Klyve, A. (2013). Becoming researchers: The participa-
tion of undergraduate and graduate students in scientific research groups. Science Educa-
tion, 97(2), 218-243.
Hernandez, P.R., Schultz, P., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., and Chance, R.C. (2013). Sustaining
optimal motivation: A longitudinal analysis of interventions to broaden participation
of underrepresented students in STEM. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1).
Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3838411/pdf/nihms512414.
Hurtado, S., Eagan, M.K., Cabrera, N.L., Lin, M.H., Park, J., and Lopez, M. (2008). Train-
ing future scientists: Predicting first-year minority student participation in health science
research. Research in Higher Education, 49(2), 126-152.
Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., and Chang, M. (2010). Degrees of Success: Bachelor’s Degree Com-
pletion Rates among Initial STEM Majors. Higher Education Research Institute at
UCLA. Available: http://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/downloads/2010%20-%20Hurtado,%20
Eagan,%20Chang%20-%20Degrees%20of%20Success.pdf [January 2010].
Hurtado, S., Eagan, M.K., and Hughes, B. (2012). Priming the Pump or the Sieve: Institutional
Contexts and URM STEM Degree Attainments. Paper presented at the annual forum of
the Association for Institutional Research Annual Form [June 2-6, 2012], New Orleans,
LA. Available: http://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/downloads/AIR2012HurtadoPrimingthePump.
pdf [June 2016].
Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence
theory. In R. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. Posavac, F. Bryant, Y. Suzrez-Balcazar, E.
Henderson-King, and J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and Research on Small Groups (4), 9-36.
New York: Plenum.
151-185.
Jordan, T.C., Burnett, S.H., Carson, S., Caruso, S.M., Clase, K., DeJong, R.J., Dennehy, J.J.,
Denver, D.R., Dunbar, D., Elgin, S.C.R., Findley, A.M., Gissendanner, C.R., Golebiewska,
U.P., Guild, N., Hartzog, G.A., Grillo, W.H., Hollowell, G.P., Hughes, L.E., Johnson, A.,
King, R.A., Lewis, L.O., Li, W., Rossenzweig, F., Rubin, M.R., Saha, M.S., Sandoz, J.,
Shaffer, C.D., Taylor, B., Temple, L., Vazquez, E., Ware, V.C., Barker, L.P., Bradley, K.W.,
Jacobs-Sera, D., Pope, W.H., Russell, D.A., Cresawn, S.G., Lopatto, D., Bailey, C.P. and
Hatfull, G.F. (2014). A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and
genomics for first-year undergraduate students. MBio, 5(1), e01051-13. Available: http://
mbio.asm.org/content/5/1/e01051-13.full.pdf [February 2017].
Karpicke, J.D., Butler, A.C., and Roediger III, H.L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student
learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own?. Memory, 17(4),
471-479.
Katkin, W. (2003). The Boyer Commission Report and its impact on undergraduate research.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003(93), 19-38.
Keller, C. (2016). Using STEM Case Studies to Prepare Today’s Students for Tomorrow’s Jobs.
An Evaluation of Spark 101 Interactive STEM videos. Available: http://www.spark101.
org/media/user_files/2016-03-07_SparkEvaluation-Final.pdf [February 2017].
Kezar, A.J., and Kinzie, J. (2006). Examining the ways institutions create student engagement:
The role of mission. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 149-172.

Kollar, I., Fisher, F., and Slotta, J.D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer sup-
ported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708-721.
Koretsky, M., Kelly, C., and Gummer, E. (2011). Student perception of learning in the labora-
tory: Comparison of industrially situated virtual laboratories to capstone physical labo-
ratories. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 540-573.
Kuh, G.D. (2001-2002). Organizational culture and student persistence: Prospects and puzzles.
Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 23-39
Kuh, G.D. (2008). Excerpt from High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who
Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Available: https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips
[April 2015].
Laursen, S., Hunter, A.-B., Seymour, E., Thiry, H., and Melton, G. (2010). Undergraduate Re-
search in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, Jr., J.M., Contreras, F., McGuire, K.M., Flores-Ragade, A., Rawls, A., Edwards, K.,
and Menson, R. (2011). The College Completion Agenda: 2011 Progress Report.
College Board Advocacy & Policy Center. Available: http://media.collegeboard.com/
digitalServices/pdf/advocacy/policycenter/college-completion-agenda-2012-progress-
report.pdf [February 2017].
Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Linn, M.C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer
science: The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 4(2), 103-126.
Linn, M.C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. Pp.
243-264 in R.K. Sawyer (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, M.C., and Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science Learning and Instruction: Taking Advantage of
Linn, M.C., and Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. New
York: Routledge.
Linn, M.C., and Songer, N.B. (1991). Cognitive and conceptual change in adolescence. Ameri-
can Journal of Education, 99(4), 379-417.
123-150.
Liu, O.L., Rios, J.A., Heilman, M., Gerard, L., and Linn, M.C. (2016). Validation of auto-
mated scoring of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2),
215-233.
Louis, D.A., Phillips, L.L., Louis, S.L., and Smith, A.R. (2015). Historically black colleges and
universities: Undergraduate research, mentoring and extending the graduate pipeline.
Perspectives on Undergraduate Research & Mentoring, 4(1). Available: https://works.
bepress.com/dave_louis/41/ [February 2017].
Mayer, R.E., Dow, G.T., and Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-
explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal
Mendoza, N., Richard, J., and Dugat Wickliff, T. (2015). Enculturation of diverse students
to the engineering sciences through first year engineering college experiences at a south-
western institution: An exploratory work in progress. Paper presented at the 7th First
Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference, Roanoke, VA. Available: http://fyee.
org/2015/papers/5079.pdf [February 2017].

Merkel, C.A. (2001). Undergraduate Research at Six Research Universities: A Pilot Study
for the Association of American Universities. California Institute of Technology. Avail-
able: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebeb/1024b664b2ee093daf7e09911fc1aa28959d.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.
(2005). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplin-
ary Research. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington, DC:
National Research Council. (1999). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. M.
Donovan, J. Bransford, and J. Pellegrino (Eds.). Committee on Learning Research and
Educational Practice. Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
National Research Council. (2000a). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and
School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000b). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and
School: Expanded Edition. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning.
Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. Board on Behavioral, Cog-
nitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Science. S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber (Eds.). Committee on High
School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Board on Science Education, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People,
Places, and Pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, P. Bell,
B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center
for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and
Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. S. Singer, N.R. Nielsen,
and H.A. Schweingruber (Eds). Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future
Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research. Board on Science Education, Divi-
sion of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says about Effective
Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. N. Kober (author). Board on Sci-
ence Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergradu-
ate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (NSF 96-139).
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/
stis1996/nsf96139/nsf96139.txt [February 2017].
Okita, S.A., and Schwartz, D.L. (2013). Learning by teaching human pupils and teachable
agents: The importance of recursive feedback. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3),
375-412.
Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., and Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis
of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172-208.

Pfund, C. (2016). Studying the Role and Impact of Mentoring on Undergraduate Research Ex-
periences. Paper commissioned for the Committee on Strengthening Research Experiences
for Undergraduate STEM Students. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Life Science, Division of Earth and Life
Studies. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Available: http://
nas.edu/STEM_Undergraduate_Research_Mentoring.
Prior, P., and Bilbro, R. (2012). Academic enculturation: Developing literate practices and dis-
ciplinary identities. Pp. 19-31 in M. Castellό and C. Donahue (Eds.), University Writing:
Selves and Texts in Academic Societies. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V.B., Santos, J.L., and Korn, W.S. (2007). The American Fresh-
man: Forty Year Trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute. Available:
https://heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/40TrendsManuscript.pdf [February 2017].
Quellmalz, E.S., Timms, M.J., Silberglitt, M.D., and Buckley, B.C. (2012). Science assessments
for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 363-393.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., and Golan Duncan, R., Kyza, E.,
Edelson, D., and Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to
support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
Reif, F., and St. John, M. (1979). Teaching physicists’ thinking skills in the laboratory. Ameri-
can Journal of Physics, 47(11), 950-957.
ing, and mathematics degrees. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar20. Available:
http://www.lifescied.org/content/15/2/ar20 [February 2017].
Russell, S.H., Hancock, M.P., and McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research
experiences. Science, 316, 548-549.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (2010). How We Think: A Theory of Goal-Oriented Decision Making and
Its Educational Applications. New York: Routledge.
Schwartz, D.L. (1999). The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. Pp. 197-218
in P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Ap-
proaches. New York: Elsevier Science.
Schwarz, J. (2012). Faculty as undergraduate research mentors for students of color: Taking
into account the costs. Science Education, 96, 527-542.
Shaffer, D.W. (2012). Models of situated action: Computer games and the problem of transfer.
Pp. 403-432 in C. Steinkuehler, K. Squre, and S. Barab (Eds.), Games, Learning, and So-
ciety: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shortlidge, E.E., Bangera, G., and Brownell, S.E. (2016). Faculty perspectives on developing
and teaching course-based undergraduate research experiences. BioScience, 66(1), 54-62.
Svinicki, M., and McKeachie, W.J. (2011). McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research,
and Theory for College and University Teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.
Thiry, H., Weston, T.J., Laursen, S.L., and Hunter, A.B. (2012). The benefits of multi-year
research experiences: Differences in novice and experienced students’ reported gains from
undergraduate research. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 260-272.
Visintainer, T., and Linn, M. (2015). Sixth-grade students’ progress in understanding the
mechanisms of global climate change. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
24(2-3), 287-310.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Develop-
ment of Children, 23(3), 34-41.
Webb, N.M. (1997). Assessing students in small collaborative groups. Theory into Practice,
36, 205-213.

Weinstein, C.E., Husman, J., and Dierking, D.R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a
focus on learning strategies. Pp. 727-747 in M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner
(Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
White, R., and Gunstone, R. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. Pp. 44-64 in Probing
Understanding. New York: Routledge.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R.W., and Davis-Kean, P. (2007). Development
of achievement motivation. In W. Damon and N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of Child
Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Research Documenting Student

Participation in UREs
This chapter focuses on the studies that have been done on student
learning experiences in undergraduate research experiences (UREs), whereas
later chapters address the context in which the UREs happen by discussing
mentorship, faculty, institutional administration, and policy issues.1 While
there are many opportunities for undergraduates to engage in research, as
discussed in the previous chapters, the goals and structures of these expe-
riences vary significantly. The studies on UREs also vary greatly in their
content, approach, and perspectives; in gathering information about UREs,
the committee was not able to find data on all of the topics we sought. Even
so we learned of many interesting and creative programs at various types
of institutions around the country.
This chapter examines information from those programs that have been
the subject of focused study. Some of the more recent studies have focused
on course-based UREs (CUREs) specifically. In examining the evidence
that has been gathered to date on the outcomes of UREs, the committee
found that much of the published data are for retention in the major and
graduation rates. Although this focus may be because many UREs were set
up specifically to promote the participation of students in research to sup-
port their retention in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) fields, it may also be because these data are readily available, as
1 This chapter includes outcomes from participation in course-based undergraduate research
experiences (CUREs) from a paper commissioned by the committee titled Course-Based

Undergraduate Research Experiences: Current Knowledge and Future Directions by Erin
Dolan (2016).
97

they are already collected for other purposes. These data are discussed here
in the section on participation and retention. Other studies are discussed
in sections on increased understanding of STEM practices (e.g., content,
concepts, and research skills) and integration of students into STEM culture
(e.g., belonging, teamwork, ownership). Overall, the studies that document
outcomes of UREs are relatively new and were developed by researchers
and instructors who are early adopters of this high-impact practice; there-
fore, the motivation and self-selection of students included is not always
articulated for each study. When possible, information about the selec-
tion of students and student motivation is highlighted for each study and
discussed here. This would also include describing the comparison group
when possible; the importance of proper comparison group selection and
the impact on research design is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
TOOLS FOR MEASURING OUTCOMES

A wide range of outcomes have been proposed as potential benefits of
UREs for students, for faculty, and for the institution as a whole. However,
few of these benefits have been well documented. Clearly, with such a wide
range of potential outcomes, there are different approaches to gathering
evidence, not only for each type of outcome, but also with regard to the
evidence of benefit that is being sought.
As discussed in Chapter 1, there are three types of evidence that might
be collected to support claims of benefit for these outcomes: (1) evidence
that provides a description of outcomes from UREs or suggests ways in
which UREs may influence outcomes, (2) evidence that provides a causal
explanation for the outcomes of UREs, and (3) evidence that supports im-
proved understanding of the mechanisms by which UREs affect outcomes.
Descriptive evidence may come from institutional or national datasets (such
as the Cooperative Institutional Research Program Freshman Survey and
the National Survey of Student Engagement) that have information about
student enrollment and persistence; it can also be obtained from student
self-reports, surveys, pre and post testing, and interviews. However, unless
a careful experimental or quasi-experimental design is used, gathering this
type of descriptive evidence is unlikely to provide causal evidence for any
changes that are observed after participation in UREs.
Similarly, studies that attempt to show why participation in a URE
might bring about a particular outcome—that is, to provide a mechanism
for fostering desired outcomes—must also be carefully designed. Some in-
sight into mechanisms may emerge from phenomenographic studies—which
require URE participants to describe their experiences. Table 4-1 outlines
reliable measurement tools that have been used to measure student out-
comes from UREs.

RESEARCH DOCUMENTING STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN URES 99
TABLE 4-1 Measurement Tools for UREs

Instrument Name Domains Measured Further Information
Experimental Students’ Differentiates between students’ scientific
Design Ability understanding of thinking gains in research-based vs. traditional
Test experimental design course lab sections. Can be used in pre and
criteria through post testing format; test is independent of
open-ended prompt disciplinary content (can be used in a variety
of contexts) (Sirum and Humberg, 2011). Has
been modified to be more sensitive for students
majoring in biology (Expanded-Experimental
Design Ability Test; Brownell et al., 2014).
Laboratory Students’ perceptions Self-report survey. The discovery and relevance

Course of 3 design and iteration scales differ for CUREs versus
Assessment features of CUREs: traditional lab courses (Corwin et al., 2015b).
Survey collaboration,
discovery and
relevance, and
iteration
Networking Students’ personal Self-report survey. Student networking

Survey and professional related to project ownership. Survey can
networks through differentiate between research experiences with
self-report of degrees low-networking or high-networking design
of conversation (Hanauer and Hatfull, 2015).
Project Extent of students’ Self-report survey. Results support argument

Ownership project ownership that project ownership is one design aspect of
Survey within research UREs that fosters increased retention. Defines
experience five categories of project ownership (Hanaeur
and Dolan, 2014).
Rubric for Knowledge of Assessment that can be used in UREs and

Experimental experimental design CUREs in pre and post format. Examines
Design and ability to students’ difficulties with: identifying
Knowledge and diagnose problems variable properties of experimental subject,
Difficulties in research design manipulation of variables, measurement of
outcomes, accounting for variability, and
recognizing the scope of inferences appropriate
for experimental findings (Dasgupta et al.,
2014).
Survey of Cognitive Self-report survey. Students report gains in

Undergraduate (understanding all areas. Highest gains are in understanding
Research research process, research process and learning lab techniques.
Experiences etc.); skills; personal Personal gains rated second highest (Lopatto,
(SURE) (confidence, 2004).
temperament)
continued

TABLE 4-1 Continued
Instrument Name Domains Measured Further Information
URSSA Survey Thinking and A self-report survey. The four domains (survey
working like a constructs) are separate but related. Analysis
scientist; personal shows that “attitudes and behaviors” items
gains; skills; act like satisfaction items and measure similar
attitudes and constructs. Comparison of Likert-scale and
behaviors open-ended items showed inflation in students
rating themselves as more likely to go to
graduate school (Weston and Laursen, 2015).
INCREASED PARTICIPATION AND

RETENTION OF STEM STUDENTS
Many studies on the outcomes of UREs have focused on outcomes
of participation, retention, and persistence. Data on these outcomes are
often already gathered by the institution, thereby providing a reasonably
accessible entrée for faculty interested in examining the results of UREs.
Obtaining information on whether URE participants continue on to gradu-
ate school or into STEM careers is more difficult to gather, though the
National Student Clearinghouse does track national degree completion,
and analysis of existing information could provide important insights into
the effects of UREs.2
Performance and Continued Enrollment in STEM Major

One prevalent argument for UREs is that participation in a research
experience improves students’ academic outcomes, such as retention in
STEM majors, college completion, and grade point average (GPA) (Graham
et al., 2013).
Nagda and colleagues (1998) conducted one of the few studies to
randomly select applicants for research experiences, notably before UREs
were widely available, to measure outcomes associated with retention.
They found that for students who applied and were randomly selected for
a URE program, there was a statistically significant decrease in attrition
(retention in major) for those students who participated compared to those
who did not, although findings varied by racial/ethnic groups. The differ-
ence in retention rate was strongest and statistically significant for African
Americans. Non-Hispanic white students who had participated in research
showed half the STEM attrition rate of the matched group of control
2 See http://www.studentclearinghouse.org [January 2017].

students, though the difference was not statistically significant. Moreover,

Hispanic students had a slightly higher, though not statistically significant,
retention rate compared with control students.
The remaining studies report outcome data on students who self-
selected into UREs, and although they were matched for demographic
characteristics with comparison groups who did not participate in a URE, it
is not clear that the groups were matched for motivation or other character-
istics that may have contributed to their success in college and in continuing
in a STEM major. A recent study by Rodenbusch and colleagues (2016)
examined GPA, graduation rates, and retention in STEM majors among
students who chose to participate in CUREs as part of the Freshman Re-
search Initiative at The University of Texas at Austin, which offers students
up to three sequenced courses in which they engage in research at increas-
ing levels of independence.3 The study used propensity score matching to
account for selected student-level differences4 and concluded that students
who participated in the full three-semester sequence were more likely to
graduate with a STEM degree and more likely to graduate within 6 years.
In contrast to the usual observation of greater minority attrition in STEM
majors and STEM degree completion, students from historically under
represented groups participating in this initiative succeeded at the same rate
as other students; that is, they were more likely to stay in the STEM major
and graduate with a STEM degree. This study found no difference in GPA
between those students participating in the URE compared to those who
did not. However, a study comparing research5 and nonresearch students at
another university showed that extended participation in research for more
than a semester was associated with an increase in GPA, even after control-
ling for SAT scores, though this GPA gain was not evident in students with
a single semester of research experience (Fechheimer et al., 2011).
UREs may also contribute to subsequent course-taking patterns in
STEM. After controlling for background characteristics such as early col-
lege coursework, GPA, math SAT scores, gender, and minority status, Junge
and colleagues (2010) found that students who chose to participate in the
3 The Freshman Research Initiative is discussed in Chapter 2.
4 The model included 13 variables that were used to create the comparison group. These
variables included: gender, race/ethnicity, parental education levels, parental income level, Pell
grant eligibility, SAT total score or ACT equivalent, number of high school science credits
earned, number of high school math credits earned, whether students graduated from a Texas
or out-of-state high school, enrollment year at UT Austin, first semester enrolled (e.g., Fall),
first college students entered at The University of Texas at Austin, and enrollment in the Texas
Interdisciplinary Program.
5 The definition of undergraduate research used “invokes the traditional one-faculty-mentor-
to-one-student relationship focused on a directed-research project” (Fechheimer et al., 2011,

p. 157). No demographic data were provided for each group (research, nonresearch) beyond
gender and SAT scores.

Summer Undergraduate Research at Emory [University] program took sig-

nificantly more science courses and earned higher grades in those courses
than nonparticipants. There is some evidence that student participation in
UREs correlates with a shorter time to degree. Based on student transcript
data at a single site, 98.5 percent of undergraduates in a summer research
program graduated within 5 years, compared to the overall graduate rate
of 82 percent (Craney et al., 2011).
Deek and colleagues (2003) conducted a study to examine research
experiences as a factor in academic achievement. The study compared 39
students who participated in a one-semester engineering Research Experi-
ences for Undergraduates program with 230 students who did not; the two
groups were matched on demographics and academic performance prior
to the research semester. Comparisons between the groups on retention,
cumulative GPA, and ratio of earned and attempted credit hours showed
a statistically significant difference between the groups. Overall, students
who participated in research had higher grades, earned more credits relative
to attempted credits, and were more likely to persist in the program after
completing the URE. Moreover, analysis of survey responses from both
faculty and students found that the program increased students’ motivation
and interest toward research.
Studies Focusing on Historically Underrepresented Students

Other studies have documented the educational and career benefits of
apprentice-style UREs for historically underrepresented students in particu-
lar. In recent years, a variety of research programs, using quasi-experimental
designs and statistical modeling, have started to show consistent evidence
that research experience correlates with higher likelihood of degree comple-
tion and persistence in interest in STEM careers (Chemers et al., 2011;
Jones et al., 2010; Schultz et al., 2011). For example, T heScienceStudy6
tracked a cohort of 1,400 historically underrepresented students who were
participating in the Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE)
program, an initiative funded by the National Institutes of Health to in-
crease the participation of students from underrepresented populations in
the biomedical sciences. Schultz and colleagues (2011) found that students
with science research experiences (e.g., in classes, working independently
with a faculty member, or at a job) who reported no active enrollment in
a co-curricular science program retained interest in science careers more
strongly than those who did not engage in research but were enrolled in
6 TheScienceStudy is a nationwide longitudinal study of the academic and professional
experiences of students and professionals. It was sponsored by the National Institutes of

Health. See https://ssl1.csusm.edu/thesciencestudy [September 2016].

a science program that did not include any hands-on research experience.
All students who were a part of this study had reported high intention to
pursue a biomedical career when the study began. Interestingly, participa-
tion in the RISE undergraduate research program did not increase the career
interest of these already interested students. Rather, it appeared to buffer
students from losing interest. The “match” students were not enrolled in
any undergraduate research programs but at the beginning of the study
shared a similar interest in the biomedical sciences with the RISE students.
The study did not report whether the “match” students had similar access
to UREs.
Chang and colleagues (2014) found that participation in UREs by
students who were from groups historically underrepresented in STEM
and who entered college with high grades and aspirations moderated the
negative correlation between being an underrepresented minority and per-
sistence. “Five college experiences significantly predicted the likelihood of
historically URM students [underrepresented minority students] following
through on their freshman intentions to major in STEM. The strongest of
these predictors was participation in an undergraduate research program.
URM students who participated in programs that exposed them to research
were 17.4 percentage points more likely to persist in STEM than those who
did not” (Chang et al., 2014, p. 567).
A comprehensive analysis of the transcripts and admissions applications
of 7,664 University of California, Davis students who declared biology as a
major between 1995 and 1999 found that underrepresented minority stu-
dents who participated in a research experience, especially during their first
2 years, were more likely to have high academic performance and persist in
biology, as well as go on to graduate, than those who did not (Jones et al.,
2010). More specifically, for Hispanic and African American students, those
students who participated in a URE were more likely to obtain a biology
degree than those students who did not participate in research. Similarly,
research by Villarejo and colleagues found that participants in the Biology
Undergraduate Scholars Program, an undergraduate research enrichment
program for underrepresented students in biology, were more likely than
other students to persist to graduation with a biology major (Barlow and
Villarejo, 2004; Villarejo and Barlow, 2007). Their analyses suggested that
research participation contributed to persistence.
Together, these studies were almost all of highly motivated students
who do not lose their motivation when they participate in UREs. Although
these studies do not describe how to build motivation, they do describe
how to sustain it.
The Meyerhoff Scholars program, a long-standing, comprehensive pro-
gram to provide academic and social support to increase the retention
of underrepresented minority STEM students at University of Maryland-

Baltimore County, has collected nearly 20 years of outcomes data on par-

ticipants.7 As part of the program, all students are required to participate
in on-campus, academic-year research. However, the structure and intensity
of that research can vary. For example, some students only participate in
a yearly undergraduate research symposium, some students complete re-
search courses for academic credit, and others participate in the Minority
Access to Research Careers (MARC)8 Undergraduate Student Training in
Academic Research (U-STAR) program. The MARC U-STAR program is
designed for students who intend to pursue a Ph.D. in biomedical research.
Carter and colleagues (2009) examined the educational outcomes of 13 co-
horts of students in relation to the structure (annual symposium, course, or
MARC U-STAR program) and the intensity (symposium, two semesters, or
more than two semesters) of the students’ on-campus, academic-year re-
search experiences. They found that those students who participated in the
more structured and/or intense experiences (i.e., participation in MARC
U-STAR, more than three semesters of research courses, or both) were
significantly more likely to enroll in a STEM Ph.D. program after gradu-
ation than students who did not participate in such research experiences.
As noted by Carter and colleagues, participants in this program are from a
highly select group and thus the findings may not be generalizable.
Graduate School and Future Career Choice

As detailed below, URE alumni have reported that the experience
a llowed them to test their fit with the profession; develop a close relation-
ship with a faculty member; and gain insight into the social, cultural, and
intellectual processes of science. Socialization into the professional STEM
community might also help to shape students’ future interests and goals
(Corwin et al., 2015a; Litzinger et al., 2011). A few researchers have ex-
plored the processes by which UREs may shape students’ career or educa-
tional decisions; some of these studies are described below.
Mastery of research skills might have a predictive effect on students’
efficacy beliefs, which in turn can be predictive of their graduate school
aspirations (Adedokun et al., 2013). Particular student characteristics or
aptitudes, such as curiosity about the unknown, a desire for autonomy
and independence, and openness to the unknown in their career path, may
be predictive of research students’ pursuit of a Ph.D. (McGee and Keller,
2007), although these same traits may be what motivates some students to
seek out UREs. Experiences that take place during UREs, such as develop-
ing a close relationship with a faculty member, have helped students to
7 See http://meyerhoff.umbc.edu/about/results [January 2017].

8 The MARC program, which like RISE is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health,
is discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.

confirm that graduate school was the correct path and have clarified their
field of interest for their graduate program (Laursen et al., 2010). These
types of benefits were also documented from other types of STEM profes-
sional work under the guidance of a mentor, such as internships or co-ops,
yet only research experiences helped students to clarify whether a research
career or pursuing a Ph.D. was the correct path for them, as indicated
through structured interviews (Thiry et al., 2011).
Many studies have relied on the assertions of current URE students
about the influence of the research experience on their future career and
educational plans (Adedokun et al., 2012; Grimberg et al., 2008). Several of
these studies have used comparisons with students without research experi-
ences (“nonresearch students”), but it is often not clear whether students’
career or educational goals differed prior to their research experience. For
instance, Eagan and colleagues (2013) compared demographically matched
groups of research and nonresearch students and found that students who
had participated in apprentice-style UREs had stronger graduate school
aspirations, but these differences may have existed prior to the experience.
Likewise, a study of student researchers and nonresearchers reported that
the former group felt that research increased their awareness of what gradu-
ate school is like and increased their aspirations for a Ph.D. degree, yet only
19 percent of students had a “new” expectation of receiving a Ph.D., which
may reflect the selection bias inherent in students who are chosen for re-
search experiences (Russell et al., 2007). Another study comparing appren-
tice-style student researchers and nonresearchers found that the research
students held high expectations prior to their research experience that
remained unchanged with respect to the value of research for facilitating
their future career path (Craney et al., 2011). Other studies have reported
that apprentice-style URE students felt that the experience prepared them
for graduate school and STEM careers (Hunter et al., 2007; Sabitini, 1997;
Seymour et al., 2004). Some studies found that students o ften e nter UREs
because they are interested in learning more about research or determin-
ing whether graduate school might be the right path for them. The results
obtained show that research experiences played an important role in con-
firming or clarifying prior goals for these students (Gonzalez-Espada and
LaDue, 2006; Hunter et al., 2007; Lopatto, 2004; Pacific and Thompson,
2011; Seymour et al., 2004).
Other studies have tracked URE participants’ postbaccalaureate out-
comes through retrospective accounts from apprentice-style URE alumni.
Zydney and colleagues (2002) compared retrospective accounts of research
and nonresearch alumni at a single institution and found that research stu-
dents were more likely to go to graduate school and more likely to cite a
faculty member as influential in their career choice. Alumni of a biosciences
research program at Emory University were three times more likely to pursue
a Ph.D. than nonresearch students (Junge et al., 2010). Likewise, students

who conducted research in a formal research program had higher rates of

graduate school attendance than students with individually reported research
experiences that were not part of a formal program, suggesting that the pro-
fessional development offered through programs can have an impact beyond
the research experience itself (Bauer and Bennett, 2003). Taking these studies
together, their retrospective approach does not control for initial motiva-
tion and interests. Those who initially selected UREs may have had greater
interest in research careers. Thus, these findings may imply a correlational
relationship that is not causal.
One of the few studies of UREs to use random assignment of students
to research positions documented that URE participants were more likely
to enroll in graduate school compared to nonresearch students who had
applied for a research position and were not randomly selected (Hathaway
et al., 2002). In fact, 82 percent of all research students enrolled in gradu-
ate degree programs, while only 65 percent of nonresearch students did
so, although participation in UREs may have made the research students
more competitive in their graduate school applications. This effect was
even more pronounced for students of color, as underrepresented minority
research students attended graduate school at rates similar to other research
students, yet only 56 percent of nonresearch students of color attended
graduate school.
Summary of Findings for Increased Retention

and Participation of STEM Students
Students who participate in UREs are generally more likely to remain
in STEM fields as undergraduates than are STEM students who do not
participate. However, most of the studies cited in reaching this conclusion
were not able to address differences in initial interest or motivation prior to
the URE exposure (or lack thereof). Some studies have found higher grades
and graduation rates for URE participants as well. Self-report data from
students suggest that UREs can confirm the students’ intention to attend
graduate school in STEM and that these students perceive mentorship as an
important component of the experience. Thus, supporting and maintaining
student interest in a STEM major and subsequent career may be an impor-
tant function of UREs.
PROMOTING STEM DISCIPLINARY

KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES
The outcomes associated with promoting STEM disciplinary practices
include what a student learns, understands, and knows regarding the state
of his own knowledge of that STEM discipline through participation in a

URE. The specific content and concepts a student learns will vary, depend-
ing on the discipline or disciplines of that student’s URE. However, in
addition to learning traditional disciplinary content, a student in a URE is
afforded an opportunity to engage in disciplinary practices common across
STEM fields, such as analyzing and interpreting data, identifying the next
steps in an experiment or research activity, and identifying gaps in knowl-
edge that are worthy of further research.
Although this report considers a wide range of fields included within
STEM, many of the studies reported in the literature examined a narrow
range of fields, and much of the existing literature focuses heavily on bench
science, rather than, for example, mathematics. Moreover, despite the fact
that many of the findings focus on science and do not consider other STEM
fields, the committee decided that these studies nevertheless provide useful
insight for understanding the impact of UREs.
Content and Concepts

Several studies of apprentice-style summer research have documented
that students perceive that they gained content knowledge, were able to
relate their research projects to the larger field of study, and understood the
context of the project (Craney et al., 2011; Kardash, 2000), yet these studies
were conducted at a single site, relied on self-reports, and did not use a con-
trol or comparison group. Kardash (2000) also included research mentors’
ratings of students’ knowledge gains, which were similar to students’ rat-
ings of their own gains. In Kardash’s study, female students rated their own
cognitive gains from research as lower than male students rated their gains.
Because students in CUREs are exposed to standardized course content,
CUREs may lend themselves to more uniform assessment of knowledge
gains. Indeed, a study of one biosciences CURE found that students in the
research-based laboratory section showed statistically significantly greater
pre- and post gains on disciplinary content assessments than did students
in the nonresearch-based lab sections (Russell et al., 2015), although this
difference occurred only in the principles of biology and cell biology sec-
tions and not the ecology sections. Drew and Tiplett (2008) demonstrated
that students made substantial increases in genomics knowledge from the
beginning to the end of the CURE, though this study encompassed a single
course with no comparison group.
One of the few studies to randomly assign students to either a research-
based or traditional lab section and to use multiple methods to measure
outcomes found that students in the research-based lab section believed
that they were better able to explain the concepts in the experiment and
had a better understanding of the research process than students in the
traditional lab section (Szteinberg and Weaver, 2013). Two studies of the

multi-institution Genomics Education Partnership (GEP) CURE found that

CURE students made greater gains in content knowledge than comparison
students from participating schools who completed prerequisites but had
not engaged in the GEP curriculum. The content gains were larger when
the faculty member devoted more class time to the CURE projects (Shaffer
et al., 2010, 2014). Lopatto and colleagues (2008) found that those GEP
students had larger increases in their positive attitude about research, as
measured by the Survey of Undergraduate Learning Experiences, a learning
survey (see Table 4-1). Shaffer and colleagues (2010) reported that GEP
students also had higher scores on quizzes about the content and processes
used in the course, compared to students not participating in the GEP
program.
Research Skills
Students participating in UREs report that they gain experience with
the practices and skills of conducting STEM research, such as data collec-
tion, analysis, and interpretation and understanding of research design. A
comparative study of summer URE students and nonresearch students at
Emory University found that the URE students felt more prepared to select
appropriate data analysis strategies and apply research ethics principles
than students who had not had research experience (Junge et al., 2010).
In another study, URE alumni perceived greater growth in science, math,
logic, and/or problem solving skills than did nonresearch alumni (Bauer
and Bennett, 2003). These findings are consistent with the work of Lopatto
(2004). Kardash (2000) reported that both students and faculty mentors
in apprentice-style research experiences rated students’ gains in collecting
and analyzing data as some of the highest rated skills developed in UREs.
In addition to these perceived gains in research skills, students’ performance
on exams revealed gains in the ability to analyze and interpret data—a goal
of many CUREs.
In a performance-based assessment that was blindly scored, students in
an introductory biology CURE were tested three times on their ability to de-
sign experiments and interpret data. Over the course of the exams, students
showed significant increases in their ability to analyze and interpret data and
describe their results (Brownell et al., 2015).9 The authors argued that data
analysis activities, collaboration, and discussion of research results within
the course all promoted growth in students’ STEM thinking and skills.
9 It should be noted that although the participants are participating in a course required for
all introductory biology students, there was no comparison sample for this study. Therefore,
it is not certain whether the growth in ability to analyze and interpret data was any greater
for the CURE students than it would have been in a traditional introductory biology course.

Knowledge of Experimental Design

Study authors have argued that students gain knowledge of experi-
mental design from their work in apprentice-style UREs. A large study of
research and nonresearch students across multiple institutions found that
the research students (both sponsored and nonsponsored) reported gain-
ing an understanding of experimental design at much higher rates than
did the nonresearch students (Russell et al., 2007). A qualitative study of
apprentice-style research at four liberal arts colleges found that students
and faculty both reported student gains in understanding of experimental
design, enhanced ability to connect their research experience to course-
work, improved understanding of the role of theory in STEM research,
and increased ability to troubleshoot research problems (Hunter et al.,
2007; Seymour et al., 2004). Thiry and colleagues (2011) used interviews
to gather data comparing outcomes from apprentice-style UREs with those
from STEM coursework and other out-of-class STEM professional experi-
ences. They found that undergraduate researchers who chose to enroll in
UREs had developed a more sophisticated understanding of the research
process and the nature of STEM knowledge than nonresearch students.
Research on student outcomes from CUREs has also documented gains
in students’ conceptions of experimental design. A pre and post study of
research-based versus traditional course labs found that the only statisti-
cally significant difference between the groups was greater increases in the
research students’ perception of both their problem solving skills and their
understanding of experimental design (Russell et al., 2015). Using a pre
and post assessment of students performance, Kloser and colleagues (2013)
documented that students made statistically significantly greater gains in
understanding of experimental design and data interpretation. Open-ended
surveys of students’ self-confidence in research design showed similar gains.
Understanding Disciplinary Research Practices

One of the most widely discussed outcomes from UREs in the research
literature is developing scientific thinking skills or habits of mind. Some
studies have argued that UREs help students develop a scientific approach
to problems; a general understanding of the nature of the research pro-
cess; and an understanding of how disciplinary knowledge is constructed,
debated, and evaluated. One study examined the development over time of
students’ abilities to perform tasks typical of STEM researchers, as well as
their conceptions of STEM research (see Box 4-1).
Three in-depth ethnographic studies involving interviews, surveys, par-
ticipant observation, and/or reflective journals have documented that stu-
dents gain maturity in their beliefs about science from UREs, including a

BOX 4-1
Changes in Student Abilities with
Increasing Exposure to UREs
Duration of research experience in apprentice-style UREs has been linked

to students’ perceptions of their intellectual gains from the experience, as well
as to greater maturity in their understanding of the research process (Adedokun
et al., 2014; Bauer and Bennett, 2003; Feldman et al., 2009; Salsman et al.,
2013; Thiry et al., 2012). In a study of students’ intellectual development within
research experiences, Thiry and colleagues (2012) found that students with less
than 1 year of apprentice-style research were often able to carry out routine data
collection and technical procedures, whereas students with multiyear research
experiences were further able to identify the next steps in an experiment and
perceived that they became more proficient at troubleshooting their project. Yet
certain abilities seemed to take extensive time to develop; for instance, only a few
advanced undergraduate researchers were able to generate a research question
or design an experiment, even after multiple years of research experience. Finally,
an assessment of students’ proposal writing abilities and research design skills in
graduate school found that duration of undergraduate research experience was
linked to enhanced graduate school performance in all of the STEM thinking and
research skills assessed. Autonomy in the research experience and collaboration
within a research group were important in research alumni’s outcomes, yet dura-
tion of experience was most strongly correlated with subsequent research skill
development (Gilmore et al., 2015).
more sophisticated understanding of the validity of knowledge claims, the

role of theory in shaping research questions, taking scientific approaches to
problems, and understanding the practice of science as a collaborative and
detail-oriented activity (Cartrette and Melro-Lehrman, 2012; Ryder et al.,
1999; Thompson et al., 2016). However, none of these studies included a
comparison group.
CUREs have been argued to contribute to students’ understanding of
the nature of scientific knowledge. Brownell and colleagues (2015) reported
a change in students’ conceptions of scientific thinking through a blindly
scored pre and post open-ended survey. That is, students had a more expert
like conception of research that was more grounded in the research expe-
rience (focusing on collaboration and data analysis) rather than viewing
research simply as the development of hypotheses and using the scientific
method. A pre and post survey also found that these students also perceived
that their scientific thinking had matured. Russell and Weaver (2011) com-
pared traditional, inquiry-based and research-based labs at five universities
and found that students in the research-based laboratory section demon-

strated the most gains in understanding the nature of scientific knowledge,

including more nuanced understandings of the role of creativity in science
and their conceptions of science as a process. Other studies have also con-
cluded that students learn about the scientific research process and the prac-
tice of science from CUREs (Harrison et al., 2011; Rowland et al., 2012).
Growth of Student Skills and Technical Knowledge

Another goal of UREs is growth in students’ skills and technical knowl-
edge. Through UREs, students are provided with an avenue for practicing
application of knowledge as they address a research problem. Although
UREs and CUREs are often touted as fostering important skills, such as
technical or laboratory skills, critical thinking, teamwork, and commu-
nication skills, few if any studies have measured these outcomes beyond
self-report methods. Other studies have reported that students engaged in
apprentice-style research perceived that they have gained communication
skills (Craney et al., 2011; Junge et al., 2010), with at least one of these
studies reporting that Black and Latino students perceived higher commu-
nication skills gains than their counterparts (Craney et al., 2011).
Several studies have compared student and faculty reports of URE out-
comes and have documented that the faculty and students both perceived
that the students developed communication skills, organizational and time
management skills, technical skills, collaboration skills, and the ability to
read and interpret primary literature from apprentice-style UREs (Hunter
et al., 2007; Kardash, 2000). Additionally, Kardash (2000) found that stu-
dents’ highest rated skills gains were in the oral communication of research
results, such as presenting a poster, and their lowest rated skills gains were
in writing a research paper for publication, suggesting the types of oppor-
tunities that students are likely to encounter during apprentice-style UREs.
Few studies of CUREs have documented gains in skills, though students
showed statistically significant increases in their comfort with reading and
interpreting primary literature in a study of a CURE at a single institution
(Drew and Tiplett, 2008).
Summary for Promoting an Understanding of

STEM Disciplinary Knowledge and Practices
Following UREs, students frequently report gains in understanding
of STEM content, data analysis, the nature of experiments, and a range of
skills. In some cases, these outcomes have been corroborated by various
assessments and scoring rubrics that look at disciplinary knowledge or
abilities in experimental design. However, most of the studies use self-
reporting and few include comparison groups to document causal claims;

hence, they indicate perceived improvements. Assuming the reports reflect

the students’ true beliefs, this may be sufficient to bolster persistence in a
STEM major (see below).
INTEGRATING STUDENTS INTO STEM CULTURE

Integration of students into STEM culture is another goal of partici-
pation in UREs. The following section describes some studies to date on
students’ feelings of autonomy and agency, belief in their own self-efficacy
(i.e., feeling one “can” engage in a particular skill) and ability to act on their
own, motivation, happiness, and commitment to persist in their field. For
example, Healy and Rathbun (2013) reported that students developed more
self-confidence in general as a result of their UREs. Estrada and colleagues
(2011) showed that factors of self-efficacy, identity, and value endorsement
may be important to the retention of historically underrepresented students’
interest and persistence in STEM by creating a type of “inoculation effect”
that prevents loss of interest among students already pursuing a STEM de-
gree. These results can begin to provide insights into the mechanism of why
one finds improvements in a wide range of other outcomes.
Student Confidence
UREs may foster an array of outcomes, such as increasing student con-
fidence and self-efficacy; strengthening students’ sense of belonging in the
discipline; providing professional socialization experiences; and fostering
the traits, attitudes, and temperament of scientists. For instance, a qualita-
tive study of students and faculty in multiple summer research programs
in computer science reported that UREs promoted a sense of belonging in
the discipline, especially for women in a male-dominated field such as com-
puting (Barker, 2009). Another study in computer science documented the
positive influence of the Affinity Research Group model of research men-
toring on students’ identification with the larger professional community
and the transformation of identity from student to researcher, especially
for underrepresented minority students (Villa et al., 2013). The Affinity
Research Group model outlines specific methods to socialize students into
the research group through group orientation, scaffolding of students’ re-
sponsibility within the group’s work, and providing social and intellectual
support within the group.
Several studies involving interviews or surveys have documented stu-
dents’ increased confidence in research abilities, general self-confidence,
and increased independence gained from apprentice-style research experi-
ences (John and Creighton, 2012; Russell et al., 2007). Interviews with
students and faculty at four liberal arts colleges also elicited the influence

of apprentice-style research on students’ beliefs in their ability to contrib-

ute to science, sense of ownership of a project, patience and perseverance
with research work, tolerance for ambiguity, sense of responsibility and
maturity, and development of a scientific identity (Hunter et al., 2007;
Seymour et al., 2004). A study of research interns and their mentors in
two sponsored-research programs found that personal and professional
dispositions fostered from research experiences were mentioned more
often than other outcomes such as cognitive gains or research skills,
suggesting the importance of these outcomes to students (Kardash and
Edwards, 2012).
Chemers and colleagues (2011) conducted a study with 327 under-
graduates and 338 graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to exam-
ine students’ science support experiences (research experience, mentoring,
and community involvement), psychological variables (science self-efficacy,
leadership/teamwork self-efficacy, and identity as a scientist), and commit-
ment to pursue a science career. They found that for the undergraduate
students in this dataset, there was a strong relationship between science
self-efficacy and both research experience and instrumental mentoring,
suggesting that those who were more confident that they could perform
the functions of a scientist (science self-efficacy) had more involvement in
professional science activities (research experience) and with instrumental
mentoring (helping students learn tasks of science career development).
Moreover, students who were more likely to identify themselves as a sci-
entist also stated that they were more likely to go on to work in scientific
research (commitment to a science career). Estrada and colleagues (2011)
found that science identity and endorsing the value of the scientific com-
munity were better predictors of persistence than was students’ sense of
self-efficacy.
A study by Raelin and colleagues (2014) of engineering undergradu-
ates looked at reciprocal relationships between work self-efficacy and co-op
participation and between academic self-efficacy and academic achievement
to see whether these factors played a critical role in retention. Academic
achievement and academic self-efficacy, as well as contextual support in
all time periods, were found to be critical to retention. Work self-efficacy,
developed by students between their second and fourth years, was also an
important factor in retention, though it was strongly tied to the students’
participation in co-op programs. The study also noted that higher retention
was associated positively with the number of co-op experiences completed
by students.
Several studies of CUREs have also documented enhanced positive
attitudes and confidence of students enrolled in research-based courses.
Shapiro and colleagues (2015) compared CURE students with students in
traditional faculty-mentored research experiences on a single campus and

concluded that in both types of experiences, students developed a sense of

independence, interest, and ownership of their project when they perceived
that they had agency and choice within the work. Several studies of CUREs
have documented that students gained confidence in their ability to perform
laboratory tasks (Kloser et al., 2013; Rowland et al., 2012). A study of
CUREs found that students had more positive attitudes toward research,
collaboration, and peer critique; higher self-confidence in research-based
laboratory tasks; and increased interest in pursuing future research experi-
ences, compared to students in a traditional lab section. However, career
interests did not change for either the CURE students or the comparison
group (Brownell et al., 2012). A comparative study of CURE versus tradi-
tional lab sections found that students in the experimental section reported
positive attitudinal changes toward understanding inquiry and the nature
of science; increasing problem-solving ability; designing experiments; un-
derstanding how to conduct research; and the likelihood of choosing a
STEM career in pre and post testing, whereas students in the control sec-
tions experienced declines in attitudes from the beginning to the end of the
semester (Russell et al., 2015).
One of the most widely studied predictors of academic perseverance
is self-efficacy. This line of research emerges from Bandura (1997, p. 3),
who described self-efficacy as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize
and execute courses of action required to produce given attainments.”
Bandura found that a person’s self-appraisal of ability is a strong predictor
of the person’s likelihood to perform those actions in the future. Estrada
and colleague’s (2011) research, using panel data from TheScienceStudy,
found that when research experiences were more strongly correlated with
perceived science self-efficacy, there was a greater intention to persist in
biomedical careers.
Promoting Professional Identity

Another way that UREs promote identity development is by introduc-
ing students to the social and cultural processes underlying STEM practices,
such as collaboration, critique, collegiality, mentorship, and peer review. An
ethnographic study of student researchers and their faculty mentors found
that students generated social ties with peers, postdocs, and faculty that
they drew on for resources, information, and support (Thompson et al.,
2016). Other qualitative studies have shown that apprentice-style research
allowed students to enter into a community of practice where they learned
the habits of mind, values, norms, and practices of researchers by work-
ing with experts who served as role models of STEM practices (Dolan and
Johnson, 2010; Hunter et al., 2007; John and Creighton, 2012; Laursen et
al., 2010; Thiry and Laursen, 2011). Apprentice-style research experiences,

in particular, have been argued to strengthen student-faculty interactions

and provide a mentoring relationship for students that exposes them to
STEM thinking and practices, which boosts their confidence that they can
be scientists (Hunter et al., 2007; Laursen et al., 2010; Seymour et al.,
2004). Students who worked closely with peers and faculty in UREs were
more likely to report that the research experience had increased their inter-
est in graduate school (Craney et al., 2011).
Research with historically underrepresented students describes how
UREs have increased a sense of belonging and inclusion. Strong evidence
exists that historically underrepresented students’ sense of belonging in
academic environments is complex and often impeded (Hurtado and
Carter, 1997). A sense of belonging influences the extent to which a student
integrates into the academic community, which in turn affects intentions to
persist (Hausmann et al., 2007). UREs designed specifically for promoting
access for women and historically underrepresented students to engage in
research have found that students describe an increasing sense of belonging
and inclusion that may have been absent in the larger institution or STEM
academic environments. Students who experience race-positive interac-
tions10 while pursuing a STEM degree report feeling a greater sense of
belonging (Lee and Davis, 2000; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002), and URE
programs aimed toward historically underrepresented populations claim to
counteract the effects of perceived exclusion (Hurtado et al., 1998).
Stereotype threat research has shown that when there are “signals” or
context contingencies that communicate to historically underrepresented
students that they do not belong in the academic or STEM community,
the students’ performances decline while cognitive vigilance increases
(Murphy et al., 2007). Woodcock and colleagues (2012) found that par-
ticipation in URE programs (specifically RISE and MARC) served to
buffer students from the effects of stereotype threat, although they still
experienced it.
Ownership
Project designs that encourage students to take ownership of their part
of their URE’s project have been associated with increased student retention
in STEM (Hanauer and Dolan, 2014). Others have argued that facets of
the research experience promote student development, such as a student’s
intellectual engagement in the project and in the opportunity to work
independently with appropriate guidance (Laursen et al., 2010; Thiry et al.,
10 In this context, Mendoza-Denton and colleagues (2002, p. 914) describe a race-positive
experience as involving “interactions with same-race peers in settings where concern about
the possibility of race-based rejection was absent.”

2011). In addition, engaging in STEM practices for communicating results,

such as preparing and presenting posters or attending conferences, has been
linked to positive intellectual and psychosocial outcomes from apprentice-
style research (Hunter et al., 2007; Laursen et al., 2010).
Within CUREs, Brownell and Kloser (2015) identified five critical com-
ponents that serve to define CUREs and should be present in a research-
based course: using the tools of a scientist, thinking and communicating like
a scientist, collaboration, iteration, and discovery and relevance. Corwin
and colleagues (2015a) developed a model from a review of the literature
that identified project ownership, success in overcoming problems, and
collaborative work with peers as additional critical components of CUREs.
They also asserted that working with peers helps students to make improve-
ments in technical skills—because peers may model or provide feedback
about how to perform tasks—and that a sense of ownership over their work
promotes students’ sense of belonging to the STEM community (Corwin et
al., 2015a; Hanauer et al., 2012).
Value of Teamwork
Working as part of a research group in a scientific community can lead
to social benefits such as belonging and inclusion. This relationship suggests
that research examining the value of teamwork and collaboration can pro-
vide mechanistic support for the benefits of UREs. A comparison of various
approaches to collaboration found that requiring students to consider ideas
of their peers that differ from their own is more effective than allowing
students to consider only ideas that are consistent with their own (Matuk
and Linn, 2015). The authors concluded that their results on collaboration
provide support for a mechanism associated with the Knowledge Integra-
tion Framework, introduced by Linn and Eylon (2011).
The composition of the teams has also been shown to be important.
Female engineering students were randomly assigned to one of three engi-
neering groups of varying sex composition: 75 percent women, 50 percent
women, or 25 percent women. For first-year students, group composition
had a large effect: women in female-majority and sex-parity groups felt
less anxious than women in female-minority groups. However, among
advanced students, sex composition had no effect on anxiety. An impor-
tant result was that group composition did have a statistically significant
effect on verbal participation, regardless of women’s academic seniority:
women participated more in female-majority groups than in the sex-parity
or female-minority groups (Dasgupta et al., 2015).
Carter and colleagues (2016) examined the impact of undergraduate re-

search, broadly defined,11 in engineering and focused on three specific learn-

ing outcomes: communication, teamwork, and leadership. They studied
5,126 students across 31 colleges of engineering. After propensity score
adjustment, the study found no statistically significant effect on teamwork
or leadership skills, but it did find that URE participation was a significant
predictor of perceived communication skills. This study highlights the
importance of taking into account selection bias when assessing the effect
of co-curricular programs12 on student learning. Implications of the study
include expanding undergraduate research opportunities when possible and
incorporating communication and leadership skill development into the
required course curriculum.
Summary for Integrating Students into STEM Culture

Multiple studies indicate that students who participate in UREs feel
more comfortable in STEM, have positive attitudes about STEM, and show
increased confidence in being able to contribute to research after participa-
tion. Some work indicates that this feeling of confidence leads to greater
engagement in STEM. The exposure to the culture, practices, and processes
of STEM seems to increase students’ feelings of belonging and sustain a
professional identity, and such exposure may buffer students from the ef-
fects of stereotype threat. These increases in confidence, engagement, and
identification with STEM, as well as endorsement of community values,
may help provide some mechanistic explanation for why participation in
UREs also improves outcomes such as retention and skills development.
PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN AND FIRST GENERATION

COLLEGE STUDENTS IN URES
As discussed previously, there remain many unanswered questions
about who participates in UREs and whether these experiences have a dif-
ferential effect on specific subpopulations. While the committee was not
able to find comprehensive data on the mix of men and women who did
11 Carter and colleagues (2016) did not distinguish between the different types of under-
graduate research in which a student could participate (e.g., research as part of the curriculum
or a program of research such as in a faculty members lab).
12 Co-curricular activities were measured as the months spent in: engineering internships,
engineering cooperative education experiences, study abroad or international school-related

tours, humanitarian engineering projects, student design projects/competitions beyond class
requirements, involvement in an engineering club or student chapter of a professional society,
engineering-related clubs or programs for women and/or minority students, and other clubs or
activities (e.g., civic or church organizations, campus publications, student government, Greek
life, sports) (Carter et al., 2016, p. 371).

undergraduate research, they did locate some studies on the topic. When
taken as a group, the results of these studies appear inconsistent, with
some reporting differential impacts by gender (Campbell and Skoog, 2004;
Gregerman, 2008; Junge et al., 2010) but many others showing similar
outcomes for both genders (Craney et al., 2011; McGee and Keller, 2007;
Russell et al., 2007; Thiry et al., 2012).
The committee found a limited amount of data on first generation
college students’ participation in UREs, largely consisting of descriptive,
qualitative studies that document the perceptions of the students who have
engaged in UREs (Carpi and Lents, 2013; Ishiyama, 2007; Kwong Caputo,
2013; Stephens et al., 2014; Van Soom and Donche, 2014). Results from
these studies suggest that programs of undergraduate research may be
beneficial for women and first generation students, although it is not clear
whether the benefits of participation are any different than for the majority
of students. Nonetheless, if these students are at greater risk of leaving a
STEM major, which appears to be the case in some fields, retention at the
same rate as the average for all students would be a plus.
NEGATIVE OUTCOMES FROM URES

Although almost all of the research on UREs documents positive out-
comes for research participants, several studies have noted less than desir-
able outcomes associated with poorly designed or poorly implemented
research experiences, typically affecting only a small group of students
(Craney et al., 2011; Harsh et al., 2011; Thiry et al., 2011). A poorly
designed and/or implemented URE could involve students who have not
received the proper training to do the work. It could also involve students
lacking access to important resources due to an unexpected loss of research
funds. Students could also be involved in projects that do not have the
appropriate comparison samples built into the design. This could limit
the types of claims that could be made about the research and reduce the
quality of the work. Some studies have equated a lack of adequate men-
toring with poor outcomes, such as loss of interest in graduate school or
in the major (Barker, 2009; Thiry et al., 2011). Negative student-faculty
interactions within research experiences can be particularly detrimental
for students who are underrepresented in their fields, such as women in
computing (Barker, 2009). These findings support the value of professional
development for URE mentors. Other aspects of poorly designed research
experiences, such as a lack of autonomy, inadequately selected projects (i.e.,
students take on an overly ambitious project given the time designated for
the URE), or a general lack of structure have contributed to students’ loss
of confidence or loss of interest in STEM careers (Harsh et al., 2011; Thiry
et al., 2011).

ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND NEED

FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
The evidence suggests that programs with research experience compo-
nents are more likely to contribute to developing and sustaining student
interest in STEM fields. The majority of studies cited here, however, have
focused on persistence in biology or biomedical fields. More research con-
cerning the impact of research experience in engineering, mathematics,
other sciences, and technology fields is needed. At the same time, future
research could examine how the duration of the URE, the timing of the
experience in the academic career, and the quality of the research experience
influences STEM interest and persistence.
It is clear that there is a need for additional evidence on the impacts of
UREs. Perhaps most important is the need for more well-designed studies
that can provide more than descriptive evidence about the effect of UREs.
For example, there is a need for research that accounts for differences in
URE and non-URE populations upon entering research experiences beyond
simple demographic or GPA differences (e.g., differences in interest, mo-
tivation, aspirations, and confidence prior to the research experience). In
turn, this points to the need for better instruments and a well-articulated
experimental design, to measure these differences both before and after the
URE. Although it may be difficult in most instances to design randomized
controlled trial of UREs for students, it is certainly possible to improve the
selection of the populations that are under study.
Educational and career outcomes have been among the most studied
aspects of UREs or CUREs. However, many studies rely on students’ self-
report of aspirations or alumni retrospective accounts of the influence of
research on their career or educational decisions, rather than longitudinally
tracking students’ educational or career outcomes. Such long-term studies
can be logistically and financially challenging, but they would greatly en-
hance the claims that research experiences inspire students to enroll in grad-
uate degree programs or strengthen their commitment to STEM careers.
There is also a need for more research on nontraditional populations
(pre-service teachers or current teachers in research experiences, community
college students in both workforce and transfer programs, students of non-
traditional ages, veterans, students with disabilities, etc.), who typically do
not have access to UREs. CUREs can provide one potential approach for
understanding the potential benefits for these populations as students sim-
ply need to sign up for a course. This could effectively enable more students
to engage in research opportunities beyond traditional apprentice-style
programs (Bangera and Brownell, 2014). As more opportunities develop,
it will become important to understand whether all populations benefit (or
do not benefit) in the same ways as the populations on whom research has

already been done. Additionally, there is a need for research on non-STEM

majors in UREs to document whether outcomes for nonmajors differ from
those of STEM majors.
Perhaps surprisingly, one of the least-documented effects of UREs is
improvement in STEM thinking abilities for students. This includes im-
provements in disciplinary expertise, research design, and understanding of
the research process. Most of the existing research has relied on self-report
to document these important outcomes. Studies that include supplemental
measures to self-report do not often include enough detail or description of
what these instruments measure and how the instruments may have been
piloted or validated. For example, whereas some studies of CUREs show
improvement for students in course examinations, there is typically no dis-
cussion of what these examinations measure. Improvement in course grades
is encouraging, but to be convincing such studies must provide information
on what the course assessments are designed to measure and how and why
a URE has changed student responses on these items.
SUMMARY
UREs are diverse in their structure and goals, so it is not surprising
that the questions and methodologies used to investigate the effectiveness
of UREs in achieving those goals are similarly diverse. Much of the pub-
lished literature focuses on outcomes of participation, retention, and per-
sistence. Additional research has examined the potential benefit of UREs on
developing an understanding of STEM disciplinary practices (e.g., content
knowledge, concepts, and corresponding research skills) and integrating
students into the STEM culture (e.g., project ownership, sense of belong-
ing, teamwork). The committee’s review of the literature shows that most
of the s tudies of UREs to date either are descriptive case studies or use cor-
relational designs. Only a few studies have generated the causal evidence
necessary to draw conclusions about the precise effects of UREs. However,
the information currently available suggests that UREs may be beneficial
for students due to their potential to improve participation and retention
of students in STEM majors, as well as improving students’ knowledge
of career options, experimental design, and related disciplinary thinking
(Graham et al., 2013; Rodenbusch et al., 2016). Multiple studies also indi-
cate that students who participate in UREs feel more comfortable in STEM,
have more positive attitudes, and show increased confidence in being able
to contribute to research upon URE completion. A few s tudies have docu-
mented reliable improvements relating to degree completion and persis-
tence of interest in STEM careers for historically underrepresented students
(Byars-Winston et al., 2015; Chemers et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2010; Nagda
et al., 1998; Rodenbusch et al., 2016; Schultz et al., 2011). Additional

research is needed to better understand the mechanisms that e xplain why

participation in UREs could lead to improved student outcomes.
REFERENCES
Adedokun, O.A., Zhang, D., Carleton Parker, L., Bessenbacher, A., Childress, A., and Burgess,
W.D. (2012). Understanding how undergraduate research experiences influence student
aspirations for research careers and graduate education. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 42(1), 82-90.
Adedokun, O.A., Bessenbacher, A.B., Parker, L.C., Kirkham, L.L., and Burgess, W.D. (2013).
Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research
careers: Mediating effects of research on self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 50(8), 940-951.
Adedokun, O.A., Parker, L.C., Childress, A., Burgess, W., Adams, R., Agnew, C.R., Leary,
J., Knapp, D., Shields, C., Lelievre, S., and Teegarden, D. (2014). Effect of time on per-
ceived gains from an undergraduate research program. CBE–Life Sciences Education,
13, 139-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
Bangera, G., and Brownell, S.E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences
can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14, 602-606.
Barlow, A.E., and Villarejo, M. (2004). Making a difference for minorities: Evaluation of
an educational enrichment program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9),
861-881.
Bauer, K.W., and Bennett, J.S. (2003). Alumni perceptions used to assess undergraduate
research experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(2), 210-230.
Barker, L. (2009). Student and faculty of undergraduate research experiences in computing.
ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 9(1), 1-28.
Brownell, S.E., Kloser, M.J., Fukami, T., and Shavelson, R. (2012). Undergraduate biology
lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic
research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching,
41(4), 36-45.
Brownell, S.E., Wenderoth, M.P., Theobald, R., Okoroafor, N., Koval, M., Freeman, S.,
Walcher-Chevillet, C.L., and Crowe, A.J. (2014). How students think about experiemen-
tal design: Novel conceptions revealed by in-class activities. BioScience, 64(2), 125-137.
Brownell, S.E., Hekmat-Scafe, D.S., Singla, V., Chandler Seawell, P., Conklin Imam, J.F., Eddy,
S.L., Sterns, T., and Cyert, M.S. (2015). A high enrollment course-based undergraduate
interpret data. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 41, 1-14.
Byars-Winston, A.M., Branchaw, J., Pfund, C., Leverett, P., and Newton, J. (2015). Culturally
diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research
mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2533-2554.
Campbell, A., and Skoog, G. (2004). Preparing undergraduate women for science careers.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(5), 24-26.
Carpi, A., and Lents, N.H. (2013). Research by undergraduates helps underfinanced colleges
as well as students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 60(9), B30-B31.

Carter, F.D., Mandell, M., and Maton, K.I. (2009). The influence of on-campus, academic year
undergraduate research on STEM Ph.D. outcomes: Evidence from the Meyerhoff Scholar-
ship Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 441-462.
Carter, D.F., Ro, H.K., Alcott, B., and Lattuca, L. (2016). Curricular connections: The role of
undergraduate research experiences in promoting engineering students’ communication,
teamwork, and leadership skills. Research in Higher Education, 57(3), 363-393.
Cartrette, D.P., and Melro-Lehrman, B.M. (2012). Describing changes in undergraduate
students’ preconceptions of research activities. Research in Science Education, 42,
1073-1100.
Chang, M.J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., and Newman, C.B. (2014). What matters in college
for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Jour-
nal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555-580.
Chemers, M.M., Zurbriggen, E.L., Syed, M., Goza, B.K., and Bearman, S. (2011). The role
of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority
students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469-491.
Corwin, L.A., Graham, M.J., and Dolan, E.L. (2015a). Modeling course-based undergraduate
research experiences: An agenda for future research and evaluation. CBE–Life Sciences
Education, 14, es1. Available: http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/1/es1.full.pdf+html
[January 2017].
Corwin, L.A., Runyon, C., Robinson, A., and Dolan, E.L. (2015b). The Laboratory Course
Assessment Survey: A tool to measure three dimensions of research-course design. CBE–
Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar37. Available http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/4/
ar37.abstract [November 2016].
Craney, C., McKay, T., Mazzeo, A., Morris, J., Prigodich, C., and de Groot, R. (2011). Cross-
discipline perceptions of the undergraduate research experience. The Journal of Higher
Education, 82(1), 92-113.
Dasgupta, A.P., Anderson, T.R., and Pelaez, N. (2014). Development and validation of a rubric
for diagnosing students’ experimental design knowledge and difficulties. CBE–Life Sci-
ences Education, 13(2), 265-284.
Dasgupta, N., Scircle, M.M., and Hunsinger, M. (2015). Female peers in small work groups
enhance women’s motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(16), 4988-4993.
Deek, F., Briller, V., Friedman, R., and Joshi, K. (2003). Active research experience for un-
dergraduates increases students’ motivation and academic performance. Pp. 8.161.1-
8.161.18. Paper presented at 2003 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Nashville,
TN. Available: https://peer.asee.org/12353 [November 2016].
search Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students. Board on Science Education,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Life Sciences, Divi-
sion of Earth and Life Studies. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engi-
neering, and Medicine. Available: http://nas.edu/STEM_Undergraduate_Research_CURE.
[February 2016].
Dolan, E., and Johnson, D. (2010). The undergraduate-postgraduate-faculty triad: Unique
functions and tensions associated with undergraduate research at research universities.
Drew, J.C., and Tiplett, E.W. (2008). Whole genome sequencing in the undergraduate class-
room: Outcomes and lessons from a pilot course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology
Education, 9, 3-11.

Eagan, M.K., Hurtado, S., Chang, M.J., Garcia, G.A., Herrara, F.A., and Garibay, J.C. (2013).
Making a difference in science education: The impact of undergraduate research pro-
grams. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 683-713.
Fechheimer, M., Webber, K., and Kleiber, P. (2011). How well do undergraduate research
programs promote engagement and success of students? CBE–Life Sciences Education,
10, 156-163.
Feldman, A., Divoll, K., and Rogan-Klyve, A. (2009). Research education of new scientists:
Implications for science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
46(4), 442-459.
Gilmore, J., Vieyra, M., Timmerman, B., Feldon, D., and Maher, M. (2015). The relationship
between undergraduate research participation and subsequent research performance of
early career STEM graduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(6), 834-863.
Graham, C.R., Woodfield, W., and Harrison, J.B. (2013). A framework for institutional
adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and
Higher Education, 18, 4-14.
Gregerman, S. (2008). Promising Practices in STEM Education. Paper commissioned for
the Workshop on Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education.
National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.
org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072631.pdf [November 2016].
Grimberg, S.J., Langen, T.A., Compeau, L.D., and Powers, S.E. (2008). A theme-based seminar
on environmental sustainability improves participant satisfaction in an undergraduate
summer research program. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 95-102.
Gonzalez-Espada, W.J., and LaDue, D.S. (2006). Evaluation of the impact of the NWC REU
program compared with other undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Geoscience
Education, 54(5), 541-549.
Hanauer, D.I., and Dolan, E.L. (2014). The Project Ownership Survey: Measuring differences
in scientific inquiry experiences. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 149-158.
Hanauer, D.I., and Hatfull, G. (2015). Measuring networking as an outcome variable in
undergraduate research experiences. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar38. Available
http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/4/ar38.full [November 2016].
Hanauer D.I., Frederick J., Fotinakes B., and Strobel S.A. (2012). Linguistic analysis of project
ownership for undergraduate research experiences. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 11,
378–385.
Harrison, M., Dunbar, D., Ratmansky, L., Boyd, K., and Lopatto, D. (2011). Classroom-
based science research at the introductory level: Changes in career choice and attitude.
Harsh, J.A., Maltese, A.V., and Tai, R.H. (2011). Undergraduate research experiences from a
longitudinal perspective. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(1), 84-91.
Hathaway, R.S., Nagda, B.A., and Gregerman, S.R. (2002). The relationship of undergradu-
ate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical
study. Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 1-18.
Hausmann, L.R., Schofield, J.W., and Woods, R.L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor
of intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803-839.
Healy, N., and Rathbun, L.C. (2013). Developing Globally Aware Scientists and Engineers in
Nanoscale Science and Engineering. Paper presented at the 120th ASEE Annual Confer-
ence & Exposition [June 23-26, 2013) in Atlanta, GA. Available: http://www.asee.org/
public/conferences/20/papers/6264/download [November 2016].

Hunter, A.B., Laursen, S.L., and Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of under-
graduate research in cognitive, personal and professional development. Science Educa-
tion, 91(1), 36-74.
Hurtado, S., and Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the
campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Edu-
cation, 70(4), 324-345.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J.F., Clayton-Pedersen, A.R., and Allen, W.R. (1998). Enhancing cam-
pus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of
Higher Education, 21, 279-302.
Ishiyama, J. (2007). Expectations and perceptions of undergraduate research mentoring:
Comparing first generation, low income white/Caucasian and African American students.
College Student Journal, 41(3), 540-549.
John, J., and Creighton, J. (2012). ‘In practice, it doesn’t always work out like that.’ Under-
graduate experiences in a research community of practices. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 37(6), 1-19.
Jones, M., Amy, T., Barlow, E., and Villarejo, M. (2010). Importance of undergraduate re-
search for minority persistence and achievement in biology. Journal of Higher Education,
81, 82-115.
Junge, B., Quiñones, C., Kakietek, J., Teodorescu, D., and Marsteller, P. (2010). Promot-
ing undergraduate interest, preparedness, and professional pursuit in the sciences: An
outcomes evaluation of the SURE program at Emory University. CBE–Life Sciences
Education, 9(2), 119-132.
Kardash, C.M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of
undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(1), 191-201.
Kardash, C.M., and Edwards, O.V. (2012). Thinking and behaving like scientists: Perceptions
of undergraduate science interns and their faculty mentors. Instructional Science, 40,
875-899.
Kloser, M.J., Brownell, S.E., Shavelson, R.J., and Fukami, T. (2013). Effects of a research-
based ecology lab course: A study of nonvolunteer achievement, self-confidence, and
perception of lab course purpose. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(3), 72-81.
Kwong Caputo, J.J. (2013). Undergraduate Research and Metropolitan Commuter University
Student Involvement: Exploring the Narratives of Five Female Undergraduate Students.
[Dissertation]. Available at http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds/1006/
[November 2016].
Laursen S.L., Hunter A.B., Seymour E., Thiry H., and Melton G. (2010). Undergraduate
Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, R.M., and Davis III, C. (2000). Cultural orientation, past multicultural experience, and
a sense of belonging on campus for Asian American college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 41(1), 110-115.
Linn, M.C., and Eylon, B.S. (2011). Science Learning and Instruction: Taking Advantage of
123-150.
Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First findings.
Cell Biology Education, 3, 270-277.

Lopatto, D., Alvarez, C., Barnard, D., Chandrasekaran, C., Chung, H., Du, C., Eckdahl, T.,
Goodman, A. Hauser, C., Jones, C.J., Kopp, O.R., Kuleck, G.A., McNeil, G., Morris, R.,
Myka, J.L., Nagengast, A., Overvoorde, P.J., Poet, J.L., Reed, K., Regisford, G., Revie,
D., Rosenwald, A., Saville, K., Shaw, M., Skuse, G.R., Smith, C., Spratt, M., Stamm,
J., Thomspon, J.S., Wilson, B.A., Witkowski, C., Youngblom, J., Leung, W., Shaffer,
C.D., Buhler, J., Mardis, E., and Elgin, S.C.R. (2008). Genomics Education Partnership.
Science, 322(5902), 684-685.
Matuk, C., and Linn, M.C. (2015). Examining the real and perceived impacts of a public
idea repository on literacy and science inquiry. CSCL’15: Proceedings of the 11th Inter
national Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Gothenburg,
Sweden. International Society of the Learning Sciences. Available at https://www.isls.org/
cscl2015/papers/MC-0178-FullPaper-Matuk.pdf [November 2016].
McGee, R., and Keller, J.L. (2007). Identifying future scientist: Predicting persistence into
research training. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 6, 316-331.
Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V.J., Davis, A., and Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity
to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 896-918.
Murphy, T.J., Shehab, R.L., Reed-Rhoads, T., Foor, C.E., Harris, B.J., Trytten, D.A., Walden,
S.E., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Hallbek, M.S., and Moor, W.C. (2007). Achieving parity of
the sexes at the undergraduate level: A study of success. Journal of Engineering Educa-
tion, 96(3), 241-252.
Nagda, B.A., Gregerman, S.R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., and Lerner, J.S. (1998). Under-
graduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. The Review of
Higher Education, 21(1), 55-72.
Pacific, L.B., and Thompson, N. (2011). Undergraduate science research: A comparison of
influences and experiences between premed and non-premed students. CBE–Life Sciences
Education, 10, 199-208.
Raelin, J.A., Bailey, M.B., Hamann, J., Pendleton, L.K., Reisberg, R., and Whitman, D.L.
(2014). The gendered effect of cooperative education, contextual support, and self-
efficacy on undergraduate retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4), 599-624.
ing, and mathematics degrees. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar20. Available at
http://www.lifescied.org/content/15/2/ar20 [November 2016].
Rowland, S.L., Lawrie, G.A., Behrendorff, J.B.Y.H., and Gillam, E.M.J. (2012). Is the under
graduate research experience (URE) always best? Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education, 40(1), 46-62.
Russell, C.B., and Weaver, G.C. (2011). A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and
research-based laboratory curricula: Impacts on understanding of the nature of science.
Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 12, 57-67.
Russell, J.E., D’Costa, A.R., Runck, C., Barnes, D.W., Barrera, A.L., Hurst-Kennedy, J.,
Sudduth, E.B., Quinlan, E.L., and Schlueter, M. (2015). Bridging the undergraduate
curriculum using an integrated course-embedded undergraduate research experience
(ICURE). CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14, 1-10
experiences. Science, 316, 548-549.
Ryder, J., Leach, J., and Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201-219.
Sabitini, D.A. (1997). Teaching and research synergism: The undergraduate research experi-
ence. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 123(3),
98-102.

Salsman, N., Dulaney, C., Chinta, R., Zascavage, V., and Joshi, H. (2013). Student effort in
and perceived benefits from undergraduate research. College Student Journal, 47(1),
202-211.
Schultz, P.W., Hernandez, P.R., Woodcock, A., Estrada, M., Chance, R.C., Aguilar, M., and
Serpe, R.T. (2011). Patching the pipeline: Reducing educational disparities in the sci-
ences through minority training programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
33(1), 95-114.
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.
Shaffer, C.D., Alvarez, C., Bailey, C., Barnard, D., Bhalla, S., Chandrasekaran, C.,
Chandrasekaran, V., Chung, H.M., Dorer, D.R., Du, C., Eckdahl, T.T., Poet, J.L.,

Frohlich, D., Goodman, A.L., Gosser, Y., Hauser, C., Hoopes, L.L., Johnson, D., Jones,
C.J., Kaehler, M., Kokan, N., Kopp, O.R., Kuleck, G.A., McNeil, G., Moss, R., Myka,
J.L., Nagengast, A., Morris, R., Overvoorde, P.J., Shoop, E., Parrish, S., Reed, K.,
Regisford, E.G., Revie, D., Rosenwald, A.G., Saville, K., Schroeder, S., Shaw, W., Skuse,
G., Smith, C., Smith, M., Spana, E.P., Spratt, M., Stamm, J., Thompson, J.S., Wawersik,
M., Wilson, B.A., Youngblom, J., Leung, W., Buhler, J., Mardis, E.R., Lopatto, D., and
Elgin, S.C. (2010). The Genomics Education Partnership: Successful integration of re-
search into laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutions. CBE–Life
Sciences Education, 9, 55-69.
Shaffer, C.D., Alvarez, C.J., Bednarski, A.E., Dunbar, D., Goodman, A.L., Reinke, C.,
Rosenwald, A.G., Wolyniak, M.J., Bailey, C., Barnard, D., Bazinet, C., Beach, D.L.,
Bedard, J.E.J., Bhalla, S., Braverman, J., Burg, M., Chandrasekaran, V., Chung, H.-M.,
Clase, K., DeJong, R.J., DiAngelo, J.R., Du, C., Eckdahl, T.R., Eisler, H., Emerson,
J.A., Frary, A., Frohlich, D., Gosser, Y., Govind, S., haberman, A., Hark, A.T., Hauser,
C., Hoogewerf, A., Hooper, L.L.M., Howell, C.E., Johnson, D., Jones, C.J., Kadlec,
L., Kaehler, M., Silver Key, S.C., Kleinschmit, A., Kokan, N.P., Kopp, O., Kuleck, G.,
Leatherman, J., Lopilato, J., MacKinnon, C., Martinez-Cruzado, J.C., McNeil, G., Mel,
S., Mistry, J., Nagengast, A., Overvoorde, P., paetkau, D.W., Parrish, S., Peterson, C.N.,
Preuss, M., Reed, L.K., Revie, D., Robic, S., Roecklein-Canfield, J., Rubin, M.R., Saville,
K., Scjrpeder. S., Sharif, K., Shaw, M., Skuse, G., Smith, C.D., Smith, M.A., Smith, S.T.,
Spana, E., Spratt, M., Sreenivasan, A., Stamm, J., Szauter, P., Thompson, J.S., Wawersik,
M., Youngblom, J., Zhou, L., Mardis, E.R., Buhler, J., Leung, W., Lopatto, D., and Elgin,
S.C.R. (2014). A course-based research experience: How benefits change with increased
investment of instructional time. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13, 111-130.
Shapiro, C., Moberg-Parker, J., Toma, S., Ayon, C., Zimmerman, H., Roth-Johnson, E.A.,
Hancock, S.P., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., and Sanders, E.R. (2015). Comparing the impact of
a course-based and apprentice-based research experiences in a life sciences laboratory
curriculum. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 16(2), 189-197.
Sirum, K., and Humburg, J. (2011). The Experimental Design Ability Test (EDAT). Bioscene:
Journal of College Biology Teaching, 37(1), 8-16.
Stephens, N.M., Hamedani, M.G., and Destin, M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement
gap a difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic
performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943-953.
Szteinberg, G.A., and Weaver, G.C. (2013). Participants’ reflections two and three years after
an introductory chemistry course-embedded research experience. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 14, 23-35.
Thiry, H., and Laursen, S.L. (2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing
undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 20(6), 771-784.

Thiry, H., Laursen, S.L., and Hunter, A.B. (2011). What experiences help students become
scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and profes-
sional gains for STEM undergraduates. Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 358-389.
Thiry, H., Weston, T.J., Laursen, S.L., and Hunter, A.B. (2012). The benefits of multi-year
research experiences: Differences in novice and experienced students’ reported gains from
undergraduate research. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 11, 1-13.
Thompson, J.J., Conaway, E., and Dolan, E.L. (2016). Undergraduate students’ development
of social, cultural, and human capital in a networked research experience. Cultural
Studies of Science Education, 11(4), 959-990.
Van Soom, C., and Donche, V. (2014). Profiling first-year students in STEM programs based
on autonomous motivation and academic self-concept and relationship with academic
achievement. PloS One, 9(11), e112489. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0112489 [November 2016].
Villa, E.Q., Kephart, K., Gates, A.Q., Thiry, H., and Hug, S. (2013). Affinity research groups
in practice: Apprenticing students in research. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3),
444-466.
Villarejo, M., and Barlow, A.E. (2007). Evolution and evaluation of a biology enrichment
program for minorities. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering,
13(2), 119-144.
Weston, T.J., and Laursen, S.L. (2015). The Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment
(URSSA): Validation for use in program evaluation. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14,
ar33. Available at http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/3/ar33.long [November 2016].
Woodcock, A., Graziano, W.G., Branch, S.E., Ngambeki, I., and Evangelou, D. (2012). Engi
neering students’ beliefs about research: Sex differences, personality, and career plans.
Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 495-511.
Zydney, A.L., Bennett, J.S., Shahid, A., and Bauer, K. (2002). Faculty perspectives regarding
the undergraduate research experience in science and engineering. Journal of Engineering
Education, 91(3), 291-297.


The Role of Mentoring
Students participating in undergraduate research experiences (UREs)

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) might be
faced with a number of engaging and challenging situations during their
research experience. The success of students in UREs depends upon the
support structures in place. Often this means having available and acces-
sible mentors, although not all undergraduates will have access to men-
tors.1 There are more than 50 definitions of mentoring: mentoring can be
defined as a concept, a process, a developmental experience, or a set of
activities (Crisp and Cruz, 2009). Moreover, mentoring interactions can
be informal or formal, short or long, spontaneous or planned. Mentors
can also play a v ariety of roles. These can include relatively simple activi-
ties such as offering a name or well-timed introduction, or mentoring may
involve more complex activities such as providing advice or guidance and
answering complex questions. Furthermore, mentors can help students by
bringing together ideas from different contexts to promote deeper learning.
The roles played by mentors can change across the experience and can be
accomplished by different individuals or a team of individuals. Although
most studies tend to report that mentoring has a positive impact on aca-
demic success, the variability in terms of the defining roles and types of
interactions has made it difficult to fully evaluate the impact of mentoring
on UREs (Crisp and Cruz, 2009).
1 This chapter includes content from a paper commissioned by the committee, titled Study-
ing the Role and Impact of Mentoring on Undergraduate Research Experiences, by Christine
Pfund (2016).
129

This chapter examines the role of mentors in undergraduate research

by defining “mentor,” the mentoring relationship, and who can serve as a
mentor and then examining the research on mentoring. The chapter then
goes into a discussion of the various roles that mentors can play and pres-
ents a summary of some of the associated outcomes of mentoring from the
perspective of the mentor and the mentee. The last section reviews some of
the existing URE mentoring programs, including programs to train mentors
for success with undergraduate mentees.
MENTOR DEFINED
“Mentor” has been defined in many ways dating back to Greek mythol-
ogy (Kram, 1985). In the simplest sense, mentorship, or the act of mentor-
ing, describes an experienced person (mentor) guiding a less experienced
person (mentee/protégé) (Eby et al., 2007). Mentoring has also been used
to describe many different types of relationships in the research training
context. These relationships include academic advising, research or labora-
tory supervision, evaluation, informal support, personal support, and career
coaching. Mentors provide support beyond teaching and learning to include
social and personal elements (Galbraith, 2003; Johnson and Zlotnick, 2005;
Mullen, 2005; Waldeck et al., 1997). After reviewing usage in the literature,
the committee adopted the following functional definition: Mentoring is a
collaborative learning relationship that proceeds through stages over time
and has the primary goal of helping a less experienced person acquire the
essential competencies needed for success in that person’s chosen career.
As stated previously, mentoring interactions can be informal or formal,
short or long, spontaneous or planned. Mentoring relationships can occur
naturally in a spontaneous manner, and the development of the relation-
ship may be gradual and informal in nature (Johnson, 2002). This kind of
mentoring role contrasts with formal mentoring that is more structured,
with the mentee assigned to the mentor (Johnson and Ridley, 2004), as oc-
curs in some wrap-around programs (see Chapter 2 on URE program types)
that have an institutionalized mentoring structure in which specific types of
mentoring (e.g., research, academic, personal) are carried out by trained,
qualified mentors (Twale and Kochan, 2000). However, more informal
mentoring relationships can allow for a closer interpersonal bond to form,
as they are not limited to the length of the program and frequently persist
over a longer period of time (Mullen, 2005).
Ideally, mentees and mentors engage as partners through reciprocal
activities such as planning, acting, reflecting, questioning, and problem
solving (Pfund et al., 2016). Mentoring competency is then defined as hav-
ing the skills and knowledge to effectively support mentee development and
facilitate the attainment of the transferable “competencies” necessary to

THE ROLE OF MENTORING 131
meet individual mentees’ goals. This requires the ability to come to a clear
understanding of each mentee’s unique needs and desires and the flexibility
and humility to adjust one’s approach to support a mentee’s success. Thus,
mentoring success, which can be an ongoing and adaptive experience, oc-
curs when the mentee has gained (1) the personal and professional compe-
tencies necessary to define his/her career goals, (2) the experience needed
for that career, and (3) the ability and opportunity to progress toward that
chosen career goal (Pfund et al., 2016). Alignment of the goals of the men-
tor and mentee is crucial, whether or not the mentee aspires to become a
STEM professional.
WHO IS MENTORING IN URES?

Students in apprentice-style research experiences, particularly at
research-intensive universities, are typically mentored by postdoctoral
scholars or graduate students; these novice mentors may vary in their ability
to provide appropriate guidance and support and in their commitment to
advising an undergraduate (Dolan and Johnson, 2009; Thiry and Laursen,
2011). In the case of course-based UREs, lab instructors or teaching assis-
tants may play the role of mentors. For co-ops and internships, in addition
to the faculty sponsor, industry researchers take on many of the responsi-
bilities of mentorship. Moreover, in more structured programs, peer-to-peer
mentoring programs are common, drawing on peers who are at the same
grade level but may have more experience or junior/senior undergraduates.
In some instances, this form of “mutual mentoring” can happen informally
as students work together to solve problems. There is no training for this
type of mentoring, but it can have benefits for research that is designed to
be carried out in team settings (Ryser et al., 2009). Box 5-1 highlights the
beneficial role that peer-to-peer mentoring can have in increasing retention
in STEM. Moreover, mentoring carried out by graduate students can pro-
vide undergraduates with an “insider’s” perspective into the next step in
pursuing a research career: the graduate training program. For example, a
grad-undergrad mentoring program developed at the University of Pennsyl-
vania2 has shown that grad-undergrad mentoring has helped undergraduate
students broaden and deepen their understanding of educational and career
opportunities in STEM fields.
Finally, in many cases a single individual does not serve all of the
mentoring functions (described in the subsequent section). Mosaic men-
toring—mentoring that is carried out through a network of mentors—is
becoming a more prevalent approach in order to provide a circle of sup-
port for undergraduates (Bartlett, 2012; Darling, 1986; Head et al., 1992;
2 See http://www.gsc.upenn.edu/mentoring [February 2017].

BOX 5-1
Peer-to-Peer Mentoring Programs
The Division of Undergraduate Education at the University of California,

Santa Barbara, has developed a peer-to-peer mentorship program to connect
freshmen students with an upper-level peer mentor.a The goal of this program is
to help create an increased self-awareness, enhanced sense of belonging and
self-esteem, and academic skill development for the mentee. Peer mentors are
experienced undergraduates who have participated in mentor training, which pro-
vides a foundation for how to have intentional conversations with their mentees.
Mentors meet with support staff and academic advising for guidance on various
questions asked by the mentee. Mentees in the program receive advice regarding
study skills, test taking strategies, accessing key campus resources, setting and
achieving goals, and time management.
University of Central Florida has developed a peer-to-peer mentoring pro-
gram to increase the number of students obtaining STEM degrees.b The Girls
Exceling in Math and Science (GEMS) program includes peer-to-peer mentoring
for female freshman. Each upper-division female mentor is assigned 4-5 fresh-
men mentees. In addition to connecting students with opportunities to engage in
research and industrial experiences, GEMS activities include networking events
featuring female faculty and industry professionals, mentee group meetings, and
socials.
aSee the program’s description at http://www.duels.ucsb.edu/academics/academic-success/
mentor [February 2017].

bSee http://stem.ucf.edu/stem-programs-at-ucf [November 2016].
Mullen, 2007). For example, in the Girls Exceling in Math and Science
(GEMS) program described in Box 5-1, students have a peer support group
(the cohort of mentees) that meets on a regular basis in addition to the
mentoring provided by the upper-division peer and faculty mentors. As
the example highlights, this level of support provided by a network of
mentors has resulted in significant benefits. However, this approach is not
always practical within a particular institution or in certain disciplines. In
these cases, mentoring may be fulfilled in a variety of ways by individuals
within the institution from other departments or from individuals outside
the institution.
The quality of mentoring and support within the research experience
is essential in facilitating students’ technical and intellectual proficiency, as
well as in shaping their understanding of the professional work and practice
of science (Feldman et al., 2009, 2012; Thiry and Laursen, 2011). Regard-
less of who is serving in the role(s) of mentor, there are rarely criteria for
selecting or evaluating them, and it is not clear that all professionals will

make good mentors. In some circumstances, there can be conflict and dys-
function; however, this is not frequently investigated (Johnson, 2002). Also,
mentors often do not participate in training to obtain a baseline knowledge
about and skills in mentoring. Traditionally, the only experience required
for being a research mentor is having been mentored, regardless of whether
the experience was negative or positive (Handelsman et al., 2005).
ROLES THAT MENTORS MAY PLAY

Mentors can play many roles. On a practical level, mentors can assign
research tasks and construct research experiences that are appropriate to
the mentees’ skills and understanding of disciplinary content. Mentors can
introduce relevant concepts and skills, as well as provide a way for thinking
about research. The responsibility of a mentor includes monitoring progress
of the student’s research experience (this can be done informally or through
formal assessment), facilitating their participation within the lab or other
research environment, and providing guidance on the student’s future edu-
cational or career pathways. This guidance can include assisting students
with gaining employment. Moreover, mentors can help students develop a
variety of skills through the mentor-mentee relationship. The development
of these skills may be different for students in community college set-
tings, as students often face different obstacles and may enter with lower
levels of academic preparation (Bailey and Alfonso, 2005; Crisp, 2010).
As shown in Figure 5-1, these skills include such things as research skills,
interpersonal skills, diversity-focused/culturally focused skills, psychosocial
skills, and sponsorship skills (Abedin et al., 2012; Pfund et al., 2016; Ragins
and Kram, 2007).
A primary goal of many mentoring programs is to encourage per-
sistence in STEM through the development of a set of attributes such as
STEM identity, research self-efficacy, and acceptance of cultural diversity,
which can be accomplished through the mentor-mentee relationship (Byars-
Winston et al., 2015; Chang et al., 2011; Chemers et al., 2011; Estrada et
al., 2011; Hurtado et al., 2009; McGee and Keller, 2007; Seymour et al.,
2011). Figure 5-1 lists some general roles that mentors can play to help
students develop these skills; however, not all mentors work to develop
these skills. For instance, for students to develop psychosocial skills, men-
tors need to show students the positive aspects of participating in STEM
research and being a part of the group of people who work together to
research a particular topic. Being part of a team environment could provide
social incentives to students to become more engaged, enabling students to
develop an identity as a STEM researcher.
The research on faculty mentoring in general has focused on the devel
opment of skills through the lens of three main domains: career functions,

RESEARCH SKILLS DIVERSITY/CULTURALLY-

•Promoting disciplinary research & FOCUSED SKILLS
technical skills •Advancing equity & inclusion
•Teaching & learning disciplinary knowledge •Being culturally responsive
•Accurately assessing mentees' understanding •Reducing the impact of bias
of disciplinary knowledge & skills •Reducing the impact of stereotype threat
•Valuing & practicing ethical behavior &
responsible conduct of research
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS PSYCHOSOCIAL SKILLS

•Listening actively •Provide motivation
•Aligning mentor-mentee expectations •Promote mentee career & research self-
•Building trusting relationships/honesty efficacy
•Promote STEM identity
•Promote a sense of belonging
SPONSORSHIP SKILLS
•Promote mentees' independence
•Establish & foster mentees’ professional
networks
FIGURE 5-1 Goals for students in UREs and the roles mentors play.
SOURCE: Adapted from commissioned paper (Pfund, 2016).
psychosocial functions, and role-modeling. Career functions refer to the

roles mentors play to prepare an individual for advancement within an
organization or along a career path, making sure that the student has
the appropriate educational background and training for that path. For
example, mentors may help undergraduates develop research presenta-
tions for local student symposia or national conferences and include them
in the preparation of manuscripts for publication, as well as fostering
the professional and networking skills that will help them gain employ-
ment (Dinham and Scott, 2001; Mullen et al., 2000; Young et al., 2004).
Psychosocial functions include the emotional roles a mentor plays to build
an interpersonal relationship with the mentee, to help that mentee grow
professionally and personally. For example, implicit acceptance of the stu-
dent by the mentor into the STEM disciplinary community will build the

self-confidence of the mentee. Research has suggested that mentees judge

this form of mentoring as crucial and assign it greater value than mentor-
ing that focuses on career functions (Young et al., 2004). Role modeling is
demonstrating effective attitudes and behaviors that can help a mentee suc-
ceed in a given context, making sure that the student is aware of the social
norms for the STEM community or other group that the mentee plans to
join (Ragins and Kram, 2007).
For mentors working with undergraduates engaged in research, roles
have been described across all three of these domains. Thiry and Laursen
(2011) described three sets of roles that emerged from their qualitative
studies: professional socialization, intellectual support, and personal/

emotional support. They found that mentors provided professional social-
ization by helping mentees learn disciplinary knowledge and skills, setting
and aligning expectations, and modeling behaviors and norms. They also
reported that mentors provide intellectual support to their mentees on their
research project, helping them learn the methods of research and applying
those methods. Finally, Thiry and Laursen (2011) stated that undergradu-
ates reported valuing the personal/emotional support the mentor provided
while becoming a trusted advisor, consistent with the earlier study by Young
and colleagues (2004).
The need for mentors to play specific roles varies with each individual
relationship and across the phases of the relationship (Kram, 1985). More-
over, as stated previously, it is unlikely that any single mentor can tackle all
of these roles within a given mentoring relationship; it is more likely that
multiple mentors will serve the roles needed to meet the targeted goals for
a given individual at a given point in their life. Yet, little is known about
which specific roles are related to particular outcomes across student popu-
lations, as UREs do not generally carry out an assessment of the mentors
or mentoring relationships (Lunsford et al., 2017). Given the variability
across mentoring roles with URE type, institution, and discipline, the gener-
alizability of results can be limited (Crisp, 2010; Eagan et al., 2013). How-
ever, in recent years, there have been calls from funding agencies to evaluate
and improve mentoring relationships for trainees (i.e., National Institute of
General Medical Sciences [NIGMS], National Science Foundation, Howard
Hughes Medical Institute, and Sloan Foundation). For example, an initia-
tive led by NIGMS seeks “to develop, implement, assess and disseminate
innovative and effective approaches to engaging, training and mentoring
students; enhancing faculty development, and strengthening institutional
research training infrastructure to enhance the participation and persistence
of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in biomedical research
careers.”3
3 See https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/dpc/Pages/default.aspx [February 2017].

IMPACTS OF EFFECTIVE MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS
Faculty-Related Outcomes
The bulk of the research on mentoring has focused on the mentee’s
perception and outcomes, with only a few studies discussing the effects
on the mentor. In general, this research on mentors is predominantly on
faculty mentors and indicates that mentoring has a positive impact on the
mentor’s perception of career success, career satisfaction, and career com-
mitment (see Cox, 1997). Though there is less research about the benefits
of being a mentor, a productive mentee may lead to increased productivity
for research mentors (Campbell and Campbell, 2000; Dolan and Johnson,
2009). An important finding is that faculty members often volunteer as
undergraduate research mentors, and their interest in volunteering includes
achieving satisfaction, attracting good students, developing a professional
network, and extending one’s contributions (National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 1997). Ex-
amples of other benefits to mentors include a sense of personal fulfillment
through knowledge and skill sharing, sharpening of leadership skills, career
preparation, and cognitive growth (Dolan and Johnson, 2009; Eagan et al.,
2013; Laursen et al., 2010). Although the bulk of the research on effects
on mentors applies to faculty members, it is possible that many of these
same outcomes could apply to other mentors, such as research scientists and
engineers, corporate professionals, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students,
lecturers, and lab managers.
Student Outcomes
The frequency and quality of mentee-mentor interactions has been
positively correlated with students’ persistence in STEM degree programs
(Nagda et al., 1998), and mentoring has been found to improve, directly
or indirectly, GPA and persistence in college (Bordes-Edgar et al., 2011;
Campbell and Campbell, 1997). The associations were even stronger for
students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups than for students
in general. For undergraduates, engagement in mentored research experi-
ences in STEM has been positively correlated with self-reported gains in
research skills and productivity as well as with retention in STEM (see Linn
et al., 2015, for a recent review).
Crisp (2010) used structural equation modeling to examine the differ-
ent factors that were predictive of persistence in community college settings.
This analysis found that mentoring was an integral part of the theoretical
framework predicting student persistence, and there was a direct positive
relationship with mentoring experience and the student’s ability to inte-

grate socially and academically at the institution. Although, Crisp found

no significant predictors of student persistence, including mentoring, which
suggests that the current perspectives used regarding mentoring within
four-year institutions may not be relevant for community college students,
additional research is still needed to identify the role and effectiveness of
mentoring in community college settings.
In addition to persistence in STEM, mentoring has also been posi-
tively associated with students’ identity and confidence as a STEM profes-
sional and their sense of belonging (Byars-Winston et al., 2015; Chemers et
al., 2011; Dolan and Johnson, 2009; Eagan et al., 2013; Hernandez et al.,
2016; Lopatto, 2007; Paglis et al., 2006; Thiry and Laursen, 2011). These
outcomes have primarily been documented in historically underrepresented
groups (Hathaway et al., 2002; Junge et al., 2010; Nagda et al., 1998;
Thiry and Laursen, 2011) and may result from exposing students to an
affirming experience in the context and the culture of STEM and its com-
munity of practice (Hunter et al., 2007; Laursen et al., 2010). Chapter 4
has additional discussion of the reported outcomes.
Effective mentoring relationships that focus on the psychosocial com-
ponents have been associated with an increase in the mentee’s perception
and satisfaction with the relationship (Tenenbaum et al., 2001; Waldeck
et al., 1997). That is, students perceived themselves as more competent,
identified as a STEM researcher, and saw value in the work (Walkdeck et
al., 1997). Other studies have concluded that the quality of the mentoring
relationship, as well as the attributes of the mentor, can have a significant
impact on the student’s perception of the URE and ultimately on persistence
in STEM (Johnson, 2002; Johnson and Huwe, 2003; Liang et al., 2002;
Nagda et al., 1998). For example, mentors who intentionally model ethical
behavior, kindness, and competence are perceived as exhibiting outstand-
ing mentor qualities (Johnson, 2002; Mullen et al., 2000; Rice and Brown,
1990). Moreover, negative student-faculty interactions can be detrimental
and result in a loss of interest in persisting in STEM (Barker, 2009; Thiry
and Laursen, 2011).
Byars-Winston and colleagues (2015) used archival data from more
than 400 protégés, collected from 2005 through 2011 from several under
graduate biology research programs at a large, Midwestern research uni-
versity. Path analysis of a subset of the data (which included 77 percent
underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities) showed that perceived mentor
effectiveness indirectly predicted enrollment in science-related doctoral or
medical degree programs through research self-efficacy as the intermediate
factor.
Different mentoring functions, such as socioemotional (e.g., psycho-
logical support) and instrumental (e.g., research task support), have been
positively associated with both students’ identity as a STEM professional,

specifically their sense of belonging in the discipline, and their confidence in

functioning as STEM professionals (research self-efficacy) (Byars-Winston
et al., 2015; Chemers et al., 2011; Dolan and Johnson, 2009; Lopatto,
2007; Paglis et al., 2006; Thiry and Laursen, 2011). These factors have
also been associated with increased interest in and commitment to research
careers (Hunter et al., 2007). UREs have been associated with an increase in
undergraduate student interest, motivation, and preparedness for research
careers, with a positive mentoring relationship often cited as a key factor in
these outcomes (Eagan et al., 2013; Hernandez et al., 2016; Lopatto, 2007;
Seymour et al., 2011).
Student Outcomes for Historically Underrepresented Groups

For students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, mentor-
ship has been positively correlated with enhanced recruitment into graduate
school and research-related career pathways (Hathaway et al., 2002; Junge
et al., 2010; Nagda et al., 1998; Thiry and Laursen, 2011). Interestingly,
the effect of whether or not a student is matched with a mentor of the same
race and gender is not clear (Russell et al., 2007); Hernandez and colleagues
(2016) found no effect. In another study, students ranked having a men-
tor in their field with higher importance than race or gender concordance
(Lee, 1999). However, some research suggests that underrepresented under-
graduate and graduate students experience more positive attitudes toward
research when they are mentored by female faculty or faculty of color
(Frierson et al., 1994; Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly, 1999). Blake-Beard and
colleagues (2011) found that female and racial/ethnic minority mentees in
STEM reported experiencing more psychosocial and instrumental help, as
well as more role model support, when paired with a mentor with whom
they had race or gender concordance. The value of concordant mentoring
relationships simply by gender has also been reported (Johnson-Bailey and
Cervero, 2004). However, the ability to match students with mentors who
share cultural similarities and come from the same field would require a
level of cultural diversity among STEM mentors that does not yet exist.
Recent research indicated that cultural diversity must be considered
in mentoring relationships. For example, Byars-Winston and colleagues
(2015) found that historically underrepresented students were more likely
than their ethnic-majority mentors to agree that cultural diversity matters
should be addressed in research mentoring relationships. This is supported
by research showing that mentors of historically underrepresented mentees
needed to recognize the potential for colorblind attitudes, which could lead
to a better understanding of underlying biases, and seek to better incorpo-
rate nondominant views into the research mentoring relationship (Prunuske
et al., 2013).

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

The studies described provide insight into how mentoring works. How-
ever, they do not fully examine the complex nature of research mentoring
relationships and their impact on undergraduates. Therefore, theoretically
grounded, validated measures are needed to assess the quality and effective-
ness of research mentoring relationships and to identify factors that shape
a successful research mentoring experience (Byars-Winston et al., 2015;
Pfund et al., 2016). Currently, there are few metrics available to assess the
effectiveness of research mentoring relationships at various career stages,
with diverse mentees, across varied types of research mentoring relation-
ships and across career stages. A handful of scales have been developed
that are designed to assess the mentor’s self-reported knowledge and skills
as a mentor (e.g., Fleming et al., 2012; Pfund et al., 2006, 2014); to assess
a mentor’s skills, knowledge, and behaviors from the mentees’ perspective
(e.g., Berk et al., 2005; Byars-Winston et al., 2015; Eagan et al., 2013;
Hunter et al., 2009; Lopatto, 2004; Weston and Laursen, 2015); and to
assess the effectiveness or quality of the mentoring relationship overall (e.g.,
Berk et al., 2005; Hernandez et al., 2016). Although these scales hold some
promise, there is much work to be done to develop and validate metrics
that can be used to identify causal links between the quality of mentoring
and the career outcomes of mentees.
DEVELOPING URE MENTORING PROGRAMS

In the absence of solid evidence for how to be a good mentor, decisions
must be made based on the available information and resources. Many
mentoring programs in support of UREs are developed to promote reten-
tion of STEM students from their freshmen year to their sophomore year,
as well as to increase retention of historically underrepresented students
(Campbell, 2007). Box 5-2 presents an evaluation of the Undergraduate
Research Opportunity Program (UROP), developed by the University of
Michigan (Nagda et al., 1998). This program uses mentoring by both
peers and faculty as a mechanism to ameliorate high attrition rates and has
shown promising results specifically for African American students and for
sophomores.
Practical approaches to improving the quality of mentoring programs
include making prospective mentors aware of the many dimensions of
this role, as described above. In particular, programs have been developed
to coach peers and near-peers in how to be better mentors to beginners
in research. For example, with support from the Howard Hughes Medi-
cal Institute, Handelsman and colleagues (2005) developed and dissemi-
nated a program called Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New

BOX 5-2
Evaluation of University of Michigan’s UROP
The University of Michigan’s Undergraduate Research Opportunity Pro-

gram (UROP) received funding through the U.S. Department of Education, the
National Science Foundation, and the State of Michigan’s Office of Equity to
conduct a longitudinal assessment of the university’s mentoring program. UROP
provides research partnerships between undergraduate students and University
of Michigan researchers. Students in their first and second year experience a
year-long supervised research project and attend mandatory research seminars.
A summer research fellowship program provides 10 weeks for students to par-
ticipate in an independent research experience. The program includes more than
1,300 students and 800 faculty.a
An assessment was performed of the program and its impact on student
retention and engagement, academic performance, and pursuit of higher educa-
tion. Results showed that retention effects were strongest for African American
students and for sophomore students over first year students. A significantly posi-
tive effect on male African American student degree completion was found; that is,
75.3 percent of UROP students completed their degree compared to 56.3 percent
of students not enrolled in the program. In general, African American students
whose academic performance was below average for their race/ethnic group
appeared to benefit most from participation. Although white students showed
some benefit from the program, the benefits were not as strong as for African
Americans. Interestingly, there was no retention difference observed for His-
panic students. Taken all together, participation in the program increased degree
completion rates for male African American and white students, with no impact
on male Hispanic students or female students. Overall, UROP has shown posi-
tive influences on academic achievement, retention, behavior, and postgraduate
educational and professional activities. The benefits for African American students’
on retention and academic achievement may stem from a program designed to
integrate students into research and pursuit of knowledge.
aSee https://lsa.umich.edu/urop/about-us/evaluation-assessment.html [February 2017].
Generation of Scientists. In addition, Packard (2016) published a guide,

Successful STEM Mentoring Initiatives for Underrepresented Students: A
Research-Based Guide for Faculty and Administrators, which provides
readers with practical questions and case studies to guide those who wish
to develop programs through the process. Colleges and universities (e.g.,
see Boston University’s Mentoring Training in the Sciences and Engineering
program4) have also developed and disseminated mentoring training pro-
grams throughout various networks, such as the Center for the Integration
4 Available at http://www.bu.edu/stem/mentoring-training [February 2017].

of Research, Teaching and Learning Network.5 Workshops hosted by col-

leges and universities could be another avenue to support the development
of mentoring skills for their faculty.
SUMMARY
Mentees and mentors engage as partners through reciprocal activities
such as planning, acting, reflecting, questioning, and problem solving. The
success of each relationship can be defined as achieving alignment in goals
toward a desired career outcome for the mentee, whether or not that career
aspiration is to become a STEM professional, and a sense of accomplish-
ment for the mentor in having provided valuable guidance. Mentors can
range from peers to very senior professionals; each has important insights
to bring to the relationship. Consequently, mentees should be encouraged
to seek out multiple mentors. Moreover, mentors can play many roles. The
need for mentors to play specific roles varies with each individual relation-
ship and across the phases of the relationship. Little is known about which
specific roles have the greatest impact, and mentors may need to seek
out opportunities for professional development to ensure a high-quality
mentoring relationship. However, in some cases these opportunities may
be difficult to find or may still need to be developed for dissemination.
Although there is limited causal evidence to show the effects mentoring
has on persistence in STEM, there is significant descriptive data showing
the many positive effects that mentoring can have on academic success and
persistence in STEM, as well as developing a sense of belonging and confi-
dence to function as a STEM researcher.
REFERENCES
Abedin, Z., Biskup, E., Silet, K., Garbutt, J.M., Kroenke, K., Feldman, M.D., McGee Jr, R.,
Fleming, M., and Pincus, H.A. (2012). Deriving competencies for mentors of clinical and
translational scholars. Clinical and Translational Science. 5, 273-280.
Bailey, T.R., and Alfonso, M. (2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on program
effectiveness at community colleges. Lumina Foundation for Education New Agenda
Series 6(1). Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.
Barker, L. (2009). Student and faculty of undergraduate research experiences in computing.
ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 9(1), 1-28.
Bartlett, J. (2012). A Model Role Evaluation of Mosaic Mentoring Programmes. London:
Demos.
Berk, R.A., Berg, J., Mortimer, R., Walton-Moss, B., and Yeo, T.P. (2005). Measuring the
effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Academic Medicine, 80, 66-71.
5 See http://www.cirtl.net [February 2017].

Blake-Beard, S., Bayne, M.L., Crosby, F.J., and Muller, C.B. (2011). Matching by race and
gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. Journal of Social Issues,
67, 622-643.
Bordes-Edgar, V., Arredondo, P., Kurpius, S.R., and Rund, J. (2011). A longitudinal analysis
of Latina/o students’ academic persistence. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10,
358-368.
mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 2533-2554.
Campbell, C. (2007). Best practices for student-faculty mentoring programs. Pp. 325-344 in T.
Allen and L. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives
Approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Campbell, D.E., and Campbell, T.A. (2000). The mentoring relationship: Differing perceptions
of benefits. College Student Journal, 34, 516-523.
Campbell, T.A., and Campbell, D.E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on aca-
demic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38, 727-742.
Chang, M., Eagan, M.K., Lin, M., and Hurtado, S. (2011). Considering the impact of racial
stigmas and science identity: Persistence among biomedical and behavioral science aspi-
rants. Journal of Higher Education, 82, 564-596.
Chemers, M., Zurbriggen, E., Syed, M., Goza, B., and Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy
and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students.
Journal of Social Issues, 67, 469-491.
Cox, M.D. (1997). Long-term patterns in a mentoring program for junior faculty: Recommen-
dations for practice. Pp. 225-268 in D. DeZure (Ed.) To Improve the Academy, Vol. 16.
Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Development
Network in Higher Education.
Crisp, G. (2010). The impact of mentoring on the success of community college students.
Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 39-60.
Crisp, G., and Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature
between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education. 50, 525-545.
Darling, L.W. (1986). The mentoring mosaic: A new theory of mentoring. Pp. 1-7 in W.A.
Gray and M.M. Gray (Eds), Mentoring: Aid to Excellence in Career Development,
Business, and the Professions (Vol. 2). Vancouver, BC: International Association for
Mentoring.
Dinham, S., and Scott, C. (2001). The experience of disseminating the results of doctoral
research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(1), 45-55.
Dolan, E., and Johnson, D. (2009). Toward a holistic view of undergraduate research experi-
ences: An exploratory study of impact on graduate/postdoctoral mentors. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 18(6), 487-500.
Eagan, M.K., Hurtado, S., Chang, M.J., Garcia, G.A., Herrera, F.A., and Garibay, J.C. (2013).
Making a difference in science education the impact of undergraduate research programs.
American Education Research Journal, 50, 683-713.
Eby, L.T., Rhodes, J.E., and Allen, T.D. (2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring. Pp. 1-20
in T.D. Allen and L.T. Eby (Eds.) Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
of Educational Psychology, 103, 206-222.

Feldman, M.D., Huang, L., Guglielmo, B.J., Jordan, R., Kahn, J., Creasman, J.M., Wiener-
Kronish, J.P., Lee, K.A., Tehrani, A., Yaffe, K., and Brown, J.S. (2009). Training the next
generation of research mentors: The University of California, San Francisco, clinical &
translational science institute mentor development program. Clinical and Translational
Science, 2(3), 216-221.
Feldman, M.D., Steinauer, J.E., Khalili, M., Huang, L., Kahn, J.S., Lee, K.A., Creasman, J.,
and Brown, J.S. (2012). A mentor development program for clinical translational sci-
ence faculty leads to sustained, improved confidence in mentoring skills. Clinical and
Translational Science, 5(4), 362-367.
Fleming, M., Burnham, E., and Huskins, W. (2012). Mentoring translational science investiga-
tors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 308, 1981-1982.
Frierson, H.T., Hargrove, B.K., and Lewis, N.R. (1994). Black summer research students’
perceptions related to research mentors’ race and gender. Journal of College Student
Development, 35(6), 475-480.
Galbraith, M. (2003). Celebrating mentoring. Adult Learning, 14(1), 2-3.
Gandara, P., and Maxwell-Jolly, J. (1999). Priming the Pump: A Review of Programs That
Aim to Increase the Achievement of Underrepresented Minority Undergraduates. New
York: College Board.
Handelsman, J., Pfund, C., Lauffer, S., and Pribbenow, C. (2005). Entering Mentoring: A Semi-
nar to Train a New Generation of Scientists. Madison, WI: The Wisconsin Program for
Scientific Teaching. Available: http://www.hhmi.org/sites/default/files/Educational%20
Materials/Lab%20Management/entering_mentoring.pdf [September 2016].
Hathaway, R.S., Nagda, B.A., and Gregerman, S.R. (2002). The relationship of undergraduate
research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical
study. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 614-631.
Head, F.A., Reiman, A.J., and Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1992). The reality of mentoring: Complex-
ity in its process and function. Pp. 5-24 in T.M. Bey and C.T. Holmes (Eds.), Mentoring:
Contemporary Principles and Issues. Reston, VA: Association of Teachers.
Hernandez, P.R., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., and Schultz, P.W. (2016). Protégé perceptions
of high mentorship quality depend on shared values more than on demographic match.
Journal of Experimental Education. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.
1080/00220973.2016.1246405 [November 2016].
graduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science
Education, 91, 36-74.
Hunter, A.B., Weston, T.J., Laursen, S.L., and Thiry, H. (2009). URSSA: Evaluating student
gains from undergraduate research in the sciences. Council on Undergraduate Research
Quarterly, 29, 315-319.
Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N.L., Lin, M.H., Arellano, L., and Espinosa, L.L. (2009). Diversifying
science: Underrepresented student experiences in structured research programs. Research
in Higher Education, 50, 189-214.
Johnson, W. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of
mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 89-96.
Johnson, W.B., and Huwe, J.M. (2003). Getting Mentored in Graduate School. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Johnson, W., and Ridley, C. (2004). The Elements of Mentoring. New York: Oalgrave
MacMillan.
Johnson, W., and Zlotnik, S. (2005). The frequency of advising and mentoring as salient work
roles in academic job advertisements. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(1), 7-21.
Johnson-Bailey, J., and Cervero, R.M. (2004). Mentoring in black and white: The intricacies
of cross-cultural mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 12, 7-21.

Junge, B., Quinones, C., Kakietek, J., Teodorescu, D., and Marsteller, P. (2010). Promot-
ing undergraduate interest, preparedness, and professional pursuit in the sciences: An
outcomes evaluation of the SURE Program at Emory University. CBE–Life Sciences
Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Laursen, S., Seymour, E., Hunter, A.B., Thiry, H., and Melton, G. (2010). Undergraduate
Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, W.Y. (1999). Striving toward effective retention: The effect of race on mentoring African
American students. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 27-43.
Liang, B., Tracy, A.J., Taylor, C.A., and Williams, L.M. (2002). Mentoring college-age women:
A relational approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 271-288.
Linn, M.C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., and Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research
experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347, 1261757. Available: http://science.
sciencemag.org/content/347/6222/1261757 [February 2017].
Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First findings.
Cell Biology Education, 3, 270-277.
Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and
active learning. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 6, 297-306.
Lunsford, L.G., Crisp, G., Dolan, E., and Wutherick, B. (2017). Mentoring in higher educa-
tion. In D.A. Clutterbuck, F.K. Kochan, L.G. Lunsford, N. Dominguez, and J. Haddock-
Millar (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
McGee, R., and Keller, J.L. (2007). Identifying future scientists: Predicting persistence into
research training. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 6, 316-331.
Mullen, C.A. (2005). The Mentorship Primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Mullen, C.A. (2007). Naturally occurring student-faculty mentoring relationships: A literature
review. Pp. 119-138 in T.A. Allen and L.T. Eby (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Mentor-
ing: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Mullen, C.A., Whatley, A., and Kealy, W. (2000). Widening the circle: Faculty-student support
groups as innovative practice in higher education. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of
Education, 31(1), 35-60.
Nagda, B.A., Gregerman, S., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., and Lerner, J. (1998). Undergraduate
student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. The Review of Higher
(1997). Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science
and Engineering. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available: http://www.nap.edu/read/5789/
chapter/1 [January 2017].
Packard, B. (2016). Successful STEM Mentoring Initiatives for Underrepresented Students: A
Research-Based Guide for Faculty and Administrators. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Paglis, L.L., Green, S.G., and Bauer, T.N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A
longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher
Education, 47, 451-476.
and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Life Sciences, Division of Earth and Life

Pfund, C., Pribbenow, C.M., Branchaw, J., Lauffer, S.M., and Handelsman, J. (2006). The
merits of training mentors. Science, 311, 473-474.
Pfund, C., Branchaw, J., and Handelsman, J. (2014). Entering Mentoring. New York: W.H.
Freeman & Co.
Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J.L., Hurtado, S., and Eagan, M.K. (2016). Defining
attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDS and Behavior,
20, 238-248.
Prunuske, A., Wilson, J., Walls, M., Marrin, H., and Clarke, B. (2013). Efforts at broadening
participation in the sciences: An examination of the mentoring experiences of students
from underrepresented groups. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15, ar26. Available: http://
www.lifescied.org/content/15/3/ar26.long [February 2017].
Ragins, B., and Kram, K. (2007). The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research,
and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Rice, M., and Brown, R. (1990). Developmental factors associated with self-perceptions of
mentoring competence and mentoring needs. Journal of College Student Development,
31, 293-299.
experiences. Science, 316(5824), 548-549.
Ryser, L., Halseth, G., and Thien, D. (2009). Strategies and intervening factors influencing
student social interaction and experiential learning in an interdisciplinary research team.
Seymour, E., Hunter, A., Laursen, S., and DeAntoni, T. (2011). Establishing the benefits of
Education and Technology, 20, 771-784.
Tenenbaum, H., Crosby, F., and Gliner, M. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduate school.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 326-341.
Thiry, H., and Laursen, S.L. (2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing
Education and Technology, 20, 771-784.
Twale, D., and Kochan, F. (2000). Assessment of an alternative cohort model for part-time
students in an educational leadership program. Journal of School Leadership, 10(2),
188-208.
Waldeck, J., Orrego, V., Plax, T., and Kearney, P. (1997). Graduate student/faculty mentoring
relationships: Who gets mentored, how it happens, and to what end. Communication
Quarterly, 45, 93-109.
Weston, T.J., and Laursen, S.L. (2015). The Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment
(URSSA): Validation for use in program evaluation. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14,
ar33. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710391/ [February
2017].
Young, J., Alvermann, D., Kaste, J., Henderson, S., and Many, J. (2004). Being a friend and
a mentor at the same time: A pooled case comparison. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(1),
23-36.


Faculty Impact and Needs
An important aspect of the undergraduate research experience (URE)

is the participation of faculty, as they are responsible for most UREs (with
the exception of apprenticeships in industry or other off-campus UREs).
The faculty member will typically set the goals of the experience, design
the overall experimental approach, gather relevant materials to introduce
students to the questions to be addressed, organize the workflow, and serve
as mentor. Although the hands-on training of students may be done by
the faculty member, it may also be carried out under supervision of staff
members, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, other undergraduates
in the URE, or combinations of these. The type of support the faculty
member receives—financial, administrative, and access to facilities—can
vary d ramatically, depending on the type of URE (see Chapter 2 for an
overview of program types), on the type of institution (community college
versus four-year college versus research university), and the traditions and
resources of the particular institution.
This chapter examines the impact of UREs on faculty beyond their
role as mentor (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of mentoring). It situates
UREs within the faculty context by describing the teaching-research nexus
(TRN), which highlights the tension between teaching responsibilities and
research productivity. The chapter then provides a more nuanced discussion
of the impacts of UREs on faculty with respect to tenure and promotion,
productivity, and motivation. Building upon these impacts, the final section
addresses the support systems and needs of faculty to ensure their involve-
ment and success in UREs.
147

TEACHING-RESEARCH NEXUS
One of the primary complicating factors associated with understand-
ing the impact on faculty of participation in UREs is the tension in the
relationship between teaching activities and research activities. Although
there is not consensus on the precise definition of the TRN (Jenkins, 2004;
Wareham and Trowler, 2007), this concept attempts to describe the multiple
links between teaching and research that can benefit student learning and
outcomes.1 The typical conceptualization is to consider the relationship
between teaching and research within an institution and the alignment be-
tween institutional priorities, mission, and expectation of faculty work. But
a broader view of how to enhance teaching and learning could examine the
relationship at multiple levels—institution, faculty, and student—to better
understand how these factors interact and then how UREs might fit into
this framework. The breakdown of the different factors includes:
• How the institution views the relationship between teaching and

research (level of integration into the curriculum): for example,
emphasizing the results from research versus emphasizing research
processes and problems;
• The role of the student in the teaching-research relationship: stu-
dents are treated as the audience versus students are treated as
participants; and
• The role of the faculty member in the teaching-research relation-
ship: teaching is teacher-focused versus teaching is student-focused.
A considerable amount of the extant TRN research literature has

focused on how research enhances teaching (Prince et al., 2007). In prac-
tice, the faculty are impacted by curricular demands (i.e., whether the
focus is purely on content versus emphasizing the research process) and
the role of the student (i.e., whether students are treated as audience or
participants). The campus climate impacts the relationship between teach-
ing and research, which in turn shapes the choices faculty make in plan-
ning and implementing UREs. The TRN literature has primarily focused
on two types of programs: “research-based” and “research-led,” although
Healy (2005) has identified a few other approaches and the URE literature
suggests a continuum rather than a strict dichotomy (Auchincloss et al.,
2014). In a research-based program, the curriculum emphasizes students as
participants, as well as placing emphasis on the research process and prob-
lems. Research-based programs would likely be considered a URE. Alter
natively, in a research-led program, the curriculum is structured around
1 See http://trnexus.edu.au [November 2016].

FACULTY IMPACT AND NEEDS 149
teaching subject content and students are treated as the audience. So there
is more emphasis on content rather than the experience of research. For
example, a research-led program is similar to a “cookbook” course that
relies heavily on examples from the research literature and prespecified
research methods to facilitate learning the content. With a focus on subject
content, the research-led design is most closely associated with a tradi-
tional “information transmission” academic model. This type of teaching
model is often seen as being in direct conflict with research productivity
as it takes time away from engaging in research; however, some view the
research-based model as a way for students to learn while contributing to
the faculty member’s research productivity (Brew, 2013; Kim et al., 2003;
Layzell, 1996; Presley and Engelbride, 1998; Verburgh et al., 2007). An-
other potential issue with a “research-based” class is the role of the faculty
member as a mentor guiding the student’s learning, engagement in the field,
and identity as a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
researcher. This mentoring function may conflict with the goal of having
the student help maximize the faculty member’s research productivity. In a
“research-led” class the faculty member’s research is not involved and this
potential conflict is avoided.
In addition to curricular demands and faculty motivations, the vari-
ability across institutions and departments with respect to the TRN is also
important (Elsen et al., 2009; Marsh and Hattie, 2002). To illustrate how
the TRN might differ depending upon the type of university, consider the
role of the faculty member at a typical community college and the role of
a faculty member at a research-intensive university. The role that these
two faculty members play may be very different with respect to their
institution’s demands on teaching and research productivity, which influ-
ences their views on participating in UREs. At most community colleges,
in addition to lack of resources (i.e., facilities and capital), heavy teach-
ing expectations have been identified as a significant barrier for faculty
interested in providing UREs (Hewlett, 2009; Langley, 2015; Perez, 2003),
and research productivity (as it is traditionally defined) is not a significant
priority. However, as the Community College Undergraduate Research Ini-
tiative highlights, there are many community colleges that are increasingly
incorporating undergraduate research into the standard curriculum.2
A very different scenario may exist for the early career scientist at a
research-intensive university, where actual and perceived conflicts between
teaching responsibilities and research productivity can lead to some unique
tensions associated with the URE (Brownell and Tanner, 2012; Dolan and
Johnson, 2010; Laursen et al., 2012). Where tensions are high, faculty may
look toward engaging in courses that are more “research-based,” as they
2 For additional information on this initiative, see http://www.ccuri.org [November 2016].

may offer a better opportunity for contributions to the faculty member’s

research program, compared to spending time teaching “research led”
courses on potentially unrelated topics. When faculty identify themselves
not as either a teacher or a researcher but as both and institutions adopt
strategies that encourage a balance between teaching and research, oppor-
tunities exist that have the potential to benefit not only the student, but also
the faculty member and the institution (Zubrick et al., 2001).
IMPACTS ON FACULTY
Faculty impacts must be considered within the context of the academic
environment, including the type of institution, the faculty appointment
and rank, the departmental culture, and the STEM discipline. There is
currently a relative paucity of data with respect to the impact of UREs on
faculty beyond the role as mentor. Research to improve understanding of
how UREs affect faculty is needed because of the potential for unintended
impacts to jeopardize the success of efforts to develop and sustain UREs
(see Chapters 7 and 9 for a discussion of recommendations for research).
Where studies have examined faculty perspectives, the impacts under study
are often faculty perceptions of student outcomes and not necessarily direct
effects on the individual faculty mentor (Cox and Andriot, 2009; Hunter
et al., 2006; Kardash, 2000; Zydney et al., 2002) or the effects that faculty
research in general has on teaching, undergraduate education, and institu-
tional metrics (Grunig, 1997; Prince et al., 2007).
The limited research literature on faculty has primarily considered the
effects of UREs on promotion and tenure, productivity, and motivation.
Moreover, from our review of the literature, the committee was unclear
as to how much faculty use the existing literature in designing and imple-
menting UREs. This stems from the committee members’ experiences of a
disconnect between the accessibility of the research literature and how that
translates to practice. Despite the lack of data across the multitude of UREs,
one area that has garnered attention and is gaining some traction is under-
standing the challenges and benefits for faculty associated with teaching
course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) (Brownell and
Kloser, 2015; Dolan, 2016; Shortlidge et al., 2016). Thus, a portion of the
research described throughout the following sections emphasizes CUREs.
Promotion and Tenure

One area of considerable interest is the impact of URE engagement on
the promotion and tenure process. For large research universities, this has
been a topic of considerable discussion since the release of the Boyer Com-
mission Report, which called upon large research universities to take a criti-

cal look at how they educate undergraduate students (Boyer Commission

on Education of Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998). The
report specifically identified “research-based learning” as an approach that
these universities should consider as an education standard. Institutional
efforts to address this report faced the challenge of a promotion and tenure
process that focuses heavily on faculty research productivity. Whereas the
Boyer Commission Report encourages the integration of faculty research
and undergraduate education, subsequent studies suggest that considerable
challenges still exist with respect to providing incentives for faculty, includ-
ing critically needed reforms of the typical tenure and promotion process
(Anderson et al., 2011; Brownell and Tanner, 2012; Elgren and Hensel,
2006; Evans, 2010; Gibbs and Coffey, 2004; Hernandez-Jarvis et al., 2011;
Laursen et al., 2012; Schultheis et al., 2011; Weiss et al., 2004).
Very little work has been done on the effect of undergraduate research
on the tenure and promotion process (Evans, 2010; Hernandez-Jarvis et
al., 2011). One possible reason for this is that a relatively small number
of research institutions have made the move toward making engagement
in undergraduate research a significant component of tenure and promo-
tion decisions (Chapdelaine, 2012; Schultheis et al., 2011). There are some
notable exceptions that exist at primarily undergraduate institutions, as
well as some larger research universities. For example, on October 9, 2015,
the Purdue University Board of Trustees adopted a modification to the
tenure and promotion process to include components that are very specific
to faculty engagement in student mentoring and undergraduate research.3
Although involving undergraduate students in faculty research is often
mentioned in tenure and promotion policies and procedures (Chapdelaine,
2012), very few research institutions consider mentoring undergraduate
researchers as a critical component of the process. Providing a URE for
students either in the summer or during the academic year is often an un-
paid “voluntary” activity. This treatment has led faculty to perceive their
involvement in UREs as undervalued or even unrecognized (Cooley et al.,
2008; Hu et al., 2008; Laursen et al., 2012). And it may be a source of
tensions associated with working with undergraduate researchers (Dolan
and Johnson, 2010; Laursen et al., 2012). Indeed, the lack of focus at the
institutional level on URE engagement as a component of tenure and pro-
motion may suggest that engagement in UREs leads to a negative impact
on the faculty involved in them (Buddie and Collins, 2011; Mervis, 2001).
However, the structure of the URE may influence faculty perceptions on
3 For additional information, see the press announcement at http://www.purdue.edu/
newsroom/releases/2015/Q4/trustees-change-purdue-polytechnic-department-name-to-reflect-
enhancements.html and more specific information about policies at http://www.purdue.edu/
policies/academic-research-affairs/ib2.html [November 2016].

tenure and promotion. For example, in an analysis of CUREs, Shortlidge

and colleagues (2016) found that 68 percent of the faculty respondents
indicated that the CURE had a positive impact on tenure and promotion
decisions at their institution (see below).
Productivity
Another area of focus with respect to faculty impact is the effect that
the URE has on faculty research productivity. However, the impact on fac-
ulty productivity may vary according to the structure of the research experi-
ence itself. When working with undergraduates on research is considered an
educational activity distinct from the faculty member’s research program,
the actual and perceived impact on research productivity may be negative
(Dolan and Johnson, 2010; Engelbride and Presley, 1998; Harvey and
Thompson, 2009; Layzell, 1996; Laursen et al., 2012; Prince et al., 2007).
In light of this potential for conflict, undergraduate research programs
structured to integrate teaching and research may offer unique opportuni-
ties for faculty research programs to benefit from the effort (Brownell and
Kloser 2015; Kloser et al., 2011; Lopatto et al., 2014; Shortlidge et al.,
2016; W ayment and Dickson, 2008). CUREs are an example of this type of
experience. In a study by Shortlidge and colleagues (2016), faculty members
who had developed a CURE were invited to be interviewed to share their ex-
periences. Thirty-one faculty members were interviewed, and several themes
were identified. Results revealed that 61 percent of the faculty respondents
reported that the CURE provided opportunities to publish not only the
results obtained with the students, but also results obtained in educational
research. Another 61 percent reported that the data collected by the students
in the CURE offered direct benefits to the faculty research program. The
benefits may be extended when the CURE is part of a n ational network
because the data feeding into the faculty member’s research program are
collected across multiple sites (Dolan, 2016; Lopatto et al., 2014). Moreover,
42 percent of the faculty respondents reported that student research projects
opened up new directions in the faculty research program that would other-
wise have gone unexplored (Shortlidge et al., 2016).
One of the key features of CUREs that are part of a national network
is that they often provide support in the form of professional development,
online resources, and peer mentors, all of which contribute to supporting
the course and the faculty member. Research has shown that the lack of fac-
ulty time to develop the research project, training materials, etc., is the most
significant barrier when it comes to engaging undergraduates in a research
experience (Benvenuto, 2002; Brownell and Tanner, 2012; Desai et al.,
2008; Dolan, 2016; Dolan and Johnson, 2010; Eagan et al., 2011; Laursen
et al., 2012; Lopatto et al., 2014; Wood, 2003; Zydney et al., 2002).

A potential added benefit relates directly to the connection between

teaching and research—the two primary competitors for faculty time. With
an understanding that these two aspects of a faculty member’s profes-
sional identity are often perceived to be in direct conflict (Kim et al., 2003;
Layzell, 1996; Presley and Engelbride, 1998; Verburgh et al., 2007), the
CURE has the potential to strengthen the TRN and relieve the tensions
associated with these conflicting interests.
Motivation
As with other high-impact practices and educational reform efforts, the
URE can be seen as a novel pedagogical approach that requires a signifi-
cant investment of time to be effective. Studies focused on faculty change
have shown that the time required for investing in change, the incentives
to do so, and a lack of focused training are the three most cited barriers
(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011; Henderson
et al., 2010, 2011). Institutions interested in reforming their STEM educa-
tional practices to add or strengthen UREs must consider the many factors
that motivate faculty. Research has shown that faculty interest in pedagogi-
cal change may not be well aligned with the incentive and reward structure
for spurring change (Anderson et al., 2011; Brownell and Tanner, 2012;
Gibbs and Coffey, 2004; Hativa, 1995; Weiss et al., 2004). Blackburn and
Lawrence (1995) concluded that motivation toward pedagogical change
involves an interaction of faculty interests, their expectations of success,
and the rewards associated with the change. Whereas there are likely to be
a large number of external factors that influence the interactions of these
variables, the faculty member’s prior education experience, preparation and
training, STEM discipline, stage of career, and type of faculty appointment
are all critical elements that influence a faculty member’s decision to adopt
a specific pedagogical reform (Austin, 2011).
In gaining a better understanding of faculty motivations, an important
point is that faculty members often volunteer to be undergraduate research
mentors (Linn et al., 2015). Faculty interest in volunteering includes achiev-
ing satisfaction, attracting good students, developing a professional net-
work, and extending one’s contributions (National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 1997). When
an external reward structure is lacking, faculty may see investing their own
limited resources as a potentially risky venture and therefore will turn their
focus toward strong or “high-reward” students. Bangera and Brownell
(2014) discussed what they call the “rising star hypothesis,” which posits
that faculty members tend to prefer students who are predicted to do well
and become stars. This preference is attributed to the limited incentive for
faculty members to take risks by selecting more shy or modest students.

The creation of institutional awards has also been discussed as incentive

or motivation for faculty members to become mentors (National Academy
of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine,
1997).
Unfortunately, there are relatively few studies that focus specifically
on what motivates faculty members to include undergraduates in their
research programs. Not surprisingly, faculty who work primarily with
undergraduates as part of teaching undergraduate coursework are more
likely to include undergraduates in their research than faculty who work
primarily with graduate students and teach graduate-level courses (Einarson
and Clarkberg, 2004).
Eagan and colleagues (2011) discussed faculty motivations to include
undergraduates in research through the lens of social exchange theory.
Although social exchange theory is most often associated with understand-
ing the underlying psychological components of romantic relationships, the
basic premise can be applied to understanding the mentor-mentee relation-
ship. In social exchange theory, the participants in the relationship weigh
the costs and benefits of the relationship as they exchange something of
value (Emerson, 1981). In the case of the URE, the student receives the
knowledge and skills offered by the mentor, while the faculty member
receives a student contribution to the research program and the satisfac-
tion and social benefits associated with working with student researchers.
Eagan and colleagues (2011) found a higher probability of engaging under
graduates in a research program if faculty stated that they were motivated
by a desire to improve student learning outcomes, had higher levels of inter
actions with undergraduates, were well-funded, and were valued by their
colleagues. In addition, the study revealed that the type of institution was
a statistically significant factor in determining the probability of a faculty
member working with undergraduate researchers. Faculty who worked at
liberal arts colleges, historically black colleges and universities, or at more
selective institutions were much more likely to be engaging undergraduates
in research when compared to their peers at other institution types.
It appears that opportunities for UREs may be smaller at institutions
where research and teaching are perceived to compete for faculty time (a
weak TRN). Future studies may help clarify whether there are multiple
factors affecting this decreased opportunity. If a lack of an incentive and
reward structure is considered a primary barrier to faculty engaging with
undergraduates in their research programs, then it is critical to have a clear
understanding of faculty motivations as they exist within multiple contexts.
For example, historically black colleges and universities are known to have
student-centered missions and may offer students an academic environ-
ment that is more supportive and collaborative than other institution types
(Allen, 1992; Hurtado, 2003; Hurtado et al., 2009; Nelson Laird et al.,

2007). The unique character of this type of institution may help explain
why faculty are more likely to include undergraduates in their research pro-
gram when compared to their peers at institutions serving primarily white
and Hispanic student populations.
FACULTY NEEDS
Most studies of faculty needs have taken a deficit-model approach
through an analysis of barriers and disincentives that exist with respect to
faculty involvement in undergraduate research. In summary, the four areas
of focus have been faculty time, faculty incentives, funding, and faculty
training and development.
By far, the biggest barrier, and therefore the greatest need for faculty
in mentoring undergraduate researchers is time (Benvenuto, 2002; Brown,
2001; Brownell and Tanner, 2012; Chapman, 2003; Coker and Davies,
2006; Cooley et al., 2008; Desai et al., 2008; Dolan and Johnson, 2010;
Eagan et al., 2011; Einarson and Clarkberg, 2004; Hewlett, 2009; Hu et
al., 2008; Jones and Davis, 2014; Karukstis, 2004; Langley, 2015; Laursen
et al., 2012; Mateja and Otto, 2007; McKinney et al., 1998; Merkel, 2001;
Perez, 2003; Spell et al., 2014; Wood, 2003; Zydney et al., 2002). Research
has shown that uncommitted faculty time has become increasingly scarce,
and finding time to focus on anything other than their core responsibilities
has become increasingly more difficult (Eagan et al., 2011). Issues with
faculty time allocation have come about as the result of an ever-expanding
workload, which studies suggest has been increasing across all institutions
(Milem et al., 2000; Schuster and Finkelstein, 2006; Townsend and Rosser,
2007).
Successful undergraduate research programs have incorporated models
and solutions that address this critical need. Although often the solution is
to incorporate release time or reassigned time, that solution has been found
to be unsustainable at many institutions, including community colleges
(Hewlett, 2009). Whereas there are some well-known time allocation strate-
gies for faculty who are engaged in mentoring undergraduate researchers
(Coker and Davies, 2006; Karukstis, 2004), what faculty often need are
strategies that include the “blending” of their professional roles to allow
for multitasking. Institutions can support faculty by supporting academic
structures where teaching and research are integrated and where faculty
involvement with undergraduates is seen as a service to the institutional
mission (Downs and Young, 2012).
One strategy that institutions adopt to address issues of faculty time is
to embed the research experience in the curriculum through the use of inde-
pendent studies, credit-bearing summer research programs, academic year
seminars, and CUREs (Free et al., 2015). Successful models for integrating

the research experience into the curriculum exist (Gates et al., 1999; Hakim,
2000; Kierniesky, 2005; Kortz and van der Hoeven Kraft, 2016; Lopatto et
al., 2014; Merkel, 2001; Pukkila et al., 2007; Reinen et al., 2007; Rueckert,
2007; Russell et al., 2009; Temple et al., 2010; Weaver et al., 2006). In the
case of the community college, where faculty are burdened with very high
teaching loads, the embedded model most likely offers the most effective
solution to issues with faculty time (Hewlett, 2009; Langley, 2015; Perez,
2003). As previously mentioned, the time saving benefits may be extended
when the research experience is part of a national network of CUREs, which
generally feature shared curriculum, reducing preparation time.
Embedding student research may involve significant pedagogical change
to an existing course or development of a novel course. Successful models
for integrating the experience often require faculty training and develop-
ment, which may come at an additional cost with respect to faculty time
allocation (Brownell and Tanner, 2012). CURE networks have the potential
to provide much needed support in the form of training, “plug and play”
curriculum and course materials, and mentoring from experienced peers.
All of these features have the potential to significantly reduce the amount
of upfront time required by faculty who are engaging undergraduates in
their own CUREs (Lopatto et al., 2014).
SUMMARY
Faculty members play a key role in UREs, from setting the disciplin-
ary goals to designing the initial workflow. The literature on the impact on
faculty from participating in UREs is limited; however, there is evidence
showing faculty benefits in rewards such as satisfaction, enjoyment, and
a sense of fulfilling an obligation to their students. For example, faculty
might integrate their research into their teaching responsibilities through
the use of CUREs.
Research suggests that the current reward structures for allocating time
and training to provide opportunities for undergraduate research may not
be supportive of faculty needs. Colleges and universities need to be mind-
ful of the impact of a URE program on their faculty and need to consider
how they can and should support such a program. UREs address a variety
of educational challenges such as improving completion and retention in
STEM programs, preparedness for graduate studies, and general science
literacy. Although limitations of time, incentives, and training are perceived
to be significant barriers to faculty engaging in pedagogical change, under-
graduate research programs continue to grow and thrive.
The diversity of undergraduate research program structures—institution
type, level of curriculum integration, faculty motivations, length of the URE,
role of the student researcher, incentive and reward structure, and avail-

ability of professional development—makes it difficult to fully evaluate the

impact on faculty. In order to develop a better understanding of the impacts
of participation in providing UREs on faculty, studies are needed that clearly
identify and take into account the various types of research programs and
available support structures. This understanding is important because much
can be learned by a well-designed study examining faculty situations before
and after a significant change in campus goals, support structures, etc.,
related to UREs.
REFERENCES
Allen, W. (1992). The color of success: African-American college student outcomes at predomi-
nantly White and historically Black public colleges and universities. Harvard Educational
Review, 62(1), 26-45.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). Vision and Change in Under-
graduate Biology Education: A Call to Action (C. Brewer and D. Smith, Eds.). Washing-
Anderson, W.A., Banerjee, U., Drennan, C.L., Elgin, S.C.R., Epstein, I.R., Handelsman, J.,
Hatfull, F., Losick, R., O’Dowd, D.K., Olivera, B.M., Strobel, S.A., Walker, G.C., and
Warner, I.M. (2011). Changing the culture of science education at research universities.
Science, 331(6014), 152-153.
Lawrie, G., McLinn, C.M., Pelaez, N., Rowland, S., Towns, M., Trautmann, N.M.,
Varma-Nelson, P., Weston, T.J., and Dolan, E.L. (2014). Assessment of course-based
undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE–Life Sciences Education,
13, 29-40.
Austin, A.E. (2011). Promoting Evidence-Based Change in Undergraduate Science Educa-
tion. Paper commissioned by the Board on Science Education of the National Research
Council. Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/
webpage/dbasse_072578.pdf [September 2016].
make scientific research more inclusive. Life Sciences Education, 13, 602-606.
Benvenuto, M. (2002). Educational reform: Why the academy doesn’t change. Thought &
Action, 18(1/2), 63-74.
Blackburn. R.T., and Lawrence, J.H. (1995). Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation, Satis
faction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Boyer Commission on Education of Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Re-
inventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities.
New York. Available: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED424840.pdf [November 2016].
Brew, A. (2013). Understanding the score of undergraduate research: A framework for cur-
ricular and pedagogical decision-making. Higher Education, 66, 603-618.
Brown, K. (2001). Time, money, mentors: Overcoming the barriers to undergraduate research.
HHMI Bulletin, 14, 30-33.
Brownell, S.E., and Tanner, K.D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of
training, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity?. CBE–Life Sciences
Education, 11(4), 339-346.

Buddie, A.M., and Collins, C.L. (2011). Faculty perceptions of undergraduate research.
Perspectives on Undergraduate Research and Mentoring 1.1. Available: http://blogs.
elon.edu/purm/2011/10/11/faculty-perceptions-of-undergraduate-research-purm-1-1/
[November 2016].
Chapdelaine, A. (2012). Including undergraduate research in faculty promotion and tenure
policies. Pp. 115-132 in N. Hensel and E. Paul (Eds.), Faculty Support and Under
graduate Research: Innovations in Faculty Role Definition, Workload, and Reward.
Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Chapman, D.W. (2003). Undergraduate research: Showcasing young scholars. Chron-
icle of Higher Education, 50(3), B5. Available at http://www.chronicle.com/article/
Undergraduate-Research-/9284 [November 2016].
Coker, J.S., and Davies, E. (2006). Ten time-saving tips for undergraduate research mentors.
Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 35, 110-112.
Cooley, E.L., Garcia, A.L., and Hughes, J.L. (2008). Undergraduate research in psychology
at liberal arts colleges: Reflections on mutual benefits for faculty and students. North
American Journal of Psychology 10(3), 463-471.
Cox, M.F., and Andriot, A. (2009). Mentor and undergraduate student comparisons of stu-
dents’ research skills. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 10(1-2),
31-39.
Desai, K.V., Gatson, S.N., Stiles, T.W., Stewart, R.H., Laine, G.A., and Quick, C.M. (2008).
Integrating research and education at research-extensive universities with research-
intensive communities. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(2), 136-141.
Dolan, E.L., and Johnson, D. (2010). The undergraduate–postgraduate–faculty triad: Unique
functions and tensions associated with undergraduate research experiences at research
universities. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 543-553.
Downs, D., and Young, G. (2012). What faculty need and want. Pp. 115-132 in N. Hensel
and E. Paul (Eds.), Faculty Support and Undergraduate Research: Innovations in Faculty
Role Definition, Workload, and Reward. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate
Research.
Eagan, M.K., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., Mosqueda, C.M., and Chang, M.J. (2011). Engag-
ing undergraduates in science research: Not just about faculty willingness. Research in
Higher Education, 52(2), 151-177.
Einarson, M.K., and Clarkberg, M.E. (2004). Understanding Faculty Out-of-class Interaction
with Undergraduate Students at a Research University (CHERI Working Paper #57).
Available: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/20/ [February 2016].
Elgren, T., and Hensel, N. (2006). Undergraduate research experiences: Synergies between
scholarship and teaching. Peer Review, 8(1), 4-7.
Elsen, M.G., Visser-Wijnveen, G.J., Van der Rijst, R.M., and Van Driel, J.H. (2009). How to
strengthen the connection between research and teaching in undergraduate university
education. Higher Education Quarterly, 63(1), 64-85.
Emerson, R.M. (1981). Social exchange theory. Pp. 30-65 in M. Rosenberg and R.H. Turner
(Eds.), Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Engelbride, E., and Presley, J.B. (1998). Accounting for faculty productivity in the research
university. Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 17-37.

Evans, D.R. (2010). The challenge of undergraduate research. Peer Review 12(2), 31. Avail-
able: https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/challenge-undergraduate-
research [November 2016].
Free, R., Griffith, S., and Spellman, B. (2015). Faculty workload issues connected to under-
graduate research. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(169), 51-60.
Gates, A.Q., Teller, P.J., Bernat, A., Delgado, N., and Della-Piana, C.K. (1999). Expanding
participation in undergraduate research using the Affinity Group model. Journal of Engi
neering Education, 88(4), 409-414.
Gibbs, G., and Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their
teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students.
Active Learn Higher Education, 5, 87-100.
Grunig, S.D. (1997). Research, reputation, and resources: The effect of research activity on
perceptions of undergraduate education and institutional resource acquisition. Journal
of Higher Education, 68(1), 17-52.
Hakim, T.M. (2000). How to Develop and Administer Institutional Undergraduate Research
Programs. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Harvey, L., and Thompson, K. (2009). Approaches to undergraduate research and their prac-
tical impact on faculty productivity in the natural sciences. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 38(5), 12-13.
Hativa, N. (1995). The department-wide approach to improving faculty instruction in higher
education: A qualitative evaluation. Research in Higher Education, 36, 377-413.
Healy, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and the role
of inquiry-based learning. Pp. 67-78 in R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the University: New
Relationships Between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill/
Open University Press.
Henderson, C., Finklestein, N., and Beach, A. (2010). Beyond dissemination in college sci-
ence teaching: An introduction to four core change strategies. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 39, 18-25.
Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate
STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952-984.
Hernandez-Jarvis, L., Shaughnessy, J.J., Chase-Wallar, L.A., and Barney, C.C. (2011). Inte-
grating undergraduate research into faculty responsibilities: The impact of tenure and
promotion decisions. CUR Quarterly, 31(4), 7-9.
Hewlett, J. (2009). The search for synergy: Undergraduate research at the community college.
Pp. 9-18 in B.D. Cejda and N. Hensel (Eds.), Undergraduate Research at Community
Colleges. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Hu, S., Scheuch, K., Schwartz, R.A., Gayles, J.G., and Li, S. (2008). Reinventing undergradu-
ate education: Engaging college students in research and creative activities. ASHE Higher
Education Report, 33(4), 1-103.
graduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science
Education, 91(1), 36-74.
Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing College Students for a Diverse Democracy (presentation made
within the Chet Peters lecture series). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.
Jenkins, A. (2004). A Guide to the Research Evidence on Teaching-Research Relations. York,
UK: The Higher Education Academy.

Jones, R.M., and Davis, S.N. (2014). Assessing faculty perspectives on undergraduate research:
Implications from studies of two faculties. CUR Quarterly, 34, 37-42.
Kardash, C.M. (2000). Evaluation of undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of
undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(1), 191-201.
Karukstis, K.K. (2004). Creating time for research: Recommendations from faculty at pre-
dominantly undergraduate institutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 1550-1551.
Kierniesky, N.C. (2005). Undergraduate research in small psychology departments: Two
decades later. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 84-90.
Kim, M.M., Rhoades, G., and Woodard Jr., D.B. (2003). Sponsored research versus graduating
students? Intervening variables and unanticipated findings in public research universities.
Kloser, M.J., Brownell, S.E., Chiariello, N.R., and Fukami, T. (2011). Integrating teaching and
research in undergraduate biology laboratory education. PLoS Biology, 9(11), e1001174.
Available: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001174
[November 2016].
Kortz, K.M., and van der Hoeven Kraft, K.J. (2016). Geoscience Education Research Project:
Student benefits and effective design of a course-based undergraduate research experi-
ence. Journal of Geoscience Education, 64(1), 24-36.
Langley, W. (2015). Undergraduate research at a two-year college: A team approach. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 45(2), 16-17.
Laursen, S., Seymour, E., and Hunter, A.B. (2012). Learning, teaching and scholarship: Funda-
mental tensions of undergraduate research. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
44(2), 30-37.
Layzell, D.T. (1996). Faculty workload and productivity: Recurrent issues with new impera-
tives. Review of Higher Education, 19(3), 267-81.
Linn, M.C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., and Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research
experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science 347(6222), 1-6.
Lopatto, D., Hauser, C., Jones, C.J., Paetkau, D., Chandrasekaran, V., Dunbar, D., MacKinnon,
C., Stamm, J., Alvarez, C., and Barnard, D. (2014). A central support system can facilitate
implementation and sustainability of a classroom-based undergraduate research experi-
ence (CURE) in genomics. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13, 711-723.
Marsh, H.W., and Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching
effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal of Higher
Education, 73(5), 603-641.
Mateja, J., and Otto, C. (2007). Undergraduate research: Approaches to success. Pp. 269-272
in K.J. Denniston (Ed.), Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available: http://www.aaas.org/
sites/default/files/09_Prep_Grad_Mateja.pdf [November 2016].
McKinney, K., Saxe, D., and Cobb, L. (1998). Are we really doing all we can for our under-
graduates? Professional socialization via out-of-class experiences. Teaching Sociology,
26(1), 1-13.
Merkel, C.A. (2001). Undergraduate Research at Six Research Universities: A Pilot Study for
the Association of American Universities. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.
Available: http://www.aau.edu/education/Merkel.pdf [February 2016].
Mervis, J. (2001). Student research: What is it good for? Science, 293, 1614-1615.
Milem, J.F., Berger, J.B., and Dey, E.L. (2000). Faculty time allocation: A study of change over
twenty years. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 454-475.


(1997). Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science
and Engineering. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available: http://www.nap.edu/read/5789/
chapter/1 [February 2017].
Nelson Laird, T.F., Bridges, B.K., Morelon-Quainoo, C.L., Williams, J.M., and Holmes, M.S.
(2007). African American and Hispanic student engagement at minority serving and
predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 39-56.
Perez, J.A. (2003). Undergraduate research at two-year colleges. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 93, 69-77.
Presley, J.B., and Engelbride, E. (1998). Accounting for faculty productivity in the research
university. Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 17-37.
Prince, M.J., Felder, R.M., and Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduate
teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies. Journal of Engineering Educa-
tion, 96(4), 283-294.
Pukkila, P., DeCosmo, J., Swick, D.C., and Arnold, M.S. (2007). How to engage in collab-
orative curriculum design to foster undergraduate inquiry and research in all disciplines.
Pp. 321-357 in K.K. Karukstis and T.E. Elgren (Eds.), Developing and Sustaining a
Research-Supportive Curriculum: A Compendium of Successful Practices. Washington,
DC: Council of Undergraduate Research.
Reinen, L., Grasfils, E., Gaines, R., and Hazlett, R. (2007). Integrating research into a small
geology department’s curriculum. Pp. 331-339 in K.K. Karukstis and T.E. Elgren (Eds.),
Developing and Sustaining a Research-supportive Curriculum: A Compendium of Suc-
cessful Practices. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Rueckert, L. (2007). Flexible curricular structures to provide time for research within the class-
room. Pp. 285-294 in K.K. Karukstis and T.E. Elgren (Eds.), Developing and Sustaining
a Research-supportive Curriculum: A Compendium of Successful Practices. Washington,
Russell, C.B., Bentley, A.K., Wink, D.J., and Weaver, G.C. (2009). Materials development for a
research-based undergraduate laboratory curriculum. The Chemical Educator, 14, 55-60.
Schultheis, A.S., Farrell, T.M., and Paul, E.L. (2011). Promoting undergraduate research
through revising tenure and promotion policy. Council on Undergraduate Research
Quarterly, 31(4), 25-31.
Schuster, J.H., and Finkelstein, M.J. (2006). The American Faculty: The Restructuring of
Academic Work and Careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Spell, R.M., Guinan, J.A., Miller, K.R., Beck, C.W. (2014). Redefining authentic research
experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to their implementation.
Temple, L., Sibley, T., and Orr, A.J. (2010). How to Mentor Undergraduate Research. Wash-
ington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Townsend, B., and Rosser, V. (2007). Workload issues and measures of faculty productivity.
Thought & Action, 23, 7-19.
Verburgh, A., Elen, J., and Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2007). Investigating the myth of the relation-
ship between teaching and research in higher education: A review of empirical research.
Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26(5), 449-465.

Wareham, T., and Trowler, P. (2007). Deconstructing and Reconstructing the “Teaching-Re-
search Nexus”: Lessons from Art and Design. Paper presented at the AISHE annual confer-
ence, August 2007. Available: http://paul-trowler.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/4/3/42439197/
deconstructing_and_reconstructing_the_teaching-research_nexus-_lessons_from_art_
and_design.pdf [November 2016].
Wayment, H.A., and Dickson, K.L. (2008). Increasing student participation in undergraduate
research benefits students, faculty, and department. Teaching of Psychology, 35(3),
194-197.
Weaver, G.C., Wink, D., Varma-Nelson, P., Lytle, F., Morris, R., Fornes, W., Russell, C., and
Boone, W.J. (2006). Developing a new model to provide first and second-year under-
graduates with chemistry research experience: Early findings of the Center for Authentic
Science Practice in Education (CASPiE). The Chemical Educator, 11, 125-129.
Weiss, T.H., Feldman, A., Pedevillano, D.E., and Copobianco, B. (2004). The implications of
culture and identity: A professor’s engagement with a reform collaborative. International
Journal of Science and Math Education, 1, 333-356.
Wood, W.B. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at large research
universities: A perspective on the Boyer Commission report. CBE–Life Sciences Educa-
tion, 2, 112-116.
Zubrick, A., Reid, I., and Rossiter, P.L. (2001). Strengthening the Nexus between Teaching
and Research (Vol. 6499). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.8309&rep=rep1&type=
pdf [November 2016].
Zydney, A.L., Bennett, J.S., Shahid, A., and Bauer, K. (2002). Faculty perspectives regarding
the undergraduate research experience in science and engineering. Journal of Engineering
Education, 91(3), 291-297.

Need for Research About UREs
During the course of the committee’s review of the existing literature,

numerous opportunities for research were identified that could deepen
understanding of undergraduate research experiences (UREs). This chap-
ter identifies priorities for research and discusses multiple methodological
approaches needed to answer questions about UREs, especially questions
about the value-added of these experiences over programs that lack such
experiences. This research is challenging due to the heterogeneity of re-
search experiences. It will benefit from a clear conceptual framework that
guides researchers to identify key questions and mechanisms for further
investigation.
Conducting research can be expensive and time consuming, so it is
important to consider the cost-effectiveness of the various research ap-
proaches and the relative importance of the questions so that resources
can be targeted appropriately. Although all URE programs should conduct
some type of evaluation to measure whether they are meeting their goals,
not all UREs must or should be part of a research study. However, it is
critical that some research studies are conducted to collect and analyze
information that will allow the community to better define and describe
UREs and their features and to clarify their mechanisms and effects. The
results of the research about UREs would provide information to inform
planning of future UREs.
Based on the committee’s review of dozens of empirical studies, we
have found a rich descriptive foundation for testable hypotheses about the
effects of UREs on student outcomes. The descriptive evidence, predomi-
nantly from self-reports, suggests that research on URE participation should
163

focus on its impact on disciplinary and research understanding, identity as

a researcher; persistence in a science, technology, engineering, and math
ematics (STEM) major; and increased enrollment in graduate programs
in STEM (Blockus, 2016; Dolan, 2016; Hathaway et al., 2002; Hunter et
al., 2007; Nagda et al., 1998; Sadler, 2010; Seymour et al., 2004). Since
few studies employ research designs that allow for strong causal inferences
about the effects on students of participating in UREs compared to pro-
grams without UREs, the next step for research on UREs is to gather this
information. This chapter provides recommendations to create a firmer
research base and address numerous gaps, as well as ideas for other types
of research that would be beneficial to the field.
In approaching the task of creating a research agenda for strengthen-
ing UREs, this committee found it useful to build on an earlier National
Research Council (2002) report, Scientific Research in Education. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 2, that report distinguished among three types of re-
search questions in education research: descriptive, causal, and mechanistic.
Research intended to answer descriptive, causal, and mechanistic questions
requires a combination of theory, method, measurement, and analysis,
ideally based on a shared conceptual framework. Researchers seeking to
address complex questions about the underlying mechanisms and out-
comes of UREs need to use the tools of the social sciences, build on prior
research, and draw from existing information about learning and teaching.
At the start of their projects, investigators need to identify appropriate and
feasible ways to document impacts; this involves planning studies with
appropriate comparison groups, creating ways to measure important ele-
ments of research and course experiences, using valid, reliable measures of
the outcomes of interest, and when possible acquiring longitudinal data. As
discussed later in the chapter, there can be logistical and financial challenges
to some of these approaches.
All three types of research are necessary to provide the information
needed to improve undergraduate training and experiences in STEM fields.
The three types must proceed along parallel tracks. Given the paucity of
strong causal evidence about the effects of UREs and about the mecha-
nisms that are most effective in achieving desired outcomes, the committee
urges funding agencies to provide funding for research projects intended to
generate causal and mechanistic evidence. Such evidence will be useful in
guiding investments. The evidence need not come from large-scale, multisite
randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Small-scale experiments at individual
campuses or well-designed quasi-experimental studies across courses within
a college or department can provide important building blocks for the
evidentiary foundation needed. If the evidence is consistent with the many
descriptive studies already available and with experiences of faculty, then
it can be used to advocate for greater resources for UREs that build upon

NEED FOR RESEARCH ABOUT URES 165
this strengthened body of research. To successfully carry out research on the

individual characteristics (e.g., collaboration and reflection) and potential
impacts (e.g., retention in STEM and integration into the STEM culture) of
UREs, including the mechanisms by which those impacts are realized, the
field needs testable hypotheses about what, why, and for whom UREs work
best and about how to improve the structure and provision of UREs to reach
a larger and more diverse pool of students. These ends are best accomplished
through design-based and mixed methods research.
The following section introduces two key challenges to understand-
ing the effects of UREs: nonrandom selection into UREs (as a function of
student, faculty, or mentor choice) and high-quality measures of outcomes.
Based on the needs of the field, we then present potential approaches that
meet these challenges for research on UREs.
STEM practitioners and researchers may find that forming or joining
multidisciplinary teams/partnerships with researchers who have expertise
in the behavioral/social sciences, education research, and program evalu-
ation can provide a rich opportunity for collaboration to investigate and
strengthen UREs for students. For example, the multidisciplinary commu-
nity of Understanding Interventions has been focused for years on creating
dialogue among members of the education community participating in
STEM intervention programs.
CHALLENGES TO RESEARCH ABOUT URES

To build a stronger research literature that informs the community
about the effects that UREs can have, researchers need to be aware of the
advantages and limitations inherent in various research designs. In addition,
researchers need to be aware of issues and challenges related to selection
and measurement. This section discusses the challenges, and the next sec-
tion focuses on approaches to the research about UREs.
Nonrandom Selection into UREs

Selection bias is a bias in which the characteristics of the students and
faculty/mentors participating in any given URE are collected in such a way
that they are not equivalent to other potentially URE-eligible participants.
This makes the comparisons across UREs difficult. There are at least three
common ways that selection bias can creep into the research process and
affect the estimated effects of UREs: (1) student self-selection, (2) program-
based selection, and (3) selective attrition (e.g., weaker students or those for
whom STEM research is not a good fit may be less likely to complete URE
projects, remain as STEM majors, or elect to participate in longitudinal
surveys about their experiences).

First, with respect to self-selection, students who do or do not pursue

opportunities for UREs likely differ from one another in important ways.
Those students who seek out or take advantage of opportunities to engage
in research may be better prepared academically, more motivated, or more
interested in and/or more committed to STEM fields than otherwise similar
students who choose not to participate in UREs.
Second, in many instances, students are not the only people involved in
the URE choice process. Faculty and program staff may choose to recruit
students who share similar interests and values as the faculty member or
are deemed as having the greatest likelihood of success in college in general
or STEM fields in particular (program-based selection). Such a process
would, again, lead to a group of students participating in UREs who would
be more likely to succeed (e.g., stay in a STEM major, graduate in STEM)
than nonparticipants, even absent the URE participation.
Finally, attrition is another form of selection bias. Students who con-
tinue to participate in UREs and/or studies of UREs until outcomes are
measured may consistently differ in outcome-relevant ways from students
who withdraw or fail to respond to a survey. Students who are not satisfied
with their experience in undergraduate research, who struggle academically,
or who confront challenges outside of school that hinder their academic
progress are more likely than other students to withdraw from courses or
from the university itself. As a result, students who persist in the URE may
on average be more successful by other measures as well, leading to a falsely
inflated estimate of the effect of the URE on the selected outcome measures.
There are at least two ways to deal with this challenge: (1) Demonstrate
the equivalence of the URE and non-URE groups (e.g., the control and
experimental groups) as measured by their performance on a dependent
variable (e.g., knowledge, motivation, attitudes) before and after the imple-
mentation of the URE so claims about the impact of UREs can be based on
the functional equivalence between the groups. If the comparison groups
are different from one another at the beginning of the study the results of
the study are biased. (2) Keep track of the characteristics of the students
(e.g., grade point average, previous research experience, gender) to deter-
mine the equivalence with non-URE students. This last strategy enables
accumulation of knowledge about for whom UREs with certain charac-
teristics (including the mentors’ characteristics) work; that is, which char-
acteristics of students and mentors are associated with positive outcomes.
Tracking can be more easily done within an institution but potentially it
could be done across institutions.

High-Quality Measures of Outcomes

Measurement can simply reflect the process by which one observes
and records the observations as part of a research study. It is important to
ensure that the instruments employed to investigate the subject/object of the
research are reliable and accurately capture the construct of interest. Some
measures, such as graduation rates, are readily obtained and objectively
defined. However, careful consideration needs to be given to selecting appro-
priate measures of learning gains and/or acquisition of content knowledge
and skills by students who do, and those who do not, participate in UREs.
The committee’s review of the literature in Chapters 2 through 6 showed
that future studies need more rigorous measurement and more-valid indica-
tors. Validation of self-reported information, for example, can be improved
by cross-referencing analysis of research products, such as presentations
and reports, essay examinations, or other observations of student activities.
Researchers studying URE outcomes often call for assessments that
measure a student’s ability to form arguments using evidence from research
in the student’s field of study, such as analyses of primary scientific literature
(Dasgupta et al., 2014; Gormally et al., 2012; National Research Council,
2007). Although the use of such indicators appears to be rare in the context
of UREs, the approach has proven successful in assessing learning in some
courses (e.g., Brownell et al., 2014).
Many studies rely on student self-reports to measure constructs such as
identity as a STEM professional, interest, and motivation to study STEM,
and career plans. Even though these constructs are inherently subjective,
relying on self-reports to measure them poses some challenges. One limita-
tion of self-reports is that student’s responses may be influenced by recent
events: a failed experiment, an unpleasant interaction with a collaborator,
or an unexpected high grade. Self-report measures may mean different
things to different students, depending on their perspectives and experi-
ences. Students from different parts of the country or different parts of
the world may not choose the same words to describe similar experiences.
Students who have never met an engineer, for example, may respond differ-
ently from those whose family friends include engineers. Finally, self-report
measures can be influenced by situational factors such as the expectations
of the person administering the test or interview or the feeling that it is
socially desirable to express interest in STEM. With these caveats noted,
there are existing self-report measures that have been shown to be reliable
across time, predictive of long-term persistence, and valid.
To establish the validity of new self-report measures, researchers can
use multiple indicators to ensure that the intended construct is accurately
measured. Promising indicators include observations of participation in
experiments; logs of student activities on a project; analysis of transcripts;

analysis of journals that capture responses across weeks or months; and

interviews that probe for individual characteristics such as perspectives on
prior STEM activities, personal details (such as anecdotes about mentors),
and confusions or conundrums about their possible futures. Additional
cross-validating indicators are perceptions of peers, instructors, or advisors.
Researchers can strengthen the evidence base for self-report measures by
using one or more of these indicators, along with the self-report measure,
to form an input construct. Moreover, by following students longitudinally,
researchers can see how well their chosen indicators predict future decisions
and career paths.
In order to characterize, assess, and compare student learning in dif-
ferent laboratory contexts (that use a wide variety of discipline-specific
research questions and experimental methods), researchers need to iden-
tify appropriate measurement instruments. A recent paper (Shortlidge and
Brownell, 2016) provides a table of possible assessment tools for CURE
instructors; some of these tools will also be useful for running other types
of URE programs. In some cases instruments will need to be generalizable
across different fields and scalable for use with a large number of students.
Possible areas for development of such instruments include poster presenta-
tions or similar reports, notebooks and journals, responses to a challenge
requiring data analysis, and other measures of STEM-specific activities. For
example, recent efforts to develop rubrics to assess undergraduate writing
across courses offer promise (Timmerman et al., 2011).
APPROACHES TO RESEARCH ABOUT URES

To establish causal findings requires analytic strategies that can rule
out alternative explanations for impacts of UREs. Causal questions related
to learning outcomes could include the following: Did URE participation
increase STEM literacy? Did URE participation alter the ability to navigate
uncertainty or professional STEM efficacy? Causal questions about longer
term career pathways might include: Did a specific URE help to sustain a
student interested in STEM in the path a student was on? Did it support her
and enable her to change in some way that she would not have changed,
absent the experience? Did the effect vary depending on the students’ ex-
pectations or specific experiences in the laboratory?
To answer these central questions regarding the gains from URE par-
ticipation in learning and persistence, studies need rigorous comparisons
to alternatives and may require nuanced analysis of (multiple) outcomes.
Thoughtful attention to the organization of the study before the implemen-
tation of new UREs would allow for robust conclusions to be made about
UREs and how they work.

Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs

Whenever possible, the use of experimental designs is recommended, as
these approaches may be particularly useful for those seeking to document
the added value of UREs. Randomization is possible in instances of excess
demand (e.g., by using lottery). Scholars at the University of Michigan suc-
cessfully employed this approach to study the causal effect of Michigan’s
Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (Nagda et al., 1998). This
approach requires that demand exceed supply; another study attempting to
employ this design was unsuccessful because too few students signed up for
the course (Brownell et al., 2012). However, more students were enrolled
the next year, and a randomized assignment was possible (Brownell et al.,
2013). Randomization is also possible when students accept to be random-
ized into experimental and control classes and/or when balancing across
sections/groups is feasible (Schultz, 2004). When programs have small
numbers of students, studies sometimes attempt to cluster data across sites
in a consortium (Reardon, 2013).
Quasi-experimental designs provide causal evidence in the absence of
RCTs. Although the RCT is a gold standard in many research fields for
establishing causal evidence for efficacy of a particular intervention (e.g.,
pharmaceutical clinical trials), the use of RCTs in educational research
is often limited by practical, political, and ethical constraints. Absent
successful random assignment, researchers can pursue a number of quasi-
experimental approaches to establish that subjects (students) experiencing
different treatments (courses/experiences) are on average the same and
that prior to treatment, nothing about either the subjects or the treatments
predicted who would end up in what treatment. For example, one ap-
proach might be to match students in the treatment pool with students in
the nontreatment pool on relevant variables (e.g., preparation, ethnicity).
Any quasi-experimental solution to the problem of group comparability,
however, requires an additional set of assumptions. For example, as an
initial step, researchers might statistically adjust (or control) for students’
high school grades and SAT or ACT math scores or for student perfor-
mance on a pre-test measure of achievement and assume that conditional
on these pre-existing differences, students were more or less the same on
average.
Both experimental and quasi-experimental designs benefit from plan-
ning for assessment of longitudinal effects. Panel attrition can undermine
the validity of panel studies to the extent that those who persist in a study
are different from those who drop out. Gaining consent from research
subjects at the beginning of the study to link to their administrative
records (e.g., grades, final major, degree attainment) is critically impor-
tant. Use of such records can help to minimize the harm done by sample

attrition. In addition, there is evidence that the technique of tailored panel

management can help retain panels with a higher response rate (Estrada
et al., 2014).
Design-Based Studies
Research experiences occur in complex contexts and often have dif-
ferential impacts on students due to the students’ prior experiences and
expectations. Box 7-1 provides some examples. These factors may under-
mine the utility of large-scale comparative studies for course developers.
Research that has value for the developers of the innovations and also has
potential to reveal mechanisms that might be of use to others are promising
alternatives. Instructors/directors of UREs who engage in evidence-based
practices in their own programs can study their programs in order to iden-
tify features and elements for improvement. Courses and programs can
then be improved via iterative refinement. Research comparing successive
versions of a course can shed light on the impacts of the improvements
(Cobb et al., 2003).
Design-based research provides a methodology, common among re-
searchers in learning sciences, wherein interventions are conceptualized
and implemented iteratively in a natural setting to test a hypothesis (Barab
and Squire, 2004). The methodology applied to education can effectively
capture the effect of an innovation in a complex, local system (Johri and
Olds, 2011). Design-based research may result in plausible causal accounts,
assist in the identification of contextual factors and mechanisms that alter
program impacts, and deepen the understanding of the nature of the in-
tervention/feature. Iterative cycles of development, implementation, and
study allow researchers to gauge how an intervention is or is not succeeding
in ways that may then inform an improved approach (Barab and Squire,
2004). In all such studies, the researcher (or program director) will need to
BOX 7-1
Examples of Design-Based Research
• R andomly assign students taking UREs to weekly structured mentoring ses-

sions or to informal mentoring to explore the effects of structured mentoring.
• Randomly assign URE students to writing a weekly journal reflecting on their
insights or to keeping a typical research notebook.
• Randomly assign students to receive online guidance or to meet an instructor
in person.

obtain Institutional Review Board approval and the informed consent of

participating students, prior to the start of the study.
Other Considerations in Research About UREs

Mixed method approaches integrate quantitative and qualitative ap-
proaches to research. For example, qualitative data can inform a RCT. A
well-constructed mixed method study might include collecting quantitative
measures of student learning outcomes (e.g., surveys or tests such as the
Force Concept Inventory or ETS’s Major Field Test for Physics) and qualita-
tive evidence from observations, interviews with participants, and collection
of artifacts (e.g., reports, lab notebooks, presentations). The combina-
tion of these data can uncover “links between theory and empirical find-
ings, challenge theoretical assumptions and develop new theory” (Östlund
et al., 2011). Because social phenomena are very complex, mixed method
designs can help to elucidate critical factors in the phenomenon of interest
(Creswell et al., 2003; Greene et al., 1989). Mixed method design studies
should be considered when planning studies aimed at understanding the
roles and impacts that various features have on the outcomes of UREs.
Longitudinal studies provide the opportunity to track students from
entrance into a URE to completion of the experience and beyond. These
studies provide additional insight into the impact of UREs and may identify
the impact of participation in UREs on student persistence, completion of
STEM degrees, enrollment in graduate school, entrance into the STEM
workforce, participation in the STEM community through publication or
presentation, or other career or educational outcomes. Mixed methods ex-
perimental or quasi-experimental approaches should be used that account
for the influence of students’ incoming interest, motivation, expectations,
and academic background on student outcomes.
Longitudinal studies will require researchers to document the number
and types of UREs that students participate in, the characteristics of those
UREs, and the duration and timing of the UREs within the students’ edu-
cational experience. Longitudinal studies measuring the development of
students’ knowledge and skills, such as scientific thinking or experimental
design abilities, argumentation skills, STEM communication abilities, or
problem-solving skills, from participation in UREs would also be valuable,
after valid, reliable assessments of these outcomes are developed. These
longitudinal studies are not trivial tasks but are necessary to fully under-
stand the way UREs impact career choices.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

To strengthen UREs, the committee has identified a series of high-
priority study areas that merit careful consideration by URE program di-
rectors, education researchers, faculty, and funding agencies. More general
recommendations about the use of UREs in undergraduate education are
presented in Chapter 9, which also contains a recommendation about the
importance of conducting quality research about UREs that takes a bigger-
picture view and is therefore included with the general recommendations
of the report and not in this chapter.
In order to meet the call for expanded research tools and active research
to study the impacts of UREs, funding agencies that typically support UREs
will need to examine their research portfolios and priorities, as well as
funding practices (such as length of grants, which can affect the ability to
carry out longitudinal studies). Well-designed summative cross-site external
evaluations and studies of URE programs and their features are of potential
value to the nation’s students and the national STEM education community.
Optimally, the studies outlined below would be conducted by teams com-
posed of members with strengths in the design and analysis of behavioral
science and educational research, members with strengths in URE program
implementation, and members who are STEM practitioners. This type of
research should not be expected of every faculty member who runs a URE,
but the community should work together to ensure that these questions are
addressed and the results disseminated to the community in order to inform
future UREs. As is always the case, studies should be designed in ways that
respect the needs of students, and any necessary Institutional Review Board
approval should be established before studies begin.
RESEARCH RECOMMENDATION 1 Researchers should develop and

validate tools that can be readily used by people who direct undergraduate
research experiences to assess student outcomes. Assessment should address
both conceptual knowledge and development of skills important to STEM
professionals. Some of these tools will be useful to those studying UREs
in many different disciplines, whereas others will focus on concepts and
content of a particular discipline.
Formative assessment by research mentors, program directors, and

instructors can be used to monitor student development and achievement
through a URE and to make appropriate adjustments along the way. If
researchers are able to develop validated, theoretically informed tools, such
tools could be used by faculty running UREs to better assess the impact
of UREs on students and to identify the most influential and beneficial
factors in UREs. Tools intended to assess content knowledge need to be

developed with input from subject matter experts. Potential tools would
include scoring rubrics for posters, presentations, or laboratory notebooks.
Instruments need to be made broadly accessible to leaders and developers
of undergraduate research programs.
Tools need to be reliable and valid for various types of UREs and popu-
lations of students. For example, validated measures of student growth in
knowledge and skills should work similarly for men and women, for stu-
dents from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, and for those
who are not part of those groups. This uniformity is important for deter-
mining the broad impact of UREs across student populations. It may en-
tail developing tools that are readily customized to the discipline, student
population, or research experience goals. Tools need to be in a form readily
used by program directors without social science training, and they must
be relatively inexpensive to score. Research is needed to develop valid and
reliable measures of important outcomes of UREs in order to allow for
comparisons between UREs and other types of experiences, such as typical
courses.
RESEARCH RECOMMENDATION 2 Future studies should seek to iden-

tify and measure the variables that explain why specific aspects of UREs
have impact (or not) on the students participating in a URE. Researchers
should consider a range of student outcomes (e.g., improved persistence,
development of STEM identity, understanding of the nature of research,
and development of specific skills or disciplinary knowledge). The number
of UREs that a student participates in, the duration of the experience, and
the timing of those experiences within the student’s undergraduate educa-
tion should also be examined.
Proponents of UREs believe that they have an impact on student tra-

jectories that is superior to that of traditional courses of instruction. While
the available evidence is consistent with these beliefs, few studies have
been sufficiently rigorous to offer a strong test of them. For example,
does participation in a URE impact performance in future upper-division
courses? Evaluation of how UREs enhance student outcomes when com-
pared to other experiences is needed and can be informed by research on
inquiry instruction and identity processes. (Further information about these
approaches can be found in Furtak et al., 2012, and Nasir and Cooks,
2009.) Specific objectives of UREs may include improvements in students’
understanding of the nature of STEM, of the process of research and associ-
ated skills, or of scientific and technical communication. Other objectives
may include skill development for career preparation, collaboration, and
teamwork.
Researchers should characterize the type of value the URE will add for

those who participate and document the mechanisms that enable the value
to be delivered. The evidence required will come from comparing UREs
to other experiences and other learning approaches, including traditional
courses. Research on UREs needs to take into consideration the duration
of these activities, as well as their variety and goals. Many students partici-
pate in multiple UREs, so studies that compare the presence or absence of
a URE in a student’s education may not adequately reflect today’s environ-
ment. Studies should attempt to identify the value added of the different
types of experiences, including the importance of the scheduling/timing of
the experience in the educational progression and pathway of a student,
characterizing how the nature and characteristics of the URE affect the
student, and the role that research experience(s) play in contributing to
student outcomes.
To make conclusions about a particular outcome, multiple measures
are needed. These measures may include self-report on some psychosocial
measures (potentially including efficacy, identity, values, belongingness,
stereotype threat, micro-aggression, and micro-affirmations), analysis of
research products, and documentation of research experiences (potentially
including type of URE, timing and duration of the experience, type of
mentoring, opportunity for autonomous investigation and decision making,
and development of research techniques). Not all of these measures would
be relevant to every study, but a combination of measures would likely be
required for each study.
Beyond measuring the impact of UREs on learning and student re-
tention, studies should be undertaken that seek to answer the question
of why these programs have (or have not) achieved successful outcomes.
Results that explain “why” have the potential to advance theory in both
educational and behavioral sciences. Further, these sorts of results inform
science educators about how to refine and increase the effectiveness of their
programs. For example, if UREs result in the development of a professional
identity and it is found that URE students who develop a professional iden-
tity are more likely to go to graduate school in a STEM field, then educators
might actively foster activities that help student’s grow their professional
identity. Research that seeks to measure the “why” will benefit from large
numbers of study participants, longitudinal data collection methods, and
measurement (both self-report and objective measures) of URE experience,
as well as measures of STEM career engagement. Because these types of
studies are expensive and time consuming, there should be no expectation
that all faculty who run UREs would conduct research meeting these re-
quirements as a matter of course. Such studies should be carefully designed
by teams of researchers with appropriate training in the relevant skills. A
small number of well-designed and carefully executed studies will be of
greater value than a large number of partial studies.

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATION 3 Future studies should systemati-

cally analyze the impact that various characteristics of UREs have on dif-
ferent student populations, to better identify what works for whom and
under what conditions.
Descriptive research suggests that individual responses to UREs may

vary depending on a student’s prior experience and academic preparation,
the student’s sense of belonging to the STEM enterprise, URE goals, the
timing and duration of the experience, and other factors. There is little em-
pirical evidence showing which student characteristics moderate the effects
of UREs. The sheer number of possible variables makes it impossible to
investigate how all possible combinations of student cultural and experien-
tial characteristics fare in each of the variations in UREs. Research in this
area needs to be informed by prior research, theoretical frameworks, and
policy priorities. For example, data on student participation could be used
to analyze demographics of the participants to better understand access
issues relating to barriers to participation, disciplinary differences, trends
in engaging underclassmen, and information on students participating in
more than one opportunity.
For this research question, it would be valuable to collect partici-
pant demographic information (race/ethnicity, age, generation, and socio
economic status) in combination with URE characteristics (see conceptual
framework) and to conduct carefully designed comparisons between specific
UREs. For example, a study comparing mentoring practices could examine
possible interactions of those practices with cultural or experiential back-
ground characteristics of the protégé and mentor. Such studies might iden-
tify possible mentoring mechanisms that could be recommended for broad
implementation. It is possible that even with such findings, instructors will
need to customize the mentoring mechanism to the characteristics of their
protégés/mentees.
A major research priority is to understand the critical factors that
contribute to the success of diverse groups engaged in UREs. For example,
longitudinal research on the role and impact that mentors have on the per-
sistence of diverse groups in STEM fields could help shape mentor-mentee
interactions (see Research Recommendation 5). Any research design needs
to pay attention to how theoretically derived factors associated with student
persistence, including self-efficacy, science identity, and values, vary as a
function of gender, racial/ethnic group membership, and their intersection
(e.g., Byars-Winston et al., 2016).
RESEARCH RECOMMENDATION 4 Researchers should study in a sys-

tematic manner the impact of a URE’s characteristics on faculty and other

mentors to better know the diversity of benefits obtained by faculty and

mentors.
While an evidentiary foundation for causal effects of UREs on students

is just now beginning to be established, a foundation for causal effects on
faculty and mentors is almost nonexistent. Hypotheses have been offered
that UREs can increase or decrease faculty productivity depending on the
circumstances at the institution, the structure of the URE, and the particular
students involved. The value placed on UREs, and on teaching in general,
on a particular campus may have an effect on the incentives and rewards
that alter faculty decisions regarding UREs.
Although there is a long tradition of mentoring in STEM education,
there is limited empirical evidence to explain specific ways that mentor-
ing affects URE students (Pfund, 2016). More methodologically rigorous
studies of mentoring are needed. The research community lacks a set of
refined common variables; a first step would be for the field to define a set
of common input and output variables, after which there would be a better
chance of generating reproducible results when investigating mentoring.
RESEARCH RECOMMENDATION 5 Additional research should examine

the specific role(s) of the mentor and the impact of the mentoring relation-
ship on the undergraduate mentee, compared to the immersive URE itself.
Using theoretical models to understand the mechanisms contributing

to persistence is one promising approach for providing insights into how
and why mentoring relationships contribute to success (Byars-Winston
et al., 2015; Estrada et al., 2011; Hurtado et al., 2009; Packard, 2016;
Pfund, 2016). Mentoring has been proposed as a critical factor affecting
the persistence of STEM students, and it offers a potential target for fur-
ther investigation. Good mentoring is potentially a key way to provide an
intervention that benefits students.
Research is also needed to uncover the mechanisms by which mentor-
ing relationships foster particular outcomes and how these outcomes may
differ, based on the mentoring model or student population. Potentially
relevant factors include persistence, engagement in or commitment to the
discipline, belonging, and educational and career decision making.
ROLE FOR FUNDERS OF RESEARCH ON URES

Progress on these research questions will require financial support. The
results will increase knowledge of the ways that UREs affect students and
provide guidance for design of future UREs that may have a more signifi-
cant impact on students. Teams of researchers with strengths in the design

and analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental educational research,

as well as those with strengths in URE program implementation working
in concert with STEM researchers, may be needed to make progress on the
research agenda identified here. Funding agencies may want to coordinate
and/or pool their efforts in this regard to achieve maximum return per
dollar spent.
Well-designed summative cross-site external evaluations and research
on URE programs and their design features are of potential value to the
nation’s students and the national STEM education community. Using
rigorous research approaches for studying UREs will cost more than small
outcome-centric evaluation, but it is important that some in-depth research
studies be conducted.
In addition to considering research about UREs, funding agencies may
want to assemble guidelines for effective assessments of funded programs
that are not part of a research study. These guidelines might suggest some
key elements to consider when designing and choosing assessments. Or
funding agencies could focus some resources on development of an overall
assessment unit that all funded projects must use. The limitation with the
second approach is that funding agencies will want to allow for some flex-
ibility so that at least part of the assessment could take into account the spe-
cifics of the URE under study, in terms of its structure, setting, organization,
and population of students served. Nonetheless, a shared rubric can enable
a study encompassing a larger number of students and provide greater
opportunity to discern differences between implementations that matter.
Many prior studies of UREs have been conducted at a single institution,
and multisite studies would enhance the understanding of URE programs,
their characteristics, and their outcomes in different institutional contexts
and for various populations of students.
SUMMARY
Institutions of higher education are looking for effective methods to
maximize educational impact on students while minimizing cost during
a time when information systems and technology are rapidly changing.
Careful and well-designed research has the potential to illuminate mecha-
nisms that could help designers make informed decisions. As discussed
above, three areas of research are needed. First, research that measures
outcomes and tracks types of URE engagement would be very useful. For
example, research is currently needed on the components of apprentice-
style UREs, how they differ from the components of CUREs and other
types of UREs, and comparative outcomes. Second, research is needed to
assess how the same URE affects students differently because of their prior
experiences, expectations, cultural commitments, and stage in their educa-

tion. Third, there is a need to evaluate why a given URE has the outcomes it
does. Researchers need to be clear about which outcomes they are studying,
and they need to make sure that they use previous knowledge on the topic,
as well as consider evidence that comes from discipline-based education re-
search and from studies on topics such as retention and persistence. Multi
disciplinary teams are critical to conducting this research, which bridges
the expertise of education researchers, STEM educators, social scientists,
natural scientists, and engineers.
Whether the goal is to evaluate an existing program or to modify a
program to better achieve a particular student outcome, funders, program
administrators, and faculty need to keep in mind the importance of rigor-
ous method design and identify the specific set of questions of interest. This
may include validating existing tools and/or developing better tools before
questions that are more causal can be addressed. Moreover, the state of
the existing evidence may suggest that additional descriptive studies are
needed before a theory or model can be developed that identifies potential
mechanisms for further investigation in that setting.
REFERENCES
Barab, S., and Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Brownell, S.E., Kloser, M.J., Fukami, T., and Shavelson, R. (2012). Undergraduate biology
lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic
research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching,
41(4), 36-45.
Brownell, S.E., Price, J.V., and Steinman, L. (2013). A writing-intensive course improves
biology undergraduates’ perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific
literature and communicate science. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(1), 70-79.
Brownell, S.E., Wenderoth, M.P., Theobald, R., Okoroafor, N., Koval, M., Freeman, S.,
Walcher-Chevillet, C.L., and Crowe, A.J. (2014). How students think about experimental
design: Novel conceptions revealed by in-class activities. BioScience, 64(2), 125-137.
mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 2533-2554.
Byars-Winston, A., Rogers, J., Branchaw, J.L., Pribbenow, C.M., Hanke, R., and Pfund, C.
(2016). New measures assessing predictors of academic persistence for historically under
represented racial/ethnic undergraduates in STEM fields. CBE–Life Sciences Education,
15(3), ar32. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5008879/pdf/
ar32.pdf [February 2017].

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in
education research. The Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., Gutmann, M.L., and Hanson, W.E. (2003). Advanced
mixed methods research designs. Pp. 209-240 in A. Tahakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publication, Inc.
Dasgupta, A.P., Anderson, T.R., and Pelaez, N. (2014). Development and validation of a ru-
bric for diagnosing students’ experimental design knowledge and difficulties. CBE–Life
Sciences Education, 13(2), 265-284.
of Educational Psychology, 103, 206-222.
Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., and Schultz, P. (2014). Tailored panel management: A theory-
based approach to building and maintaining participant commitment to a longitudinal
study. Evaluation Review, 38(1), 3-28.
Furtak, E.M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., and Briggs, D.C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-
experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329.
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., and Lutz, M. (2012). Developing a Test of Scientific Literacy Skills
(TOSLS): Measuring undergraduates’ evaluation of scientific information and arguments.
CBE–Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 364-377.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., and Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for
mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3),
255-274.
Hathaway, R., Biren. S., Nagda, A., and Gregerman, S. (2002). The relationship of under
graduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An
empirical study. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 614-31. Available: http://
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ653327 [February 2017].
graduate research in cognitive, personal and professional development. Science Educa-
tion, 91(1), 36-74.
151-185.
Nagda, B.A., Gregerman, S.R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., and Lerner, J.S. (1998). Under
graduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. Review of Higher
Education, 22, 55-72. Available: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jenniferlerner/files/
nagda_1998_paper.pdf [February 2017].
Nasir, N.S., and Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a hurdler: How learning settings afford identities. Anthro
pology and Education Quarterly, 40(1), 41-61. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2009.01027.x

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific Research in Education. Committee on Scientific

Principles for Education Research, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Committee on Prospering in the
Global Economy of the 21st Centruy: An Agenda for American Science and Technology.
Committee on Science and Engineering Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Östlund, U., Kidd, L., Wengström, Y., and Rowa-Dewar, N. (2011). Combining qualitative
and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological
review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(3), 369-383.
Packard, B. (2016). Successful STEM Mentoring Initiatives for Underrepresented Students: A
and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Life Sciences, Division of Earth and Life
Reardon, S.F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8),
10-16.
Sadler, D.R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.
Schultz, P.T. (2004). School subsidies for the poor: Evaluating the Mexican Progresa poverty
program. Journal of Development Economics, 74, 199-250. Available: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387803001858 [February 2017].
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.
Shortlidge, E., and Brownell, S. (2016). How to assess your CURE: A practical guide for in-
structors of course-based undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Microbiology
and Biology Education, 17(3), 399-408.
Timmerman, B.E.C., Strickland, D.C., Johnson, R.L., and Payne, J.R. (2011). Development of
a “universal” rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scien-
tific writing. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 509-547.

Considerations for
Design and Implementation of
Undergraduate Research Experiences
This report describes an ongoing conversation in the education com-

munity that claims that the benefits of undergraduate research experiences
(UREs) justify the expansion of such programs. Yet Chapter 7 (Need for
Research About UREs) has pointed out many areas where increased re-
search is needed to better understand the impact of UREs and the potential
tradeoffs among design choices. This situation created noticeable tension
for the committee, as we are charged with working from the evidence base
but also want to provide actionable guidance to educators. Given that
many schools are moving now to increase their efforts to support under
graduate research, the committee has prepared this chapter to address issues
of design and implementation of UREs, drawing on both the currently
available evidence base and the expert opinion of the committee. We aim
to present a structure for considering relevant aspects of UREs as part of a
design and decision making process embedded in the conceptual framework
described in Chapter 3.
This chapter is designed to serve as a guide to readers who wish to
support the development of UREs on their campus—primarily faculty,
URE program designers/directors, and institutional leaders. The commit-
tee identifies important questions to ask and issues to address during the
process. Keep in mind that URE design and implementation can be a time-
consuming process: key players should be provided with adequate time and
resources to achieve their program goals, and they should be recognized
when that is accomplished. In some situations, however, people must initi-
ate a URE and carry out large amounts of work before getting buy-in from
their department or institution. In this case it can be even more crucial that
181

there is an institutional mechanism to reward their efforts after the fact.

The mission, priorities, and resources of the institution will influence many
practical decisions of the department and faculty. Many of the questions
presented here must be dealt with on an institutionwide basis, whereas
others are the purview of departments, the primary concern of the URE
designer, or the primary concern of the individual faculty mentor.
Several considerations need to be kept in mind when designing and
implementing UREs, whether the intent is to create a new program, refine
an existing one, or broaden (scale up) the access to a specific URE. These
include the make-up of the student body, the types of programs that can
be offered, the envisioned goals and outcomes of the experience, who will
implement and who will serve as mentor, and the departmental and institu-
tional constraints that might impact the design and implementation of the
experience. Considering the goals of all participants will help ensure that
the program can be successful and sustainable with adequate participants
and human resources. Understanding the goals of the students will help in
designing programs that keep the students engaged and motivated.
As discussed in various places throughout this report, and specifically
addressed both within the research agenda in Chapter 7 and in the final
chapter detailing the committees’ conclusions and recommendations, there
is insufficient causal evidence to develop and support a comprehensive set of
guidelines to promote specific best practices or to contrast the effectiveness
of different mechanisms and programs. However, based upon the available
descriptive evidence, the collective beliefs of the community, and emerging
research that supports the utility of UREs in providing unique learning
opportunities for students, we provide this chapter as a resource for d
esign,
implementation, and evaluation of UREs. In preparing the guidance re-
ported here, the committee draws from best practices that have emerged
from education research on the science of learning, published research evi-
dence on UREs, resources and research syntheses by national organizations
that support UREs, presentations made during the committee meetings, and
the expertise of the committee members.
This chapter begins with some initial considerations to keep in mind
when considering the type of URE program that will be institutionally
appropriate. It then moves on to discuss goals, resources, implementation
(including using the existing evidence and knowledge of how people learn),
and improvement (evaluating UREs and resources available). Finally, the
chapter concludes with a section that speaks to campus leaders about
the importance of campus culture, systemic change, and rewards/incentives.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF URES 183
PRACTICAL QUESTIONS
Many factors need to be considered when trying to determine either
the appropriate URE program(s) to implement or whether a new type of
URE might be desirable and possible. To facilitate the process, answers to
several questions can help to narrow down the potential formats. Some of
these questions should be addressed on the departmental or institutional
level, to ensure that adequate resources are available to the URE designers
and that the tradeoffs that need to be made align with departmental and
institutional priorities. The answers to other questions are in the purview
of the faculty members guiding the research. The questions provided below
are intended to be not an exhaustive list but a starting point.
• What is the overall goal of the program? For example, does it aim
to provide research experiences for some or all students in a given
STEM major, for students in the beginning courses for the major,
or for some other overarching end?
• Is this an expansion of an existing program or a new program?
• How will the new program fit with any current programs? How
will it fit within the existing curriculum and major academic
requirements?
• What strategies will be used to reach the goals? Do they fit best
with an apprentice-style model, a course-based undergraduate re-
search experience (CURE), an internship, etc.? How much active
time do the students need to reach the goals? How many hours per
week should the students expect to participate? How much total
time is needed, and how many weeks will the experience last? Is
there already an experience on campus or at a nearby school with
the proposed format?
• What are the program costs and how will participants be covered?
Will internal and/or external funding be required? Can existing
funds be used or repurposed, or will new sources of revenue be
needed? If the program is initiated with grant funding, how will
it transition to a sustainable mode of operation after the grant
period?
• Do faculty members have the resources they need: access to knowl-
edge about designing and assessing UREs and access to necessary
financial and logistical resources?
• Is there appropriate space currently available or would modifica-
tions be necessary?
• How much faculty time will be needed? Will this require changes to
existing responsibilities? How will participating faculty be rewarded
or compensated for their time and energy spent on d esign and over-

sight of the research project? Will time for faculty participation be

provided within the normal workload? If extra hours or summer
participation will be required, how will that be compensated?
• Who will serve as research mentor(s), and what role will the
mentor(s) play? How will the mentor(s) be prepared for that role?
• Who will provide hands-on training to the students, and how will
the trainers be prepared for that role?
• Will students be given increased decision making opportunities and
responsibility for formulating and designing the content of their
research as their experience increases? Are there opportunities for
students to take on increasing ownership of the project?
• Is one of the goals to ensure equity and access or to specifically
broaden participation? How will students from populations of
interest be recruited to the program? Is the recruitment and selec-
tion process equitable? Does it promote broadening participation?
• How will participation be documented and participants tracked?
• How will research ethics and standards of research documentation
be taught?
• How will the students be rewarded/compensated? If graded, will the
grade be pass/fail or a letter grade? How will grades be a ssigned? If
students will be compensated, will they receive a stipend or hourly
wage? If a summer program, will room and board be provided?
• How long is the intended research experience? What is the weekly
(or monthly) time commitment expected of participants?
• What are the research expectations? Are there steps along the way
where expectations must be documented? Do they include keeping
a research notebook? Do they include presenting at a conference?
How will they be clearly communicated to the students?
• Are there novel questions for students to tackle?
• Are students expected to present or publish on their research?
• Are there plans to help the students gain a sense of belonging?
• Are there opportunities for students to collaborate and discuss their
research activities, as well as to reflect on the activities’ wider impli-
cations and connections in the field and to broader life issues? Do
the students have the resources they need (e.g., access to housing,
if needed, and to equipment, library, and mentors)?
• Are there processes in place by which students could file a com-
plaint if they disagree with the decision on who is selected to
participate, if they are not provided with the necessary resources
to carry out their task, or if they experience discrimination or
harassment?
• How will the success of the program be assessed?

Overall, having these basic questions in mind can serve as a guide

when identifying programmatic needs that reflect the goals of the various
stakeholders. In considering these questions, it might be helpful for URE
designers to reflect on the various options discussed in Chapters 2 and 3
about the variety of types of UREs and the many interacting factors that
influence them.
INITIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

For a designer of a URE, the initial steps in the process are to identify
the goals that the URE will aim to achieve, recognize the key variables that
may influence the URE, identify the types of programs available nationally
that may serve as models, identify existing local programs that may be
adapted or expanded to meet the goals, and determine what opportunities
for innovation exist. Evaluating the programs that are already available can
provide models and illuminate gaps. Considering the programs available
locally may yield new partners or spark ideas that can be modified for use.
Such investigations of the programs offered might point out a type of URE
that is not in use but that could be added.
As described in the conceptual framework (see Chapter 3), UREs are
affected by an interacting network of players (institutional and depart-
mental policy makers and leaders, faculty, staff, and students) and by an
institution’s mission, goals, and resources. These interactions occur within
the broader context of national policy (determined by funders, disciplin-
ary societies, and government) that impacts decisions made on campus.
Campus decisions on faculty roles, faculty rewards, space, and allocation
of resources are of critical importance and directly affect UREs.
Goals and resources must be considered when choosing the type of
program so that it will fit the needs of the student population while also
working within the constraints of the available support structures (e.g., hav-
ing space for the program, the necessary human and financial resources).
Finding or creating the right program structure that can appropriately bal-
ance these various factors can result in a more manageable and sustainable
program in which the intended benefits and outcomes are achieved. That
is, if the program will not fulfill the needs of the students or cannot be sup-
ported institutionally in the long run, then the sustainability of the program
will be in question. Table 8-1 provides a simplified view of the landscape of
URE program types, illustrating various types to facilitate consideration
of options. (See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion with relevant examples.)
Alignment of a planned URE with a particular program’s various goals
and available resources is critical to offering academic experiences that will
meet program goals for the students it targets. The types and specifics of
UREs offered affect which of the definitional characteristics a student expe-

TABLE 8-1 Overview of the Variability of Attributes of UREs

Leadership • Professor
• Lecturer
• Senior researcher
• Postdoctoral scholar
• Industry researcher
Mentoring • Informal arrangements

• Assigned mentor
• Multiple mentors
Format • Apprentice-style URE

• Course-based URE for academic credit
• URE program that includes professional development
• Industry URE
Duration • Several weeks to several years
Expectations for students • Learn discipline-specific procedures

• Conduct an original investigation
• Prepare poster or presentation on work
Student goals • Career awareness

• Apprenticeship in a research environment
• Insight into the nature of research
• Contribution to a larger STEM discipline–specific goal
Value for student career • Prepare informed citizens

trajectory • Strengthen likelihood of graduate school admissions
• Helpful for industry employment
• Useful for recommendations in general
Measured outcomes • Self-report survey

• Interview
• Assessment of knowledge
• Journal
• Research report or presentation
Populations(s) served • STEM majors/non-STEM majors

• Historically underrepresented students
• First generation students
Student funding • Unpaid (generally receive course credit)

• Stipend
• Full support

riences.1 For example, joining an established research group could channel

student work toward a predetermined problem using an already identified
approach. A class that challenges students to pick a local environmental
issue to investigate could provide many choices for a student to select a
novel research question, while another course may have a set research
paradigm that all students are expected to follow. Over time, an institution
or program may offer more variety in the types of UREs available to their
students, and this may enable students to choose UREs particularly tailored
to their goals.
There is variability in terms of when the URE is offered—semester,
academic year, or summer—as well as in the support systems (human and
financial) required. Whereas many programs have the potential to offer stu-
dents academic credit, summer programs are more likely to need to provide
a stipend (and/or other forms of monetary support, such as providing room
and board); this is more often available for apprentice-style programs that
have financial resources specifically linked to such programs (e.g., external
grant funding secured by the faculty mentor, institutional resources, or
donor-funded endowments). Bridge and wrap-around programs, which
have additional student support structures included such as peer mentoring
and tutors, generally require additional financial resources.
Considering the many options of different types of UREs (e.g., appren-
tice-style, CURE, internship, co-op), it may seem daunting to decide, for a
particular program, on the type that best aligns with the relevant stakeholder
goals and resources in hand or that might be obtained. Each program will
have constraints that will shape the offering and favor some types of UREs
over others. If, for example, the goal of a URE is to increase the number
of students matriculating into graduate school in STEM fields, then a key
component of the program (in addition to experiencing research) may be
test preparation and assistance with graduate school applications. Similarly,
if a goal is to increase STEM knowledge and literacy, a URE may include
not only working alongside a faculty member in a lab, but also assigned
readings and periodic workshops featuring presentations on research across
STEM disciplines.
Table 8-1 lays out many of the categories and choices for each category
that need to be considered in planning and implementing a URE.
Faculty who decide to organize CUREs or expand other research op-
portunities for undergraduates may need help acquiring the mentoring and
managerial skills required to do so effectively (Pfund, 2016). A key charac-
teristic of most CUREs is a “parallel” research problem: one for which the
mentor can teach students a common set of experimental approaches and
1 The committee’s set of URE definitional characteristics is specified in Conclusion 1 in
Chapter 9.

common tools but within which each student has unique responsibilities.
For example, in SEA-Phages (see Box 2-7 in Chapter 2) all students isolate a
soil phage using a particular host bacterium; the isolated phages are related,
but each will be unique, informing an analysis of phage evolution (Hatfull,
2015). Directing a CURE generally requires that faculty move beyond more
traditional notions of “teaching” toward a more active mode of promot-
ing student learning via the research framework, using pedagogies that are
more aligned with active learning (e.g., shifting to a facilitator of student
investigation rather than one who primarily imparts information).
Undergraduate research offices, created either as separate entities or
as extensions of a college or university office of teaching and learning, can
often provide a centralized resource for faculty, staff, and undergraduates
engaged in UREs. In addition to helping undergraduates connect with ap-
propriate experiences, they can facilitate general training (eg., how to keep
a research notebook, research ethics), sponsor talks on STEM careers,
manage paperwork, arrange summer housing for the undergraduates, or
potentially even provide specialized instruction in research (see Box 8-1).
At institutions that do not have an undergraduate research office to pro-
vide central support to those running or participating in UREs, an effort
to create centralized procedures would be worthwhile; a part-time staff
position could provide help with some of the needed features. Examples
can be found in Appendix B and in the report from a convocation on inte-
grating CUREs into the undergraduate curriculum (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015). The organizations described
in the final section of this chapter may also serve as a source of ideas and
BOX 8-1
Entering Research Course for
Beginning Apprentice-Style Researchers:
University of Wisconsin–Madison
This two-semester seminar course for beginning researchers is taken con-

currently with independent research credits by students from across the STEM
disciplines. It provides structure and guidance for new undergraduate researchers
and their mentors as they begin their research project together. It brings under-
graduate students from across disciplines together to build a community that
supports them as they navigate their first independent research experience and
their first research mentoring relationship.a
aThe course is described on the University of Wisconsin–Madison website; see https://www.
biology.wisc.edu/Entering-Research [February 2017].

resources for faculty and administrators who are working to start or ex-
pand URE programs.
Another option to consider for developing highly effective UREs at
many institutions is a “franchising” process. Under such a process, a well-
designed URE (a CURE or program-based URE that has been thoroughly
evaluated) could be adopted by many institutions. The process could be
facilitated by having the initial sites develop tools and an evaluation pro-
cedure for other institutions to adopt and adapt. Identifying, encouraging,
and funding dissemination of existing programs may accelerate the cre-
ation of effective UREs at many institutions and lead to evaluation efforts
that can scale to tens or hundreds of institutions, hundreds of faculty, and
thousands of students. Several examples of such consortia were discussed
in Chapter 2. These consortia show particular promise in enabling insti-
tutions that have limited resources to successfully implement and sustain
UREs (Blockus, 2016).
THE IMPORTANCE OF INCLUSION, ACCESS, AND EQUITY

Colleges and universities need to consider whether their approaches to
offering UREs allow for equity of access. Emphasizing access and equity
requires analyses and actions that are student-centered and focused. The
Engage to Excel report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (2012) describes many potential benefits of having stu-
dents engage in some kind of research or other discovery-based experience
in STEM and calls on higher education to make research opportunities
available to as many students as possible, as early in their undergraduate
careers as feasible. However, common practice has been to select the most
advanced students (either in terms of length of matriculation, relevant
coursework completed, or academic performance as determined by indi-
cators such as grade point average) for preferred access, on the grounds
that they will benefit most from such opportunities. Unless the number
of research opportunities can grow substantially, such selection decisions
likely will exclude many students, particularly those who do not choose to
declare a STEM major. Unfortunately, this can include those who intend
to become t eachers, especially those planning to teach in the elementary or
middle grades and who are likely to major in education or English, neither
of which is a STEM discipline.
There also is a risk of unfairness if faculty members select students
based on those who approach them seeking such opportunities, as e thnic/
racial minority students and first generation students often are aware n
either
of URE opportunities nor of the benefits of a URE (Bangera and Brownell,
2014). Faculty or other mentors also may hold unrecognized, implicit biases
that certain types or levels of students are more qualified than others or can

contribute most to the research effort (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). Both

problems can restrict opportunities for disadvantaged students who might
benefit the most from such experiences.
It may appear that requiring research and other discovery-based experi-
ences through an apprentice-based program or CURE could address many
of these issues of access and equity (Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Dolan,
2016). Accordingly, some colleges and universities are working to make a
CURE part of the first-year experience. For example, the First Year Innova-
tion and Research Experience (FIRE) program at the University of Mary-
land, College Park (modeled on the FRI program at The University of Texas
at Austin described in Box 2-9) attempts to lower barriers to research and
persistence.2 If projects can be limited (for the most part) to hours for which
a course or lab is scheduled, then more students who must work to support
themselves and their families or who must commute to campus from long
distances will be able to participate. However, requiring that most or all
students engage in this kind of work presents its own set of problems, as
there can be substantial logistical challenges to participating in research.
In addition, if students feel that they are being compelled to participate in
activities that they neither welcome nor appreciate, then they likely will not
do so enthusiastically. Team structure, group work, and the quality of their
URE work overall may suffer as a result, thereby diminishing the experience
for all students involved in the URE.
Requiring undergraduate research can also present financial challenges.
If a required CURE comes with extra fees, it may discourage some students’
from choosing that major. CUREs that add extra fees for participation
compared with traditional courses may place an insurmountable burden on
some students, essentially blocking their enrollment. On the other hand, if
students can be paid a stipend or hourly wage for participating in research
with a faculty member, this may alleviate their need to find an off-campus
job to cover their expenses and may serve to promote participation in a
URE. Asking students to participate in off-campus symposia or meetings
of disciplinary societies to present their work may preclude some students
from participating, unless their costs for travel are provided by the institu-
tion. Too often, these kinds of special costs pose particular burdens for
first generation, underrepresented, nontraditional, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged students. Intentional recruiting of these subpopulations and
dedicated funding sources to provide financial aid can counter many of
these obstacles.
On the contrary, making a research experience optional can result in
students opting out because they are concerned about the amount of time
and effort required for the academic credits gained, and they may worry
2 See http://www.fire.umd.edu/about.html [December 2016].

about how such programs or courses will be graded. Clear communication

from the faculty, peer recruiting, and joining a CURE with friends are all
conditions that may help ameliorate these challenges. For example, it might
be necessary for faculty to talk to students about “failure” being common-
place in research and that in this course their grade will not suffer from an
inability to get “the correct answer.”
CONSIDERING THE GOALS OF ALL PARTICIPANTS

The design of UREs should consider the goals of all participants:
students, faculty, department, and institution. Knowing who the various
stakeholders are and paying attention to their goals and priorities can help
shape and direct the design of a new URE or the refinement of an existing
program. This is especially important when the stakeholders are at mul-
tiple institutions, such as in a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded
science, engineering, or technology center. Moreover, it is crucial to think
about how the attributes of specific student populations (e.g., students of
color, women, first generation students, community college transfers, com-
muter versus resident students, full-time versus part-time students, majors
in the URE field versus nonmajors) affect the goals those students might
have and how those goals will be addressed within the design (Blockus,
2016; Dolan, 2016).
As discussed in the conceptual framework, the committee has grouped
the institutional goals for students participating in UREs into three major
categories: (1) increasing participation and retention of students in STEM,
(2) promoting STEM disciplinary knowledge and practices, and (3) inte-
grating students into STEM culture (see Figure 3-1). This categorization
was done to organize the outcomes that have been most frequently mea-
sured and documented in the literature. Although these categorical goals
may not precisely mirror the motivations driving a particular URE design,
they should be considered, along with the goals of the faculty and goals of
the students.
Students themselves may not focus on the same goals, described above,
that institutions and faculty may have for them. They may be focused on
more practical goals, such as the potential for UREs to help them stand
out more prominently in the sea of applicants to graduate or professional
schools or for future employment. A student may be interested in learning
more about a topic or a technique covered in a previous course or in work-
ing with a faculty member who taught the course; students may want to add
to their resumes or get a strong letter of recommendation. It is important
for faculty to share their goals for the students with the URE participants
at the start of each experience. In an apprentice-style URE, mentors and
students should take time to discuss the student’s goals as well.

Students may choose to participate in a URE because of the topic of the

research. For example, a particular URE may provide students with oppor
tunities for community or civic engagement (such as a project related to
environmental pollution) or opportunities to explore in depth an issue that
has had an impact on the student’s life or the lives of their families, friends,
or communities (such as research on a specific disease or illness). Other
students may be thinking of careers in a STEM discipline and see UREs as
a chance to learn research skills and determine whether they find research
interesting enough to want to pursue it further as a career option. Thus,
some students might finish a URE with a solidified feeling that research is
for them and go on to persist in a STEM degree (or seek a career), whereas
others may benefit from the experience itself but might determine that
research is not for them. Moreover, some students who never envisioned
being a STEM researcher might discover a career path that suits them,
although they had not considered it before. Further, as suggested in the
conceptual framework, preparation for many career opportunities (perhaps
most) can be enhanced by participation in a URE.
RESOURCES
The issue of resources for UREs is complex. Resources needed for
research are as varied as the questions that drive the research and the dis-
ciplines that set the context for the research opportunity. A comprehensive
list of resources needed for all forms of UREs across all STEM disciplines
and research questions is beyond the scope of this report, so what follows
is an illustrative compendium of resource issues and topics, which may be
helpful to consider in the design of UREs. The success of UREs depends on
supportive departmental administrators and interested faculty, along with
the means to encourage and compensate faculty and to provide facilities so
that the faculty have both the time and resources to engage undergraduates
in research.
As departments and institutions consider expanding research oppor-
tunities for their undergraduates, a primary consideration and concern is
cost. Can UREs be expanded by reallocation of current resources, or must
new resources be identified and secured? Costs can be estimated based on
current institutional budgets of colleges and universities that are currently
engaged in providing UREs, as well as from public data on awards support-
ing such efforts by NSF, the National Institutes of Health, private founda-
tions, and other funders. New costs will depend on the proposed program
design (see the list of practical questions above in this chapter) and on what
is already incorporated in the instructional budget.
The committee put together a set of questions to gather information
about how this challenge is being addressed on a variety of campuses. See

Appendix B for excerpts from some of the institutional responses. These

responses reveal considerable ingenuity as campuses move to exploit, repur-
pose, and conjoin current resources, even as they seek additional resources
to expand or strengthen UREs.
Variations in Resources by Institution Type

Resources vary across institutions, but there are some commonali-
ties that the committee observed within types of institutions. By their
nature and mission, research-intensive universities include a large number
of research-active faculty who potentially are available to design projects
and participate in mentoring undergraduate students. Liberal arts schools
and community colleges generally have a greater proportion of smaller
classes, including smaller introductory classes, such that the transition from
a “cook-book” lab course to a more research- or discovery-based lab course
may be more easily accomplished within the existing infrastructure.
Institutions with an explicit mission to promote undergraduate research
most often have resources already in place (e.g., budget, support personnel,
space, equipment) and provide recognition and rewards to departments
and faculty for achievement in this mission area. Some four-year colleges
pride themselves on having all students engaged in research with a faculty
member. For example, The College of New Jersey has reconfigured its entire
curriculum to focus on undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative
activity (Osborn and Karukstis, 2009). More information on this institu-
tion is available in Box 8-2. The culture of an institution with respect to
innovation in pedagogy and support for faculty development can influence
the extent to which UREs are readily introduced or improved. The physical
resources available, including laboratories, field stations, engineering design
studios and testing facilities, and the like can have an impact, as can the
ability to access resources in the surrounding community (including other
parts of a large university campus). In some cases UREs can be designed
to take advantage of equipment that can be repurposed from pre-existing
teaching laboratories. Faculty may be motivated by a desire to improve
instruction, enrich an existing lab experience, or satisfy requirements nec-
essary to receive funding (i.e., requirements aimed at furthering broader
objectives of their home institution or funding sources). The intellectual
traditions of the STEM field also have an impact. UREs appear to be more
common in the life sciences and in geoscience, computer science, chemistry,
and engineering than in physics and mathematics. UREs are increasingly
more common in the social sciences than they were in the past and are even
starting to appear in the humanities.
Some types of colleges and universities (community colleges, histori-
cally black colleges and universities, and others) generally expect faculty to

BOX 8-2
Campus Culture Change: The College of New Jersey
From 2004 to 2006, The College of New Jersey underwent a major overhaul
to institutionalize undergraduate research as central to the mission of the college.a
Following a CUR workshop in 1997, the college developed a series of strategic
initiatives aimed at promoting and supporting a scholarly culture grounded in
student engagement, undergraduate research, and the teacher-scholar model for
faculty. The purpose of the initiative was to move undergraduate research from the
periphery to the center of the college’s mission. A first step was to develop a com-
mon language for undergraduate research that cut across the entire institution,
so that the changes would not be limited to specific departments. As part of the
transformation, the curriculum was modified, new courses were added, and the to-
tal number of courses offered was reduced. The curriculum was analyzed on both
the macro level (e.g., all majors, first-year programs.) and micro level (i.e., every
course syllabus). Equally important, changes were made to faculty teaching loads
and the criteria used for tenure and promotion, to facilitate and reward scholarly
work with undergraduates. In addition, a faculty council to support undergraduate
research was created, along with the new position of Director of Faculty-Student
Scholarly Collaboration. This reform did not involve a significant amount of re-
sources but rather required a strategic allocation of existing resources. Outcomes
included increased student retention rates, increased overall graduation rates,
increased graduation rates of African American and Hispanic students participat-
ing in the URE program (compared to pre-program rates), strengthened faculty
recruitment and retention, increased faculty proposal submission and funding
rates, and increased support from donors.
We have striven to institutionalize undergraduate research in ways

that weave it into the fabric of TCNJ’s [the College of New Jersey’s] learn-
ing environments through a range of synergistic connections. This is lived
out fully in the School of Science, and benefits all of our students and
faculty. Here, we highlight how we re-conceptualized and re-framed how
we define the role and work of our students and faculty into an integrated
and holistic model. By moving undergraduate research from the periphery
to the center, our curricula and faculty workload structure were re-defined
to incorporate undergraduate research (and other high-impact practices).
This transformation of curriculum, faculty workload and rewards, and insti-
tutional identity was described in Inside Higher Ed as “a radical overhaul
of the curriculum, centered on undergraduate research and the teacher-
scholar model. . . . The faculty members say . . . they’re credited for how
much work they do, and what kind. That, in turn, encourages them to take
risks in their research and teaching in ways that help students.
(Flaherty, 2014)
aSee article on the Inside Higher Ed website at www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/10/16/
how-college-new-jersey-rethought-faculty-work-student-success-mind [February 2017].

devote most of their time to teaching. Course-based research is more likely

to be compatible with such expectations than one-on-one or one-on-few
(mentor-to-mentee ratio) apprentice-style experiences.
The institutional and departmental requirements to support course-
based research at community colleges will be similar to those noted through-
out this report for four-year colleges. Given the increasing pressure to
maintain already low tuition costs at the former, they will be under pressure
to continue with traditional classroom instruction, which is less labor- and
resource-intensive than research-based courses. In addition, it is harder for
faculty to find time to develop UREs at institutions where they are required
to teach many courses per semester. Faculty at community colleges gener-
ally have the heaviest teaching expectations, with little or no expectations
or incentives to maintain a research program; they often have limited access
to lab or design space and to a comprehensive collection of scientific or
engineering journals, as well as few resources to undertake any kind of a
research program. These conditions constrain the extent to which UREs can
be offered to the approximately 40 percent of U.S. undergraduates who are
enrolled in the nation’s community colleges (which generally have high per-
centages of underrepresented students) for students’ initial science training.3
Financial Costs and Benefits of UREs

The capital resources required for undergraduate research depend on
the discipline, type of program, and topic under investigation. Availability
of facilities and laboratories, access to field sites, and access to equipment
are important considerations. Other financial considerations include staff
available for coordination, lab supervision, and mentoring; funds for finan-
cial support of students and mentors; and faculty release time for research
project development. Local resources, such as community field sites and the
availability of business and industry representatives to mentor students, can
also be considered as “capital” to support a URE program.
Due to the wide range of potential financial costs and the lack of pub-
licly available information on these costs (Blockus, 2016; Dolan, 2016),
the committee is unable to provide even range estimates for the cost of
various URE formats. The costs for various components needed for URE
programs will vary depending on the specific conditions on a campus and
on campus policy on cost accounting. For example, faculty salaries paid for
supervision of summer research vary dramatically at different locations. At
some colleges, faculty are paid for teaching a summer course if they serve
as a research mentor for a minimum number of students, whereas at other
colleges such faculty are considered to be conducting summer research that
3 See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp [February 2017].

is paid, if at all, through a grant they have secured. In the first case, the
faculty salary is a URE program cost, whereas in the second case it is not.
At many research universities, it is assumed that research-active faculty will
absorb undergraduates into their lab year-round with no compensation,
while in some cases supply money follows the student. Individual programs
and institutions will need to consider their own circumstances, mission, and
traditions in determining what sort of support can be provided. Will the
potential value-added of providing UREs outweigh the costs in terms of
dollars and institutional satisfaction? Programs that keep students on track
to graduation have considerable value in maintaining institutional income
from tuition, as well as supporting the long-term goals of the students.
Although in many instances funds can be repurposed to support UREs,
particularly CUREs (see Box 8-3), institutions often will want to secure ad-
ditional resources to start up or expand UREs. Funding avenues that can
be explored include internal institutional resources and endowments, state-
based funding sources, industry grants and partnerships, federal grants,
and grants from private foundations. Many institutions have develop-
ment offices that can provide information and guidance to those seeking
funding, and some institutions have development officers who focus on
securing funds for the undergraduate research mandate of the institution.
Undergraduate research offices, present on many campuses, often post lists
of potential funding sources online so that even those at other institutions
can benefit from this information. Funding possibilities include federal
agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of
Education, the Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. There are also private sources of funding such as the
BOX 8-3
Leveraging Existing Resources
Malcolm Campbell at Davidson College, South Carolina, has switched the

lab in his sections of the introductory biology course (64 students) to a research
project using synthetic biology. Each student designs a gene promoter and pre-
dicts its function, then clones this promoter to test whether it works as predicted.
For this CURE, regular teaching labs (equipped for molecular biology) and the
regular teaching budget were adequate. No extra expenses or equipment were
required. The only cost was faculty time to develop the module and the backbone
plasmid that the students use. (The plasmid is now available through Carolina
Biological Supply as pClone Red/Blue). Coupling this synthetic biology research
module with other active learning strategies is reported to have had positive
impacts on student retention and subsequent success (Campbell et al., 2014).

Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the American Chemical Society. The
WebGuru Guide for Undergraduate Research4 offers suggestions of possible
funding sources, as well as providing information for undergraduates who
are considering research. Individual undergraduate research opportunities
with the federal government can now be searched in one location at the
new website, http://STEMundergrads.science.gov. Many research-intensive
universities provide summer research experiences for students from other
schools; a strong undergraduate research office can help students identify
and apply for such opportunities.
Opportunities for funding may come in various forms, and creative
strategies can be used to generate the resources needed for UREs. Some-
times funds focused on other goals or programs can be supplemented to
add support for undergraduate research. In other cases, multiple sources
of funding can be combined to begin or sustain a program, or pre-existing
resources can be repurposed or leveraged within and outside of the institu-
tion. For example, NSF’s Advanced Technological Education program ex-
plicitly encourages colleges to partner with nonacademic entities in efforts
to improve education in science and engineering.5 The program’s website
suggests the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation as a potential
partner; the network was set up with industry, academic, and federal part-
ners to increase U.S. manufacturing competitiveness by promoting a robust
and sustainable manufacturing research and development infrastructure.
One area in which opportunities for the low-overhead launch of new
UREs would be particularly welcome is multidisciplinary UREs. These can
be structured in multiple ways, one example is the VIP Program described
in Chapter 2. Multidisciplinary experiences offer a logical way to exploit
the most unique aspect of institutions of higher education, which is the
presence of experts in many disciplines under one administrative roof and
on one physically contiguous campus. A URE is generally much more flex-
ible than a lecture-based class and can attract people who are passionate
about some multidisciplinary topic. Enabling low-cost experiments in this
area could unleash much creative activity from both faculty and students.
Such complexities related to costs also need to be recognized by orga-
nizations that wish to support UREs. Flexible grants that allow institutions
to meet and overcome the often unique challenges for their students are
likely to produce the greatest benefits. However, careful evaluation of what
seems to work most effectively within and across institutions and among
different kinds of student populations should be an integral component of
any decisions about how to support such initiatives.
4 See http://www.webguru.neu.edu/undergraduate-research/research-funding/possible-funding-
sources [February 2017].

5 See http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5464 [February 2017].

Human Resources
Ultimately, the success of a URE is tied to the personnel taking on the
various roles required to design, implement, and sustain URE programs.
The human resources include faculty advisors, mentors (if not the same as
the faculty advisors), and others who provide support related to curricula,
logistics, equipment, and supplies. In addition to identifying people who
will play a crucial role in the operation of a URE, it is also important to
identify experts (on and off campus) who can share knowledge that can
support the design and evaluation of the program. These experts might
include individuals with expertise in evidence-based teaching practices,
curriculum development, learning sciences, and program evaluation, as
well as current program directors and scientists with extensive experience
supervising such programs. It may be appropriate to consider faculty from
other departments or schools and individuals in business and industry with
relevant expertise. Consulting or partnering with these experts can allow
URE designers to build more easily on the work of others and to learn from
the existing experience and evidence that have been gathered.
Those engaged in designing and running UREs can benefit from access
to current professional development opportunities. Advisors and mentors
participating in and supporting UREs can learn about pedagogy, facilitat-
ing group work, mentoring, and assessment, among other topics. As briefly
described in Chapter 5, the quality of mentoring can have an impact on
students’ persistence in STEM (Johnson, 2002; Johnson and Huwe, 2003;
Liang et al., 2002; Nagda et al., 1998; Pfund, 2016). In particular, a bad
mentor can lead to a negative experience, which may motivate mentees to
leave the program. Thus, professional development, especially for mentor-
ing, can improve student participation and help faculty learn evidence-
based practices that can lead to a more successful program.
Professional development is important for all of the key players in-
volved in the URE, not just for faculty. Institutions can provide opportuni-
ties for postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, lab technicians, and even
teaching assistants to develop their skills as mentors. These programs can
occur at campus centers of learning; through participation in disciplinary
society meetings, which now frequently hold workshops on these topics;
and at related national conferences such as those organized by the Council
on Undergraduate Research.
Space, Equipment, and Shared Resources

Implementing or expanding UREs will, by necessity, place competing
demands on existing space; on purchase and maintenance of costly instru-
mentation, supplies, library and computing facilities; and on the personnel

who must be associated with such enterprises. The problem may be exacer-
bated further in institutions where there is increasing pressure for individual
faculty to find external funding to support some or all of their salaries, as
well as the instrumentation and supplies that they need for their research
programs. Departmental or institutional policies about use or sharing of
space and research-grade instruments for both research and teaching are
important considerations when seeking to implement or expand various
kinds of UREs. As suggested above, revisiting the institution’s stated vision
and mission statements may help focus such discussions.
These discussions should include making plans to ensure that under-
graduates have access to relevant journals and online resources as well as
the necessary space and equipment. If research with students is not already
part of the campus culture, identifying and motivating faculty to undertake
such efforts can be challenging; doing so not only can involve large invest-
ments of time, but also necessitates re-examining current teaching practices.
However, lack of what are assumed to be required resources need not
preclude the development of innovative and sometimes unorthodox op-
portunities for UREs. Such opportunities may include facilities and support
from other parts of the campus and through local, state, and national enti-
ties, both public and private. Consortia can facilitate sharing of resources
across disciplines and departments within the same institution or among
different institutions, organizations, and agencies. Consortia that employ
research methodologies in common can share curricula and other teaching/
learning modules, research and technical data that students collect, and
common assessment tools. Some consortia are able to organize scholarly
venues for sharing research results as well (Blockus, 2016).6 Such shared
materials lessen time burdens for individual faculty and provide a larger
pool of students to judge efficacy of the particular approach (Lopatto,
2015; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015,
Appendix B).
Many schools have, or have access to, local field stations that can
become the focus of a new or expanded research program (National

Research Council, 2014). In other cases, students might use the campus
or surrounding community itself as the research environment, taking up
issues of conservation, efficient resource utilization, etc., which may be
priority concerns of these potential partners. For example, the California
State University (CSU) system has in place the “Campus as a Living Lab,”7
which engages undergraduate students in research by providing funds for
faculty to address basic and applied research questions that are essential
and unique to individual CSU campuses, such as the energy efficiency of
6 For another example, see the Phages DB website at http://phagesdb.org [December 2016].
7 See http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/sustainability/liv-lab-grant [February 2017].

a given building. Students need to travel only as far as the boundaries of

their home campuses to engage in this kind of research-based work. At CSU
schools, any cost savings that result from this research are directed back
to the program on each campus, to encourage additional research. Similar
innovative undergraduate research efforts are being developed through
partnerships with campus entities such as dining services and physical
plants, as illustrated by the work of Cathy Middlecamp at the University
of Wisconsin–Madison (Kober, 2015, p. 47).
Sharing of research-grade instrumentation, often available through
the U.S. national laboratories, can enable student investigations. Increas-
ing numbers of these instruments can be operated remotely by faculty and
students. In other cases, laboratories are willing to receive and process
samples provided through UREs and return the assays or other results to
student researchers (Kober, 2015). Sharing and support from local and
regional URE networks and/or consortia is a possibility. As characterized
in Chapter 2, there are URE programs that involve multiple institutions and
leverage the sharing of resources to improve UREs. Numerous examples
discussing some of these options are given by Elgin and colleagues (2016),
and other examples appear in Appendix B.
DECISIONS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION

There are many factors to consider when starting up a URE. Instruc-
tors and mentors need to consider information from the literature on
UREs and use what is known about how people learn. They will need to
assist undergraduates to integrate the experiences, activities, mentoring,
and assignments they encounter as they participate in UREs so that the
students can make connections to their broader experiences and education.
Four principles for design are listed in Figure 3-2: (1) make STEM research
accessible and relevant, (2) promote autonomy, (3) learn from each other,
and (4) make thinking visible. Attention to these principles can enhance
student learning.
In addition, the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) has out-
lined several best practices for UREs based on the apprenticeship model.
CUR suggests that undergraduate research should be a “normal” part of the
undergraduate experience regardless of the type of institution. It identifies
changes necessary to include UREs as part of the curriculum and as part of
the culture to support curricular reform, including modifications to the in-
centives and rewards for faculty to engage with undergraduate research. In
addition, CUR points to professional development opportunities specifically
aimed at improving the pedagogical and mentoring skills of instructional
staff in using evidence-based practices as important for a supportive learn-
ing culture (Council on Undergraduate Research, 2012).

Learning from Experience and Evidence:

How Do UREs Fit into What Is Known About Student Learning?
UREs require students to make connections and to use the research
literature to understand and contextualize their research findings. For stu-
dents to understand the concepts and context for the research they are
doing, they need to make sense of new knowledge by connecting it with
prior knowledge and experience. To succeed in STEM, students need to
learn how to organize their ideas, rather than holding a repertoire of frag-
mented, sometimes contradictory or disconnected ideas. Knowledge that is
organized and coherent is easier to remember because there are multiple
links between items that can aid in recall.
Encouraging students to both generate explanations and revise them
as they make sense of their research can promote knowledge integration.
These activities can set in motion a process of revisiting STEM-specific
issues when they arise in new contexts, such as news articles or public lec-
tures. UREs can foster the development of autonomous learners who sort
out their existing ideas and integrate them with new ideas to continue to
build coherent understanding. By practicing reflection regularly, students
can develop the ability to monitor their own progress and to recognize new
conflicts and connections as they arise. As this ability develops, students
become more likely to use many of the reasoning strategies essential in
STEM fields, such as drawing on evidence and forming arguments to reach
conclusions.
The process of reflecting and explaining their reasoning can be crucial
to student learning gains (Svinicki and McKeachie, 2011). Reflection is
common when STEM professionals keep notebooks in which they record
results and identify trends. Instructors and mentors can encourage students
to maintain notebooks in which they ask students to include reflections
about their struggles to conduct their project and the limitations of their
work. In CUREs, instructors can include essay questions to instill a prac-
tice of reflection, rather than relying on multiple-choice questions. This
approach has the advantage of being both part of the instruction and a
source of insights into student progress (Lee et al., 2011).
Groups or teams of students working together can establish a com-
munity of learners and provide cognitive and social support for each other.
Requiring students to be explicit about what they mean and to negotiate
any conflicts that arise can foster metacognition. When instructors make
their thinking explicit, it helps give students a sense of the process of
conjecture, refinement, redesign, and reconceptualization involved in the
research enterprise.
Engagement in UREs can enhance student learning over traditional
instruction and improve retention of content knowledge (Cortright et al.,

2003; Johnson et al., 1998, 2007). Additional information about how stu-
dents learn in UREs can be found in the Chapter 4 discussion of research
studies and the Chapter 3 presentation of the committee’s conceptual frame-
work for UREs, which is based on research on how students learn.
Assessing Student Outcomes and Evaluating UREs

Proper assessment requires choosing goals and then designing UREs
that target those goals through appropriate content and processes. Assess
ments should be designed so that they measure the extent to which a
program’s goals have been reached. A discussion of choosing goals and as-
sessments can be found in Shortlidge and Brownell (2016). If, for example,
the goal of a URE is increased matriculation into graduate programs, then
a key component of the program (in addition to experiencing research) may
be test preparation and coaching on graduate school applications. Measure-
ment would need to track students over time to learn of their experiences
with further education. Similarly, if a goal is to increase STEM knowledge
and literacy, a URE may include not only working alongside one or more
faculty mentors in a lab, but also additional assigned readings and periodic
workshops featuring presentations on concepts and research across STEM
disciplines. Measurement might include concept inventories and tests of
disciplinary content. Overall, alignment of a planned URE with the various
goals and available resources of the institution is a key strategy in offering
academic experiences that succeed.
Faculty need to consider up front what type of evaluation will be
completed, who will design the assessments, and how to ensure that the
measurements are appropriate and informative. Information on evalua-
tion and assessment of UREs can be found in numerous publications,
including the following reports: Knowing What Students Know (National
Research Council, 2001), Reaching Students (Kober, 2015), and Vision and
Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 2011).
Another important aspect to consider when designing a URE is whether
or not there is a specific intent to contribute to the extant literature on the
efficacy of programs of undergraduate research. Although some level of
evaluating the URE program is beneficial in all cases, to ensure that there is
alignment between the objectives of the experience and the measurable out-
comes, some programs are designed to address a specific research question
about UREs (e.g., “Does the use of teamwork/collaboration in apprentice-
style UREs lead to increases in the communication skills of students?”). In
these instances, special considerations must be made during the design of
the URE so that the type and quality of the evidence collected will be useful
for drawing conclusions. (For a description of evidence type, see Chapters

1 and 7.) For programs designed to evaluate a particular outcome, it is im-

portant to identify the pre and post assessments that will be administered
and to determine whether the measurements have been validated. In all
cases, the local Institutional Review Board must be consulted and appropri-
ate human subjects protections put in place before the assessment begins.
While it is clearly desirable for the design of new types of UREs to be
well grounded in education and social science research, asking or requiring
every new type of URE to be based upon or informed by education research
before it can begin operation or receive funding could stifle creativity.
Circumstances may be such that a short-term opportunity or collabora-
tion makes it possible for faculty to quickly develop and test a new type
of URE within a discipline, across two or more disciplines, or even across
multiple institutions. If the experiment shows promising results, then the
effort should be evaluated to understand how and why. After that, the ap-
proach can be tested for sustainability, transferability to other disciplines,
and scalability.
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT URES

This process of improvement can benefit from participation in col-
laborations and networks with others engaged in similar efforts. Sharing
human, financial, and scientific or technical resources can strengthen the
broad implementation of effective, high-quality, and more cost-efficient
UREs. Strategically designed networks of faculty, institutions, regionally
and nationally coordinated URE initiatives, professional societies, and
funders can facilitate the exchange of evidence and experience related to
UREs. These networks can help provide a venue for considering the policy
context and larger implications of increasing the number, size, and scope
of UREs. Such networks also could provide a more robust infrastructure to
improve the sustainability and expansion of URE opportunities.
It may especially behoove community colleges, as well as geographi-
cally isolated and underresourced institutions, to engage in partnerships
in order to expand opportunities for more undergraduates to participate in
diverse UREs (see, for example, discussions in National Academies of Sci-
ences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015, and in Elgin et al., 2016). Faculty
at community colleges and other institutions focused on teaching may be
able to share pedagogical innovations with colleagues involved in these
partnerships. Existing networks and consortia of faculty involved with
UREs can serve as resources for those new to URE design or implementa-
tion (Blockus, 2016); for examples, see the text boxes in Chapter 2.
There are several organizations that focus directly on undergraduate
research and cut across disciplines. CUR and the National Conference
on Undergraduate Research promote and advocate for all types of UREs,

across all disciplines in STEM and in the humanities.8,9 CUR has developed
an extensive description of Characteristics of Excellence for Undergraduate
Research and a related web supplement with specifics on using these charac-
teristics to assess undergraduate research. The Community College Under-
graduate Research Initiative provides resources to 38 institutional partners;
these resources include introductory workshops and start-up supplies, as
well as faculty development opportunities.
Multiple groups focus on increasing opportunities for historically
underrepresented students. The Annual Biomedical Research Conference
for Minority Students10 and the Society for Advancing Chicanos/Hispanics
and Native Americans in Science11 both sponsor opportunities and pro-
vide venues for underrepresented students to present the results of their
scientific research and to network with each other, the scientists who men-
tor them, and other scientists who attend these gatherings. The National
Action Council for Minorities in Engineering12 performs a comparable
role for underrepresented students in that discipline. The American Society
for Microbiology’s capstone program provides funding to undergraduates
from underrepresented minority groups to enhance their ability to present
their research.13
Societies of STEM research professionals traditionally have served as
a platform for leaders and members from their respective STEM fields
and subspecialties to present their research, discuss challenges, and scout
opportunities in their field. These organizations provide opportunities for
professional development and networking among members at regional and
national levels. Many disciplinary society meetings invite undergraduate
researchers to present their research during poster sessions or flash talks.
The opportunity for undergraduates to communicate their research to a
broader audience and engage with others aligns with many design charac-
teristics of UREs (see Chapter 3). In addition to providing their meetings
as platforms for undergraduate researchers to connect with peers, network
with leaders of the field, and learn about other types of research, some
disciplinary societies also are playing active roles to support the develop-
ment and/or refinement of undergraduate teaching materials within their
subject domains.
Although some societies have staff, standing committees, and policy
8 See http://www.cur.org [February 2017].

9 See http://www.cur.org/ncur_2015 [February 2017].
10 See http://www.abrcms.org [February 2017].
11 See http://sacnas.org/about [February 2017].
12 See http://www.nacme.org [February 2017].
13 See http://www.asm.org/index.php/component/content/article/25-education/students/142-
asm-undergraduate-research-capstone-program-ur-capstone-2016?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7
czo4OiJjYXBzdG9uZSI7fQ== [February 2017].

statements that focus on educational topics pertaining to preparing the next

generation of STEM professionals, relatively few focus directly on the role
of UREs in undergraduate education and how their society may influence
the discussions, implementation, and expansion of such programs. Profes-
sional societies can act to support undergraduate research in many ways. For
instance, many societies fund travel grants for undergraduates to attend pro-
fessional conferences. Some societies engage in undergraduate research on a
deeper level. The Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics
of the Mathematics Association of America, for example, prepares and
disseminates a curriculum guide that includes a chapter on Undergraduate
Research in Mathematics.14 The chapter provides guidance on building suc-
cessful programs, mentoring, and communicating results. This association is
also responsible for PICMath, a program to prepare mathematical sciences
students for industrial careers by engaging them in research problems that
come directly from industry.15
Other types of national groups have focused specifically on UREs. Some
of these are discipline-specific, such as On the Cutting Edge, a program
managed by the National Association of Geoscience Teachers that has held
workshops for faculty on how to engage undergraduates in geosciences
research. This association hosts a detailed website with many examples
of UREs, as well as resources for learning about pedagogy and practice
related to undergraduate research.16 The Partnership for Undergraduate
Life Science Education, which grew out of the report Vision and Change
in Undergraduate Biology: A Call to Action (American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 2011), consists of a network of biology faculty
who work to improve undergraduate biology. This group has prepared a
rubric to evaluate the progress of change, one section of which focuses on
activities beyond the classroom—mainly undergraduate students participa-
tion in research.17 Also in biology, CURENet is an organization whose
stated mission is “a network of people and programs that are creating
CUREs in biology as a means of helping students understand core concepts
in biology; develop core scientific competencies; and become active, con-
tributing members of the scientific community.”18
14 See http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CUPM/pdf/CUPMguide_print.pdf [Decem-
ber 2016].
15 See http://www.maa.org/pic-math [December 2016].
16 See http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/undergraduate_research/index.html [De-
cember 2016].
17 See http://api.ning.com/files/KFu*MfW7V8MYZfU7LNGdOnG4MNryzUgUpC2IxdtU
mucnB4QNCdLaOwWGoMoULSeKw8hF9jiFdh75tlzuv1nqtfCuM11hNPp3/PULSERubrics-
Packetv2_0_FINALVERSION.pdf [December 2016].
18 See the CURENet website at http://curenet.cns.utexas.edu [February 2017].

CAMPUS CULTURE AND SYSTEMIC CHANGE

As institutional leaders consider the role of undergraduate research on
their campus, they must consider how UREs fit into their institution’s exist-
ing mission and culture. Faculty engagement in developing UREs requires
significant time and effort and is not likely to be undertaken widely unless
departmental and institutional reward systems recognize and reward faculty
for the time required to initiate and implement UREs. Decisions to allocate
limited funds to move courses, departments, and at times entire programs
toward different outcomes may be required. For example, for some institu-
tions it might be a good fit to have CUREs become more widespread and
integral components of the departmental curricula. These types of changes
will interact in multiple ways with the recognition and incentive systems and
professional cultures to which individual faculty, departments, and inter
disciplinary programs are accustomed. Changes to the systems and insti
tutional culture might include policies for hiring, promotion, tenure, annual
performance reviews, and compensation, along with potential changes in the
institutional teaching/research balance. Changes in any or all of these areas
can offer new pathways and incentives toward making UREs an integral
component of a department’s or institution’s educational mission.
Regardless of institution type, focus of the research effort, and re-
sources available, by emphasizing a student-centered approach, depart-
ments or institutions can increase their likelihood of success in improving
existing UREs or in expanding the number and diversity of such learning
opportunities to the greatest number of students possible. Campuses that
cultivate environments that support continuous refinement of teaching
programs, based on evidence of student learning and other measures of
success, are more likely to be successful in cultivating and sustaining URE
programs (for an example, see Box 8-2, above, on The College of New
Jersey). Faculty and others who develop and implement such activities need
support to be able to embed meaningful assessments into the design of their
programs, to undertake the work involved with evaluating their courses
or other types of UREs, and to analyze evidence to make decisions about
URE design. Where they are available, centers for learning and teaching can
provide guidance to URE developers on topics such as pedagogy and as-
sessment. They can also be good venues for faculty to meet colleagues from
other schools, departments, and disciplines for sharing education-related
experiences and expertise.
To help projects for studying the mechanisms of UREs move forward
more smoothly, partnerships can be formed that combine URE devel-
opers from the natural sciences and engineering with those engaged in
disciplinary-based education research or with colleagues in the social sci-
ences or schools of education who have appropriate expertise in design-

ing experiments involving human subjects. Such partnerships should also

include representatives of the campus Institutional Review Board. In addi-
tion, intercampus connections such as those between community colleges
or other resource-limited institutions and research-intensive universities
can improve the prospects for faculty in the former types of institutions to
gain access to instrumentation and other resources, share student-generated
research data and common assessments, collaborate with colleagues who
are undertaking similar programs, and allow both faculty and students to
benefit from interactions across more diverse student populations.
An equally important component of such efforts is recognition by
departmental and institutional leaders that, as with any scientific research
agenda, not all efforts to develop UREs will succeed, at least initially.
Pedagogical efforts are more likely to succeed if they are encouraged and
supported by academic leaders. Such support is particularly relevant
and important for any untenured faculty member who chooses to take the
risks associated with URE innovation. This can be done by acknowledging
up front the potential for failure and establishing policies and procedures
to accommodate initial failures, while simultaneously instilling expectations
and pathways for continued improvements and success over time. Such
proactive, supportive efforts will likely catalyze many kinds of innovations
in the types of UREs that become available in a department or on a campus
because they convey the important message that innovation is encouraged
and risks will be managed. Similarly, policies must take into account the
challenges that arise when efforts are made to scale up a pilot program or
adapt a program begun at another institution.
Demonstrating that the leadership of an institution values UREs enough
to engage the faculty and other stakeholders in discussions about changing
reward systems to account positively for excellence in this realm also can
be highly motivating to those who are, or wish to become, involved with
such efforts. Allowing quality involvement with undergraduate research
to have a role in decisions about tenure, promotion, or continuation of
long-term employment contracts sends a powerful message. Restructuring
reward systems in this fashion also may benefit the campus more broadly
by broadcasting to the larger campus community (including prospective
students who may be attracted to enroll and currently matriculated students
who may remain because of such policies) about including such practices
as an integral component of the institution’s mission.
SUMMARY
This chapter provides many ideas that can be used by those designing
or running UREs today. The information presented here is not grounded in
the research literature as are other sections of the report; instead it builds

on the knowledge and expertise of the committee and those they have heard
about via their information gathering for this study and through their pro-
fessional networks. The great variation in the types of UREs that can be
offered and the groups of students who can participate mean that there are
multiple factors to consider in choosing and designing a program. Goals
and resources must be carefully considered when choosing the type(s) of
URE to use on a given campus and when making decisions about how to
implement, assess, and improve UREs. The culture of the campus and the
incentives operating on faculty are key considerations, as are the interests
and goals of the students. Every campus has a variety of resources that can
be reconfigured and repurposed to support UREs, starting with current
teaching laboratory facilities and budgets. Creative uses of the local site as
the laboratory, exploiting online resources, and working with consortia can
open up additional possibilities.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and Change in Under-
graduate Biology Education: A Call to Action (C. Brewer and D. Smith, Eds.). Washing-
Bangera, G., and Brownell, S.E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences
can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13, 602-606.
Campbell, A.M., Eckdahl, T., Cronk, B., Andresen, C., Frederick, P., Huckuntod, S.,
Shinneman, C., Wacker, A., and Yuan, J. (2014). Synthetic biology tool makes promoter
research accessible to beginning biology students. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13,
2285-2296.
tion of course content in improved by collaborative-group testing. Advances in Physiol-
Council on Undergraduate Research. (2012). Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate
Research. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research
Available: http://nas.edu/STEM_Undergraduate_Research_CURE.
Elgin, S.C.R., Bangera, G., Decatur, S.M., Dolan, E.L., Guertin, L., Newstetter, W.C., San
Juan, E.F., Smith, M.A., Weaver, G.C., Wessler, S.R., Brenner, K.A., and Labov, J.B.
(2016). Insights from a convocation: Integrating discovery-based research into the under
graduate curriculum. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15, 1-7.

Flaherty, C. (2014). Faculty work, student success: How The College of New Jersey r eimagined
what professors can do. Available: www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/10/16/how-
college-new-jersey-rethought-faculty-work-student-success-mind [February 2017].
Hatfull, G. (2015). Innovations in undergraduate science education: Going viral. Journal of
Virology, 89(16), 8,111-8,113.
Johnson, W. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of
mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 89-96.
Johnson, W.B., and Huwe, J.M. (2003). Getting Mentored in Graduate School. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Kober, N. (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says about Effective Instruction in
Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Board on Science Education, Division of Behav-
ioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Lee, Jr., J.M., Contreras, F., McGuire, K.M., Flores-Ragade, A., Rawls, A., Edwards, K., and
Menson, R. (2011). The College Completion Agenda: 2011 Progress Report. New York:
College Board Advocacy and Policy Center.
Liang, B., Tracy, A.J., Taylor, C.A., and Williams, L.M. (2002). Mentoring college-age women:
A relational approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 271-288.
Lopatto, D. (2015). The Consortium as Experiment. Paper commissioned for the Committee
for Convocation on Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate Cur-
riculum. Division on Earth and Life Studies. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J., and Handelsman, J. (2012).
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16,474-16,479.
Nagda, B.A, Gregerman, S.R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., and Lerner, J.S. (1998). Under
Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum: Report of a Convocation. Washing-
ton, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design
of Educational Assessment. J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser (Eds.). Com-
mittee on the Foundations of Assessment, Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:
National Research Council. (2014). Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of
Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond. Committee on Key Challenge
Areas for Convergence and Health, Board on Life Sciences, Division on Earth and Life
Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborn, J.M., and K.K. Karukstis. 2009. The benefits of undergraduate research, scholarship,
and creative activity. Pages 41-53 in M. Boyd and J. Wesemann (Eds.), Broadening Par-
ticipation in Undergraduate Research: Fostering Excellence and Enhancing the Impact.
Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Pfund, C. (2016). Studying the Role and Impact of Mentoring on Undergraduate Research
Experiences. Paper commissioned for the Committee on Strengthening Research Experi
ences for Undergraduate STEM Students. Board on Science Education, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Life Sciences, Division of Earth
and Life Studies. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Available:
http://nas.edu/STEM_Undergraduate_Research_Mentoring.
President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to Excel: Produc-
ing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in STEM. Washington, DC:
Executive Office of the President. Available: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541511.
Shortlidge, E., and Brownell, S. (2016). How to assess your CURE: A practical guide for in-
structors of course-based undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Microbiology
and Biology Education, 17(3), 399-408.
Svinicki, M., and McKeachie, W.J. (2011). McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research,
and Theory for College and University Teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Practitioners designing or improving undergraduate research experi-

ences (UREs) can build on the experiences of colleagues and learn from
the increasingly robust literature about UREs and the considerable body of
evidence about how students learn. The questions practitioners ask them-
selves during the design process should include questions about the goals of
the campus, program, faculty, and students. Other factors to consider when
designing a URE include the issues raised in the conceptual framework for
learning and instruction, the available resources, how the program or ex-
perience will be evaluated or studied, and how to design the program from
the outset to incorporate these considerations, as well as how to build in
opportunities to improve the experience over time in light of new evidence.
(Some of these topics are addressed in Chapter 8.)
Colleges and universities that offer or wish to offer UREs to their
students should undertake baseline evaluations of their current offerings
and create plans to develop a culture of improvement in which faculty are
supported in their efforts to continuously refine UREs based on the evi-
dence currently available and evidence that they and others generate in the
future. While much of the evidence to date is descriptive, it forms a body of
knowledge that can be used to identify research questions about UREs, both
those designed around the apprenticeship model and those designed using
the more recent course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE)
model. Internships and other avenues by which undergraduates do research
provide many of the same sorts of experiences but are not well studied. In
any case, it is clear that students value these experiences; that many faculty
do as well; and that they contribute to broadening participation in science,
211

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and careers.

The findings from the research literature reported in Chapter 4 provide
guidance to those designing both opportunities to improve practical and
academic skills and opportunities for students to “try out” a professional
role of interest.
Little research has been done that provides answers to mechanis-
tic questions about how UREs work. Additional studies are needed to
know which features of UREs are most important for positive outcomes
with which students and to gain information about other questions of this
type. This additional research is needed to better understand and compare
different strategies for UREs designed for a diversity of students, mentors,
and institutions. Therefore, the committee recommends steps that could
increase the quantity and quality of evidence available in the future and
makes recommendations for how faculty, departments, and institutions
might approach decisions about UREs using currently available informa-
tion. Multiple detailed recommendations about the kinds of research that
might be useful are provided in the research agenda in Chapter 7.
In addition to the specific research recommended in Chapter 7, in this
chapter the committee provides a series of interrelated conclusions and
recommendations related to UREs for the STEM disciplines and intended
to highlight the issues of primary importance to administrators, URE pro-
gram designers, mentors to URE students, funders of UREs, those leading
the departments and institutions offering UREs, and those conducting
research about UREs. These conclusions and recommendations are based
on the expert views of the committee and informed by their review of the
available research, the papers commissioned for this report, and input from
presenters during committee meetings. Table 9-1 defines categories of these
URE “actors,” gives examples of specific roles included in each category,
specifies key URE actions for which that category is responsible, and lists
the conclusions and recommendations the committee views as most relevant
to that actor category.
RESEARCH ON URES
Conclusion 1: The current and emerging landscape of what constitutes
UREs is diverse and complex. Students can engage in STEM-based under-
graduate research in many different ways, across a variety of settings, and
along a continuum that extends and expands upon learning opportunities in
other educational settings. The following characteristics define UREs. Due
to the variation in the types of UREs, not all experiences include all of the
following characteristics in the same way; experiences vary in how much a
particular characteristic is emphasized.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 213
TABLE 9-1 Audiences for Committee’s Conclusions and Recommendations

Most Relevant
Actor Specific People in Conclusions/
Category Category Key URE Actions Recommendations
Education Those conducting • Conduct well-designed Conclusions 2, 3,
researchers discipline-based studies on the effects of 4, 5, 6, and 7
education research; UREs. Recommendations
researchers in • Collaborate with URE 1 and 3
education, sociology, designers on using evidence
psychology; and from the literature to
others improve URE design.
URE STEM faculty and • Use appropriate methods Conclusions 1, 4,

designers and instructors; faculty to measure URE outcomes. and 5
implementers in education • Base URE design on sound Recommendations
evidence. 1 and 3
• Collaborate with education
researchers on evaluation
and design improvement.
Mentors of STEM faculty, • Mentor students. Conclusion 8

students in postdocs, graduate • Take advantage of Recommendation
UREs students, and professional development 6
experienced opportunities.
undergraduates
Funders of Government • Beyond resources to offer Conclusions 2, 3,

UREs agencies, private UREs, provide resources and 5
foundations, and for well-designed studies Recommendation
colleges/universities on UREs. 2
Professional Disciplinary • Provide resources and Conclusions 7

and societies, connections to URE and 8
educational associations of designers/implementers. Recommendations
societies colleges and • Provide professional 3, 6, and 8
universities, development; facilitate
associations related sharing of resources.
to STEM education
Academic Presidents, provosts, • Collect data to inform Conclusions 6, 7,

leadership deans, and URE planning and improve and 9
department chairs quality and access. Recommendations
• Evaluate range of UREs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8
offered (leverage resources
and assess access).
• Provide professional
development opportunities
to URE mentors.
• Create policies to refine
UREs based on evidence.

•
They engage students in research practices including the ability to
•
They aim to generate novel information with an emphasis on dis-
•
They focus on significant, relevant problems of interest to STEM
researchers and, in some cases, a broader community (e.g., civic
engagement).
•
They emphasize and expect collaboration and teamwork.
•
They involve iterative refinement of experimental design, experi-
•
They allow students to master specific research techniques.
•
They help students engage in reflection about the problems be-
ing investigated and the work being undertaken to address those
problems.
•
They require communication of results, either through publication
•
They are structured and guided by a mentor, with students assum-
UREs are generally designed to add value to STEM offerings by pro-

moting an understanding of the ways that knowledge is generated in STEM
fields and to extend student learning beyond what happens in the small
group work of an inquiry-based course. UREs add value by enabling stu-
dents to understand and contribute to the research questions that are
driving the field for one or more STEM topics or to grapple with design
challenges of interest to professionals. They help students understand what
it means to be a STEM researcher in a way that would be difficult to
convey in a lecture course or even in an inquiry-based learning setting.
As participants in a URE, students can learn by engaging in planning,
experimentation, evaluation, interpretation, and communication of data
and other results in light of what is already known about the question of
interest. They can pose relevant questions that can be solved only through
investigative or design efforts—individually or in teams—and attempt to
answer these questions despite the challenges, setbacks, and ambiguity of
the process and the results obtained.
The diversity of UREs reflects the reality that different STEM disci-
plines operate from varying traditions, expectations, and constraints (e.g.,
lab safety issues) in providing opportunities for undergraduates to engage
in research. In addition, individual institutions and departments have cul-
tures that promote research participation to various degrees and at different
stages in students’ academic careers. Some programs emphasize design and
problem solving in addition to discovery. UREs in different disciplines can

take many forms (e.g., apprentice-style, course-based, internships, proj-

ect-based), but the definitional characteristics described above are similar
across different STEM fields.
Furthermore, students in today’s university landscape may have oppor
tunities to engage with many different types of UREs throughout their
education, including involvement in a formal program (which could include
mentoring, tutoring, research, and seminars about research), an apprentice-
style URE under the guidance of an individual or team of faculty members,
an internship, or enrolling in one or more CUREs or in a consortium- or
project-based program.
Conclusion 2: Research on the efficacy of UREs is still in the early stages of

development compared with other interventions to improve undergraduate
STEM education.
• The types of UREs are diverse, and their goals are even more
diverse. Questions and methodologies used to investigate the roles
and effectiveness of UREs in achieving those goals are similarly
diverse.
• Most of the studies of UREs to date are descriptive case studies
or use correlational designs. Many of these studies report positive
outcomes from engagement in a URE.
• Only a small number of studies have employed research designs
that can support inferences about causation. Most of these studies
find evidence for a causal relationship between URE participation
and subsequent persistence in STEM. More studies are needed to
provide evidence that participation in UREs is a causal factor in a
range of desired student outcomes.
Taking the entire body of evidence into account, the committee concludes
that the published peer-reviewed literature to date suggests that participa-
tion in a URE is beneficial for students.
As discussed in the report’s Introduction (see Chapter 1) and in the

research agenda (see Chapter 7), the committee considered descriptive,
causal, and mechanistic questions in our reading of the literature on UREs.
Scientific approaches to answering descriptive, causal, and mechanistic
questions require deciding what to look for, determining how to examine
it, and knowing appropriate ways to score or quantify the effect.
Descriptive questions ask what is happening without making claims as
to why it is happening—that is, without making claims as to whether the
research experience caused these changes. A descriptive statement about
UREs only claims that certain changes occurred during or after the time
the students were engaged in undergraduate research. Descriptive studies

cannot determine whether any benefits observed were caused by participa-

tion in the URE.
Causal questions seek to discover whether a specific intervention leads
to a specific outcome, other things being equal. To address such ques-
tions, causal evidence can be generated from a comparison of carefully
selected groups that do and do not experience UREs. The groups can be
made roughly equivalent by random assignment (ensuring that URE and
non-URE groups are the same on average as the sample size increases)
or by controlling for an exhaustive set of characteristics and experiences
that might render the groups different prior to the URE. Other quasi-
experimental strategies can also be used. Simply comparing students who
enroll in a URE with students who do not is not adequate for determining
causality because there may be selection bias. For example, students already
interested in STEM are more likely to seek out such opportunities and more
likely to be selected for such programs. Instead the investigator would have
to compare future enrollment patterns (or other measures) between closely
matched students, some of whom enrolled in a URE and some of whom did
not. Controlling for selection bias to enable an inference about causation
can pose significant challenges.
Questions of mechanism or of process also can be explored to under-
stand why a causal intervention leads to the observed effect. Perhaps the
URE enhances a student’s confidence in her ability to succeed in her chosen
field or deepens her commitment to the field by exposing her to the joy of
discovery. Through these pathways that act on the participant’s purposive
behavior, the URE enhances the likelihood that she persists in STEM. The
question for the researcher then becomes what research design would pro-
vide support for this hypothesis of mechanism over other candidate expla-
nations for why the URE is a causal factor in STEM persistence.
The committee has examined the literature and finds a rich descriptive
foundation for testable hypotheses about the effects of UREs on student
outcomes. These studies are encouraging; a few of them have generated evi-
dence that a URE can be a positive causal factor in the progression and per-
sistence of STEM students. The weight of the evidence has been descriptive;
it relies primarily on self-reports of short-term gains by students who chose
to participate in UREs and does not include direct measures of changes in
the students’ knowledge, skills, or other measures of success across compa-
rable groups of students who did and did not participate in UREs.
While acknowledging the scarcity of strong causal evidence on the
benefits of UREs, the committee takes seriously the weight of the descrip-
tive evidence. Many of the published studies of UREs show that students
who participate report a range of benefits, such as increased understanding
of the research process, encouragement to persist in STEM, and support
that helps them sustain their identity as researchers and continue with their

plans to enroll in a graduate program in STEM (see Chapter 4). These are
effective starting points for causal studies.
Conclusion 3: Studies focused on students from historically underrepre-

sented groups indicate that participation in UREs improves their persis-
tence in STEM and helps to validate their disciplinary identity.
Various UREs have been specifically designed to increase the number

of historically underrepresented students who go on to become STEM
majors and ultimately STEM professionals. While many UREs offer one
or more supplemental opportunities to support students’ academic or
social success, such as mentoring, tutoring, summer bridge programs,
career or graduate school workshops, and research-oriented seminars,
those d esigned for underrepresented students appear to emphasize such
features as integral and integrated components of the program. In particu-
lar, s tudies of undergraduate research programs targeting underrepresented
minority students have begun to document positive outcomes such as
degree completion and persistence in interest in STEM careers (Byars-
Winston et al., 2015; C hemers et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2010; Nagda et
al., 1998; Schultz et al., 2011). Most of these studies collected data on
apprentice-style UREs, in which the undergraduate becomes a functioning
member of a research group along with the graduate students, postdoctoral
fellows, and mentor.
Recommendation 1: Researchers with expertise in education research

should conduct well-designed studies in collaboration with URE program
directors to improve the evidence base about the processes and effects of
UREs. This research should address how the various components of UREs
may benefit students. It should also include additional causal evidence for
the individual and additive effects of outcomes from student participation
in different types of UREs. Not all UREs need be designed to undertake
this type of research, but it would be very useful to have some UREs that
are designed to facilitate these efforts to improve the evidence base.
As the focus on UREs has grown, so have questions about their imple-
mentation. Many articles have been published describing specific UREs
(see Chapter 2). Large amounts of research have also been undertaken
to explore more generally how students learn, and the resulting body of
evidence has led to the development and adoption of “active learning”
strategies and experiences. If a student in a URE has an opportunity to, for
example, analyze new data or to reformulate a hypothesis in light of the stu-
dent’s analysis, this activity fits into the category that is described as active
learning. Surveys of student participants and unpublished evaluations pro-

vide additional information about UREs but do not establish causation or

determine the mechanism(s). Consequently, little is currently known about
the mechanisms of precisely how UREs work and which aspects of UREs
are most powerful. Important components that have been reported include
student ownership of the URE project, time to tackle a question iteratively,
and opportunities to report and defend one’s conclusions (Hanauer and
Dolan, 2014; Thiry et al., 2011).
There are many unanswered questions and opportunities for further
research into the role and mechanism of UREs. Attention to research d esign
as UREs are planned is important; more carefully designed studies are
needed to understand the ways that UREs influence a student’s education
and to evaluate the outcomes that have been reported for URE participants.
Appropriate studies, which include matched samples or similar controls,
would facilitate research on the ways that UREs benefit students, enabling
both education researchers and implementers of UREs to determine opti-
mal features for program design and giving the community a more robust
understanding of how UREs work.
See the research agenda (Chapter 7) for specific recommendations
about research topics and approaches.
Recommendation 2: Funders should provide appropriate resources to sup-

port the design, implementation, and analysis of some URE programs that
are specifically designed to enable detailed research establishing the effects
on participant outcomes and on other variables of interest such as the con-
sequences for mentors or institutions.
Not all UREs need to be the subject of extensive study. In many cases,
a straightforward evaluation is adequate to determine whether the URE is
meeting its goals. However, to achieve more widespread improvement in
both the types and quality of the UREs offered in the future, additional evi-
dence about the possible causal effects and mechanisms of action of UREs
needs to be systematically collected and disseminated. This includes a better
understanding of the implementation differences for a variety of institutions
(e.g., community colleges, primarily undergraduate institutions, research
universities) to ensure that the desired outcomes can translate across set-
tings. Increasing the evidence about precisely how UREs work and which
aspects of UREs are most powerful will require careful attention to study
design during planning for the UREs.
Not all UREs need to be designed to achieve this goal; many can provide
opportunities to students by relying on pre-existing knowledge and iterative
improvement as that knowledge base grows. However, for the knowledge
base to grow, funders must provide resources for some URE designers and
social science researchers to undertake thoughtful and well-planned studies

on causal and mechanistic issues. This will maximize the chances for the cre-
ation and dissemination of information that can lead to the development of
sustainable and effective UREs. These studies can result from a partnership
formed as the URE is designed and funded, or evaluators and social scientists
could identify promising and/or effective existing programs and then raise
funds on their own to support the study of those programs to answer the
questions of interest. In deciding upon the UREs that are chosen for these
extensive studies, it will be important to consider whether, collectively, they
are representative of UREs in general. For example, large and small UREs at
large and small schools targeted at both introductory and advanced students
and topics should be studied.
CONSTRUCTION OF URES
Conclusion 4: The committee was unable to find evidence that URE
designers are taking full advantage of the information available in the edu-
cation literature on strategies for designing, implementing, and evaluating
learning experiences. STEM faculty members do not generally receive train-
ing in interpreting or conducting education research. Partnerships between
those with expertise in education research and those with expertise in
implementing UREs are one way to strengthen the application of evidence
on what works in planning and implementing UREs.
As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, there is an extensive body of litera-

ture on pedagogy and how people learn; helping STEM faculty to access
the existing literature and incorporate those concepts as they design UREs
could improve student experiences. New studies that specifically focus on
UREs may provide more targeted information that could be used to design,
implement, sustain, or scale up UREs and facilitate iterative improvements.
Information about the features of UREs that elicit particular outcomes or
best serve certain populations of students should be considered when imple-
menting a new instantiation of an existing model of a URE or improving
upon an existing URE model.
Conclusion 5: Evaluations of UREs are often conducted to inform program

providers and funders; however, they may not be accessible to others. While
these evaluations are not designed to be research studies and often have
small sample sizes, they may contain information that could be useful to
those initiating new URE programs and those refining UREs. Increasing
access to these evaluations and to the accumulated experience of the pro-
gram providers may enable URE designers and implementers to build upon
knowledge gained from earlier UREs.

As discussed in Chapter 1, the committee searched for evaluations of

URE programs in several different ways but was not able to locate many
published evaluations to study. Although some evaluations were found in
the literature, the committee could not determine a way to systematically
examine the program evaluations that have been prepared. The National
Science Foundation and other funders generally require grant recipients to
submit evaluation data, but that information is not currently aggregated and
shared publicly, even for programs that are using a common evaluation tool.1
Therefore, while program evaluation likely serves a useful role in pro-
viding descriptive data about a program for the institutions and funders
supporting the program, much of the summative evaluation work that has
been done to date adds relatively little to the broader knowledge base and
overall conversations around undergraduate research. Some of the chal-
lenges of evaluation include budget and sample size constraints.
Similarly, it is difficult for designers of UREs to benefit systematically
from the work of others who have designed and run UREs in the past
because of the lack of an easy and consistent mechanism for collecting,
analyzing, and sharing data. If these evaluations were more accessible they
might be beneficial to others designing and evaluating UREs by helping
them to gather ideas and inspiration from the experiences of others. A few
such stories are provided in this report, and others can be found among the
many resources offered by the Council on Undergraduate Research2 and on
other websites such as CUREnet.3
Recommendation 3: Designers of UREs should base their design deci-

sions on sound evidence. Consultations with education and social science
researchers may be helpful as designers analyze the literature and make
decisions on the creation or improvement of UREs. Professional develop-
ment materials should be created and made available to faculty. Educa-
tional and disciplinary societies should consider how they can provide
resources and connections to those working on UREs.
Faculty and other organizers of UREs can use the expanding body
of scholarship as they design or improve the programs and experiences
offered to their students. URE designers will need to make decisions about
how to adapt approaches reported in the literature to make the programs
they develop more suitable to their own expertise, student population(s),
and available resources. Disciplinary societies and other national groups,
such as those focused on improving pedagogy, can play important roles in
1 Personal knowledge of Janet Branchaw, member of the Committee on Strengthening
Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students.

2 See www.cur.org [November 2016].
3 See (curenet.cns.utexas.edu) [November 2016].

bringing these issues to the forefront through events at their national and
regional meetings and through publications in their journals and newslet-
ters. They can develop repositories for various kinds of resources appro-
priate for their members who are designing and implementing UREs. The
ability to travel to conferences and to access and discuss resources created
by other individuals and groups is a crucial aspect of support (see Recom-
mendations 7 and 8 for further discussion).
See Chapter 8 for specific questions to consider when one is designing
or implementing UREs.
CURRENT OFFERINGS
Conclusion 6: Data at the institutional, state, or national levels on the
number and type of UREs offered, or who participates in UREs overall
or at specific types of institutions, have not been collected systematically.
Although the committee found that some individual institutions track at
least some of this type of information, we were unable to determine how
common it is to do so or what specific information is most often gathered.
There is no one central database or repository that catalogs UREs at

institutions of higher education, the nature of the research experiences they
provide, or the relevant demographics (student, departmental, and insti-
tutional). The lack of comprehensive data makes it difficult to know how
many students participate in UREs; where UREs are offered; and if there
are gaps in access to UREs across different institutional types, disciplines, or
groups of students. One of the challenges of describing the undergraduate
research landscape is that students do not have to be enrolled in a formal
program to have a research experience. Informal experiences, for example
a work-study job, are typically not well documented. Another challenge
is that some students participate in CUREs or other research experiences
(such as internships) that are not necessarily labeled as such. Institutional
administrators may be unaware of CUREs that are already part of their cur-
riculum. (For example, establishment of CUREs may be under the purview
of a faculty curriculum committee and may not be recognized as a distinct
program.) Student participation in UREs may occur at their home institu-
tion or elsewhere during the summer. Therefore, it is very difficult for a
science department, and likely any other STEM department, to know what
percentage of their graduating majors have had a research experience, let
alone to gather such information on students who left the major.4
4 This point was made by Marco Molinaro, University of California, Davis, in a presentation
to the Committee on Strengthening Research Experience for Undergraduate STEM Students,

September 16, 2015.

Conclusion 7: While data are lacking on the precise number of students

engaged in UREs, there is some evidence of a recent growth in course-based
undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), which engage a cohort of
students in a research project as part of a formal academic experience.
There has been an increase in the number of grants and the dollar
amount spent on CUREs over the past decade (see Chapter 3). CUREs can
be particularly useful in scaling UREs to reach a much larger population of
students (Bangera and Brownell, 2014). By using a familiar mechanism—
enrollment in a course—a CURE can provide a more comfortable route
for students unfamiliar with research to gain their first experience. CUREs
also can provide such experiences to students with diverse backgrounds,
especially if an institution or department mandates participation sometime
during a student’s matriculation. Establishing CUREs may be more cost-
effective at schools with little on-site research activity. However, designing
a CURE is a new and time-consuming challenge for many faculty members.
Connecting to nationally organized research networks can provide faculty
with helpful resources for the development of a CURE based around their
own research or a local community need, or these networks can link inter-
ested faculty to an ongoing collaborative project. Collaborative projects can
provide shared curriculum, faculty professional development and commu-
nity, and other advantages when starting or expanding a URE program. See
the discussion in the report from a convocation on Integrating Discovery-
based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum (National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015).
Recommendation 4: Institutions should collect data on student participa-

tion in UREs to inform their planning and to look for opportunities to
improve quality and access.
Better tracking of student participation could lead to better assessment

of outcomes and improved quality of experience. Such metrics could be
useful for both prospective students and campus planners. An integrated
institutional system for research opportunities could facilitate the creation
of tiered research experiences that allow students to progress in skills and
responsibility and create support structures for students, providing, for
example, seminars in communications, safety, and ethics for undergraduate
researchers. Institutions could also use these data to measure the impact of
UREs on student outcomes, such as student success rates in introductory
courses, retention in STEM degree programs, and completion of STEM
degrees.
While individual institutions may choose to collect additional informa-
tion depending on their goals and resources, relevant student demographics

and the following design elements would provide baseline data. At a mini-
mum, such data should include
• Type of URE;
• Each student’s discipline;
• Duration of the experience;
• Hours spent per week;
• When the student began the URE (e.g., first year, capstone);
• Compensation status (e.g., paid, unpaid, credit); and
• Location and format (e.g., on home campus, on another campus,
internship, co-op).
National aggregation of some of the student participation variables

collected by various campuses might be considered by funders. The existing
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System database, organized by
the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, may be a suitable repository for certain aspects of this information.

universities should continually and holistically evaluate the range of UREs
that they offer. As part of this process, institutions should:
• Consider how best to leverage available resources (including off-
campus experiences available to students and current or potential
networks or partnerships that the institution may form) when
offering UREs so that they align with their institution’s mission
and priorities;
• Consider whether current UREs are both accessible and welcom-
ing to students from various subpopulations across campus (e.g.,
historically underrepresented students, first generation college
students, those with disabilities, non-STEM majors, prospective
kindergarten-through-12th-grade teachers); and
• Gather and analyze data on the types of UREs offered and the stu-
dents who participate, making this information widely available to
the campus community and using it to make evidence-based deci-
sions about improving opportunities for URE participation. This
may entail devising or implementing systems for tracking relevant
data (see Conclusion 4).
Resources available for starting, maintaining, and expanding UREs

vary from campus to campus. At some campuses, UREs are a central focus
and many resources are devoted to them. At other institutions—for exam-
ple, many community colleges—UREs are seen as extra, and new resources
may be required to ensure availability of courses and facilities. Resource-

constrained institutions may need to focus more on ensuring that students

are aware of potential UREs that already exist on campus and elsewhere in
near proximity to campus. All institutional discussions about UREs must
consider both the financial resources and physical resources (e.g., laborato-
ries, field stations, engineering design studios) required, while remembering
that faculty time is a crucial resource. The incentives and disincentives for
faculty to spend time on UREs are significant. Those institutions with an
explicit mission to promote undergraduate research may provide more rec-
ognition and rewards to departments and faculty than those with another
focus. The culture of the institution with respect to innovation in pedagogy
and support for faculty development also can have a major influence on the
extent to which UREs are introduced or improved.
Access to UREs may vary across campus and by department, and
participation in UREs may vary across student groups. It is important for
campuses to consider the factors that may facilitate or discourage students
from participation in UREs. Inconsistent procedures or a faculty preference
for students with high grades or previous research experience may limit
options for some student populations.
UREs often grow based on the initiative of individual faculty members
and other personnel, and an institution may not have complete or even
rudimentary knowledge of all of the opportunities available or whether
there are gaps or inconsistencies in its offerings. A uniform method for
tracking the UREs available on a given campus would be useful to students
and would provide a starting point for analyzing the options. Tracking
might consist of notations in course listings and, where feasible, on stu-
dent transcripts. Analysis might consider the types of UREs offered, the
resources available to each type of URE, and variations within or between
various disciplines and programs. Attention to whether all students or
groups of students have appropriate access to UREs would foster consid-
eration of how to best allocate resources and programming on individual
campuses, in order to focus resources and opportunities where they are
most needed.
MENTORING
Conclusion 8: The quality of mentoring can make a substantial difference
in a student’s experiences with research. However, professional develop-
ment in how to be a good mentor is not available to many faculty or other
prospective mentors (e.g., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows).
Engagement in quality mentored research experiences has been linked

to self-reported gains in research skills and productivity as well as reten-
tion in STEM (see Chapter 5). Quality mentoring in UREs has been shown

to increase persistence in STEM for historically underrepresented students

(Hernandez et al., 2016). In addition, poor mentoring during UREs has
been shown to decrease retention of students (Hernandez et al., 2016).
More general research on good mentoring in the STEM environment
has been positively associated with self-reported gains in identity as a
STEM researcher, a sense of belonging, and confidence to function as
a STEM researcher (Byars-Winston et al., 2015; Chemers et al., 2011;
Pfund et al., 2016; Thiry et al., 2011). The frequency and quality of
mentee-mentor interactions has been associated with students’ reports
of persistence in STEM, with mentoring directly or indirectly improving
both grades and persistence in college. For students from historically
underrepresented ethnic/racial groups, quality mentoring has been asso-
ciated with self-reported enhanced recruitment into graduate school and
research-related career pathways (Byars-Winston et al., 2015). Therefore,
it is important to ensure that faculty and mentors receive the proper de-
velopment of mentoring skills.
Recommendation 6: Administrators and faculty at colleges and universities

should ensure that all who mentor undergraduates in research experiences
(this includes faculty, instructors, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students,
and undergraduates serving as peer mentors) have access to appropriate
professional development opportunities to help them grow and succeed in
this role.
Although many organizations recognize effective mentors (e.g., the

National Science Foundation’s Presidential Awards for Excellence in Sci-
ence, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring), there currently are no
standard criteria for selecting, evaluating, or recognizing mentors specifi-
cally for UREs. In addition, there are no requirements that mentors meet
some minimum level of competency before engaging in mentoring or par-
ticipate in professional development to obtain a baseline of knowledge and
skills in mentoring, including cultural competence in mentoring diverse
groups of students. Traditionally, the only experience required for being
a mentor is having been mentored, regardless of whether the experience
was negative or positive (Handelsman et al., 2005; Pfund et al., 2015).
Explicit consideration of how the relationships are formed, supported,
and evaluated can improve mentor-mentee relationships. To ensure that
the mentors associated with a URE are prepared appropriately, thereby
increasing the chances of a positive experience for both mentors and
mentees, all prospective mentors should prepare for their role. Available
resources include the Entering Mentoring course (see Pfund et al., 2015)
and the book Successful STEM Mentoring Initiative for Underrepresented
Students (Packard, 2016).

A person who is an ineffective mentor for one student might be inspir-

ing for another, and the setting in which the mentoring takes place (e.g., a
CURE or apprentice-style URE, a laboratory or field-research environment)
may also influence mentor effectiveness. Thus, there should be some mecha-
nism for monitoring such relationships during the URE, or there should
be opportunity for a student who is unhappy with the relationship to seek
other mentors. Indeed, cultivating a team of mentors with different expe-
riences and expertise may be the best strategy for any student. A parallel
volume to the Entering Mentoring curriculum mentioned above, Entering
Research Facilitator’s Manual (Branchaw et al., 2010), is designed to help
students with their research mentor-mentee relationships and to coach them
on building teams of mentors to guide them. As mentioned in Chapter 5,
the Entering Research curriculum also contains information designed to
support a group of students as they go through their first apprentice-style
research experience, each working in separate research groups and also
meeting together as a cohort focused on learning about research.
PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE

Conclusion 9: The unique assets, resources, priorities, and constraints of
the department and institution, in addition to those of individual mentors,
impact the goals and structures of UREs. Schools across the country are
showing considerable creativity in using unique resources, repurposing cur-
rent assets, and leveraging student enthusiasm to increase research oppor
tunities for their students.
Given current calls for UREs and the growing conversation about
their benefits, an increasing number of two- and four-year colleges and
universities are increasing their efforts to support undergraduate research.
Departments, institutions, and individual faculty members influence the
precise nature of UREs in multiple ways and at multiple levels. The physical
resources available, including laboratories, field stations, and engineering
design studios and testing facilities, make a difference, as does the ability
to access resources in the surrounding community (including other parts
of the campus). Institutions with an explicit mission to promote under
graduate research may provide more time, resources (e.g., financial, support
personnel, space, equipment), and recognition and rewards to departments
and faculty in support of UREs than do institutions without that mission.
The culture of the institution with respect to innovation in pedagogy and
support for faculty development also affects the extent to which UREs are
introduced or improved.
Development of UREs requires significant time and effort. Whether or
not faculty attempt to implement UREs can depend on whether departmental

or institutional reward and recognition systems compensate for or even

recognize the time required to initiate and implement them. The availability
of national consortia can help to alleviate many of the time and logistical
problems but not those obstacles associated with recognition and resources.
It will be harder for faculty to find the time to develop UREs at institu-
tions where they are required to teach many courses per semester, although
in some circumstances faculty can teach CUREs that also advance their own
research (Shortlidge et al., 2016). Faculty at community colleges generally
have the heaviest teaching expectations, little or no expectations or incen-
tives to maintain a research program, limited access to lab or design space
or to scientific and engineering journals, and few resources to undertake
any kind of a research program. These constraints may limit the extent to
which UREs can be offered to the approximately 40 percent of U.S. under-
graduates who are enrolled in the nation’s community colleges (which col-
lectively also serve the highest percentage of the nation’s underrepresented
students).5

universities should work together within and, where feasible, across institu-
tions to create a culture that supports the development of evidence-based,
iterative, and continuous refinement of UREs, in an effort to improve stu-
dent learning outcomes and overall academic success. This should include
the development, evaluation, and revision of policies and practices designed
to create a culture supportive of the participation of faculty and other
mentors in effective UREs. Policies should consider pedagogy, professional
development, cross-cultural awareness, hiring practices, compensation, pro-
motion (incentives, rewards), and the tenure process.
Colleges and universities that would like to expand or improve the

UREs offered to their students should consider the campus culture and
climate and the incentives that affect faculty choices. Those campuses that
cultivate an environment supportive of the iterative and continuous refine-
ment of UREs and that offer incentives for evaluation and evidence-based
improvement of UREs seem more likely to sustain successful programs.
Faculty and others who develop and implement UREs need support to be
able to evaluate their courses or programs and to analyze evidence to make
decisions about URE design. This kind of support may be fostered by
expanding the mission of on-campus centers for learning and teaching to
focus more on UREs or by providing incentives for URE developers from
the natural sciences and engineering to collaborate with colleagues in the
social sciences or colleges of education with expertise in designing studies
5 See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp [November 2016].

involving human subjects. Supporting closer communication between URE

developers and the members of the campus Institutional Review Board
may help projects to move forward more seamlessly. Interdepartmental and
intercampus connections (especially those between two- and four-year insti-
tutions) can be valuable for linking faculty with the appropriate resources,
colleagues, and diverse student populations. Faculty who have been active
in professional development on how students learn in the classroom may
have valuable experiences and expertise to share.
The refinement or expansion of UREs should build on evidence from
data on student participation, pedagogy, and outcomes, which are integral
components of the original design. As UREs are validated and refined,
institutions should make efforts to facilitate connections among different
departments and disciplines, including the creation of multidisciplinary
UREs. Student engagement in learning in general, and with UREs more
specifically, depends largely on the culture of the department and the insti
tution and on whether students see their surroundings as inclusive and
energetic places to learn and thrive. A study that examined the relationship
between campus missions and the five benchmarks for effective educational
practice (measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement) showed
that different programs, policies, and approaches may work better, depend-
ing on the institution’s mission (Kezar and Kinzie, 2006).
The Council on Undergraduate Research (2012) document Characteris-
tics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research outlines several best practices
for UREs based on the apprenticeship model (see Chapter 8). That document
is not the result of a detailed analysis of the evidence but is based on the ex-
tensive experiences and expertise of the council’s members. It suggests that
undergraduate research should be a normal part of the undergraduate experi-
ence regardless of the type of institution. It also identifies changes necessary
to include UREs as part of the curriculum and culture changes necessary to
support curricular reform, co-curricular activities, and modifications to the
incentives and rewards for faculty to engage with undergraduate research. In
addition, professional development opportunities specifically designed to help
improve the pedagogical and mentoring skills of instructional staff in using
evidence-based practices can be important for a supportive learning culture.

universities should work to develop strong and sustainable partnerships
within and between institutions and with educational and professional
societies for the purpose of sharing resources to facilitate the creation of
sustainable URE programs.
Networks of faculty, institutions, regionally and nationally coordinated

URE initiatives, professional societies, and funders should be strengthened

to facilitate the exchange of evidence and experience related to UREs. These

networks could build on the existing work of professional societies that
assist faculty with pedagogy. They can help provide a venue for consider-
ing the policy context and larger implications of increasing the number,
size, and scope of UREs. Such networks also can provide a more robust
infrastructure, to improve the sustainability and expansion of URE oppor-
tunities. The sharing of human, financial, scientific, and technical resources
can strengthen the broad implementation of effective, high-quality, and
more cost-efficient UREs. It may be especially important for community
colleges and minority-serving institutions to engage in partnerships in order
to expand the opportunities for undergraduates (both transfer and techni-
cal students) to participate in diverse UREs (see discussion in National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015, and Elgin et al.,
2016). Consortia can facilitate the sharing of resources across disciplines and
departments within the same institution or at different institutions, organiza-
tions, and agencies. Consortia that employ research methodologies in com-
mon can share curriculum, research data collected, and common assessment
tools, lessening the time burden for individual faculty and providing a large
pool of students from which to assess the efficacy of individual programs.
Changes in the funding climate can have substantial impacts on the
types of programs that exist, iterative refinement of programs, and whether
and how programs might be expanded to broaden participation by more
undergraduates. For those institutions that have not yet established URE
programs or are at the beginning phases of establishing one, mechanisms
for achieving success and sustainability may include increased institutional
ownership of programs of undergraduate research, development of a broad
range of programs of different types and funding structures, formation of
undergraduate research offices or repurposing some of the responsibilities
and activities of those which already exist, and engagement in community
promotion and dissemination of student accomplishments (e.g., student
symposia, support for undergraduate student travel to give presentations
at professional meetings).
Over time, institutions must develop robust plans for ensuring the
long-term sustained funding of high-quality UREs. Those plans should
include assuming that more fiscal responsibility for sustaining such ef-
forts will be borne by the home institution as external support for such
efforts decreases and ultimately ends. Building UREs into the curriculum
and structure of a department’s courses and other programs, and thus its
funding model, can help with sustainability. Partnerships with nonprofit
organizations and industry, as well as seeking funding from diverse agen-
cies, can also facilitate programmatic sustainability, especially if the UREs
they fund can also support the mission and programs of the funders (e.g.,
through research internships or through CUREs that focus on community-

based research questions and challenges). Partnerships among institutions

also may have greater potential to study and evaluate student outcomes
from URE participation across broader demographic groups and to reduce
overall costs through the sharing of administrative or other resources (such
as libraries, microscopes, etc.).
REFERENCES
make scientific research more inclusive. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 602-606.
Branchaw, J.L., Pfund, C., and Rediske, R. (2010) Entering Research Facilitator’s Manual:
Workshops for Students Beginning Research in Science. New York: Freeman & Company.
Byars-Winston, A.M., Branchaw, J., Pfund, C., Leverett, P., and Newton, J. (2015). Cultur-
ally diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their
research mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education, 37(15),
2,533-2,554.
Chemers, M.M., Zurbriggen, E.L., Syed, M., Goza, B.K., and Bearman, S. (2011). The role
of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority
students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469-491.
Council on Undergraduate Research. (2012). Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate
Research. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Elgin, S.C.R., Bangera, G., Decatur, S.M., Dolan, E.L., Guertin, L., Newstetter, W.C., San
Juan, E.F., Smith, M.A., Weaver, G.C., Wessler, S.R., Brenner, K.A., and Labov, J.B. 2016.
Insights from a convocation: Integrating discovery-based research into the undergraduate
curriculum. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15, 1-7.
Hanauer, D., and Dolan, E. (2014) The Project Ownership Survey: Measuring differences in
scientific inquiry experiences, CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13, 149-158.
Handelsman, J., Pfund, C., Lauffer, S.M., and Pribbenow, C.M. (2005). Entering Mentoring.
Madison, WI: The Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching.
Hernandez, P.R., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., and Schultz, P.W. (2016). Protégé perceptions
of high mentorship quality depend on shared values more than on demographic match.
Journal of Experimental Education. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.
1080/00220973.2016.1246405 [November 2016].
Jones, P., Selby, D., and Sterling, S.R. (2010). Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Prac-
tice Across Higher Education. New York: Earthscan.
Kezar, A.J., and Kinzie, J. (2006). Examining the ways institutions create student engagement:
The role of mission. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 149-172.
Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum: Report of a Convocation. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academies Press.
Nagda, B.A., Gregerman, S.R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., and Lerner, J.S. (1998). Under
Packard, P. (2016). Successful STEM Mentoring Initiatives for Underrepresented Students: A
Pfund, C., Branchaw, J.L., and Handelsman, J. (2015). Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to
Train a New Generation of Scientists (2nd ed). New York: Macmillan Learning.

Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J.L., Hurtado, S., and Eagan, M.K. (2016). Defining
attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDS and Behavior,
20, 238-248.
Schultz, P.W., Hernandez, P.R., Woodcock, A., Estrada, M., Chance, R.C., Aguilar, M., and
Serpe, R.T. (2011). Patching the pipeline reducing educational disparities in the sciences
through minority training programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1),
95-114.
Thiry, H., Laursen, S.L., and Hunter, A.B. (2011). What experiences help students become
scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and profes-
sional gains for STEM undergraduates. Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 358-389.


Appendix A
STEM Participation Rates
Table A-1 is reproduced from Eagan and colleagues (2014), which

was commissioned for Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year
STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students’ Diverse Pathways
(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016). It ana-
lyzes data collected from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s
annual Freshman Survey, which surveys hundreds of thousands of students
at four-year colleges and universities nationwide. The data presented are
from the incoming students in Fall 2012.
Figure A-1 is from Estrada and colleagues (2016) and reflects the
current percentages of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) degrees for the following populations: underrepresented minority
(including African American, Hispanic or Latino/Latina, American Indian,
and Alaskan Native), white, and Asian/Pacific Islander. The data were
derived from the data tables prepared by the National Center for Science
and Engineering Statistics and based on data from the U.S. Department of
Education’s IPEDS 2010 Completions Survey.
233

TABLE A-1 Student Characteristics and Precollege Preparation Across

STEM Disciplines and Social Sciences, as Percentages of Total Students by
Discipline Category
Math/
Biological Computer Physical Social
Student Sciences Engineering Science Science Science
Characteristics (15,338) (15,727) (3,850) (4,140) (20,763)
Gender
Men 40 79 75 57 30
Women 61 21 25 43 70
Race
American Indian <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Asian 14 13 16 10 7
Black 8 6 8 5 10
Latino 9 9 8 6 14
White 54 59 53 65 53
Other 15 13 15 14 15
Income
Below $50K 30 25 32 26 38
$50K-$100K 30 32 31 34 29
Above $100K 40 43 37 40 33
Mother’s education
No college 26 23 27 22 31
Some college 16 15 16 16 17
College degree or 59 62 58 62 52
higher
Precollege preparation
HS GPA: A- or higher 62 62 55 64 45
Years of HS math: 92 94 92 92 84
4 or more
Years of HS physical 29 39 33 50 28
science: 3 or more
Years of HS 29 12 13 16 18
biological science:
3 or more
Completed calculus 39 51 45 45 24
Completed AP 42 60 51 50 22
calculus

APPENDIX A 235
TABLE A-1 Continued
NOTES: Total student enrollment is shown under each discipline category. Numeric values
are the percentage of this total. AP = advanced placement; GPA = grade point average; HS =
high school.
SOURCE: Eagan et al. (2014, Table 2).
FIGURE A-1 Current percentages of underrepresented minority, white, and Asian/

Pacific Islander populations with STEM degrees.
NOTE: URM (underrepresented minorities) includes African American, Hispanic
or Latino/Latina, American Indian, and Alaskan Native. In this analysis, “STEM
degrees” includes degrees categorized by the National Science Foundation as “Science
& Engineering” (but excludes degrees in psychology and social sciences) in data tables
prepared by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and based on
data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS) 2010 Completions Survey.
SOURCE: Reproduced from Estrada et al., 2016, Figure 1, p. 2. Permission was
granted by the authors.
REFERENCES
Eagan, K., Hurtado, S, Figueroa, T., and Hughes, B. (2014). Examining STEM Pathways among
Students Who Begin College at Four-Year Institutions. Paper commissioned for the Com-
mittee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2- and 4-Year STEM Degrees. Wash-
ington, DC. Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/
webpage/dbasse_088834.pdf [December 2016].
Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A.G., Campbell, P.B., Denetclaw, W.F., Gutiérrez, C.G.,
Hurtado, S., John, G.H., Matsui, J., McGee, R., Okpodu, C.M., Robinson, T.J., S ummers,
M.F., Werner-Washrune, M., and Zavala, M. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority
student persistence in STEM. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15(es5), 1-10.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Barriers and Opportuni-
ties for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students’ Diverse
Pathways. S. Malcom and M. Feder (Eds.). Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in
Two- and Four- Year STEM Degrees. Board on Science Education. Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Higher Education and the Workforce. Policy
and Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Appendix B
Committee Questions to
Undergraduate Institutions
and Selected Responses
Questions about the Costs of Expanding

Undergraduate Research Opportunities
1. School or program characteristics: Name of school and unit under

discussion—is program for all students, all STEM majors (specify), or a
particular department? Size of student pool?
2. Goals of the expansion: What are institutional goals for students under-
taking this research experience? Please check all that apply:
_____ develop a better understanding of the scientific process
_____ improve a range of academic skills
_____ improve hypothesis generation and testing
_____ view oneself as a scientist
_____ produce work of interest beyond the classroom (to the community,
scientists, etc.)
_____ contribute to work that will likely become a publication in a scientific
journal
What are the goals for the institution? Please check all that apply:
____ increase retention in STEM
____ attract a stronger applicant pool
____ increase diversity in STEM
____ increase student/faculty satisfaction in STEM majors
____ providing such opportunities considered an important institutional
characteristic
237

3. Type(s) of research experience(s) being utilized: Examples: are research

opportunities being offered in scheduled courses (CURE); through group
efforts during summer/winter break; or using the apprentice-style model,
during summer or academic year, or both.
4. Resources available: What in-place resources were available for pro-

gram expansion? What does the institution have? What is it known for?
Examples: office of undergraduate research; research-active faculty willing
to take undergraduates into their research groups, and/or develop CURE
projects; on-campus undergraduate research symposium; teaching lab space
available for summer research use; access to scientific journals; field sta-
tions; engagement with community problems; current budget for teaching
cook-book lab assignments; budget for lab instructors; etc.
5. What resources needed to be added and/or modified? Over what time

line and cost? Examples: new administrative staff to oversee/develop under
graduate research opportunities; new department staff to organize/teach/
supervise students; lab space dedicated to undergraduate research; increased
support for field station; increased supply budget; addition/expansion of
on-campus undergraduate research symposium; conference travel budget
for student presentations; expanded number of student stipends, etc. Give
costs in general terms (ex. staff described as experienced educator with
Ph.D. in X; supply budgets given as approximately X per student, or as a
range per student, etc. Point out if needed resources came from re-purpos-
ing prior resources).
6. Outcomes to date, if known: Example: as your undergraduate research

program has expanded, have you observed any of the following: increases
in number of students participating in STEM research; increase in diversity
of students participating; a shift in applications; a change in persistence in
STEM or in STEM graduation rates, etc.

APPENDIX B 239
Excerpts from Responses
Amherst College (MA) excerpts from the response:
We are fortunate to have sufficient endowed funds to support

a 10-week summer research experience for all chemistry majors
embarking upon a senior thesis…
We need to find ways of freeing up time for faculty to supervise

research students. It is impossible to be a responsible or effective
research supervisor if one is unable to spend uninterrupted time in
the laboratory several days each week. Often it seems like research
is an optional luxury.
The greatest limitation for us is faculty time, and thus the greatest
cost to pushing beyond our current limits would be to hire more
faculty, or at minimum (especially for the STEM fields), more post-
docs, postbacs (generally honors students continuing to work in the
lab in which they did their honors thesis) or lab technicians in order
to enhance the faculty member’s capacity to mentor students.
Anoka Ramsey Community College (ARCC) (in MN) “is trying to infuse
undergraduate research for all students in all disciplines” based on plans
developed through a Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) workshop.
The school currently has about 8,000 students and estimates that 30-40 per-
cent are engaged in some sort of research or scholarly activity, primarily
through course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). Nine
of 21 biology courses are providing novel undergraduate research experi-
ences (UREs). ARCC has supported independent research students, often
in partnership with other schools; at present student stipends for research
work do not exist. Space is being repurposed and remodeled to c reate an
Open Research Lab, which will need to be staffed. Faculty members are
getting release credits to work on this program.
Austin College (TX) expanded its apprenticeship program during 2000-

2008, and some departments also use research methods, CUREs, or scaf-
folded curriculum models to support that. A “new strategic plan calls for
every student to have two experiential learning experiences while an under-
grad,” and the Center for Research, Experiential, Artistic & Transformative
Education (CREATE) was set up in 2015. The inaugural director is in the
process of bringing all of the current campus programs together. An all-
campus Austin College Student Scholarship Conference is held annually.

Chemistry and physics require research for the major; biology has grown
from 23 percent participation in 2003 to 56 percent participation in 2015.
Financial resources are being sought to expand and stabilize the program
with student stipends, faculty stipends, supply money, and student travel
awards in response to cited needs.
Central Washington University (WA) has expanded its Office of Under-

graduate Research (OUR) in the past 2 years from one to two permanent
staff positions (director and a support staff position) with funding from the
provost. This expansion supports the institutional goal to provide oppor-
tunities for student scholarship/scholarly work. The addition of the second
staff position frees up the OUR director to work on fund raising, raising
campus profile of undergraduate research, etc. UREs are primarily appren-
tice-style during the academic year and summer. While a small amount of
internal funds are available, funding for most projects comes from external
faculty research grants, so most opportunities are for advanced students.
A few introductory (first-year) and second-year students can get funding
through a small fund for minority student research. A soon-to-be-sunseted
grant funds approximately five STEM students and faculty for summer
research. During the academic year, students receive academic credit and
faculty receive teaching credit.
The Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) has expanded the num-
ber of CUREs offered through its faculty training program. Two faculty
attended a week-long CURE workshop and then ran a Faculty Learning
Community to help others include undergraduate research in their courses.
Three years ago, one faculty member (geology) included undergraduate
research in her courses; this year six faculty members now offer UREs in
courses (geology, oceanography, biology, microbiology, finance, psychol-
ogy). To allow for the expanded efforts, a variety of resources were repur-
posed: existing lab supplies were used for CUREs as well as an expansion
of an established URE symposium that was funded by the honors budget.
There were also one-time additional resources to support this effort to
include funds to compensate leader and participants in the Faculty Learn-
ing Community as well as travel costs covered for two faculty to attend a
CURE workshop.
Faculty develop and implement their undergraduate research expe-

riences at CCRI (both the CUREs and Honors Projects) without
additional resources. Not only do faculty not get compensated for
any additional time they have, they need to work within the current
budget for materials and supplies. They also do not have separate
research labs, since all labs are teaching labs or classrooms that

APPENDIX B 241
are used throughout the day. This limitation impacts the type and
scope of the research projects that can be done, and faculty take
that into consideration when deciding on research projects.
Delaware Technical Community College (Stanton Campus), a member

of the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI),
has been strengthening research in the Biotechnology and Biological Sci-
ences programs. Both CUREs and apprentice-style models are being used.
Teaching lab space is available; National Institutes of Health and National
Science Foundation (NSF) grants have funded equipment purchases and
faculty development; lab fees are used to support supplies. Over the 5-year
period of the grant, there has been a 50 percent increase in the completion
rate. “With the increased student success rate, the college has provided an
increased budget to support supply purchases for CUREs.”
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) (FL) has a strong STEM

emphasis (heavy on engineering). Of the roughly 2,200 undergraduates,
about 40 percent participate in research/scholarship and approximately 250
are directly funded by the Undergraduate Research Institute. Students par-
ticipate in academic and summer research in projects that are encouraged to
be multidisciplinary and multiyear. Current expansion of undergraduate re-
search is into the introductory and intermediate-level courses. Some “study
abroad” classes have a research component. As part of the accreditation,
ERAU has chosen undergraduate research as its quality enhancement plan
(QEP; a QEP is currently required by the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools for accreditation). With QEP funding, they have recently es-
tablished an Undergraduate Research Institute (with two staff positions).
QEP funding allowed for the establishment of the Undergraduate

Research Institute, basic/applied research and scholarship grants, a
program d irector (joint direction of Honors) and an administrative
assistant (joint with Honors).
Everett Community College, Ocean Research College Academy (Everett,

WA) is a two-year, full time program for 120 students that includes an
embedded longitudinal research project on a local estuary. Students are
involved in data collection and analysis of biogeochemical metrics; training
in the first year enables students to test self-directed questions in the second
year. Students use a research vessel and a dedicated research lab funded by
NSF. CCURI funding provided initial faculty release time to initiate the
curriculum; maintaining that time (to mentor students) has been a struggle.
The faculty report that 70 percent of the research students matriculated

to a STEM major in university this past year and that they will continue to
advocate for the program in the face of anticipated budget cuts.
At Finger Lakes Community College (NY), the departments of Science and

Technology and Environmental Conservation are offering research experi-
ences through scheduled academic year courses and as summer courses.
Investments in faculty training and a small amount of equipment have been
important; other resources have come from repurposing current resources.
Before the recent expansion “very few students were participating and now
every student that takes general biology participates.”
Fort Lewis College (CO) is a “non-tribal, native-serving institution and

one of only two colleges [that] provide free tuition to qualified Native
Americans.” Organizational changes in the college, increased internal fund-
ing, and an active undergraduate research symposium support increasing
undergraduate research at Fort Lewis College. To promote undergradu-
ate research, an associate dean position was redefined 6 years ago to
support undergraduate research programs, teaching credits for labs and
STEM teaching load were modified to accommodate time for undergradu-
ate research, and internal funding was increased. The symposium, started
12 years ago for STEM students, advertised to nonparticipating faculty
what could be done with student research. Subsequent changes to depart-
mental senior seminars and assessment plans promote undergraduate re-
search. Challenges to sustaining the program involve declining state budgets
and rising research costs, while there has been an increase in STEM majors
and graduates between 2010 and 2015.
Within the STEM disciplines, reorganization of senior seminar

courses happened after the undergraduate research symposium
began. I think the departments began to see what undergraduates
could accomplish, and wanted their students to have those experi-
ences. Some of the changes were driven by external accreditation
(Engineering); others were tied to revision of the departmental
assessment plans. (When departments wrote learning outcomes
involving the process of science, they started thinking about how
they could improve those learning outcomes by having students do
science themselves.) The dean has also been encouraging depart-
ments to involve students in research, partly because it benefits
students, and partly as an encouragement to faculty to be more
active in their fields.
The costs of undergraduate research, especially in the sciences, is

high. Even when faculty/departments economize (i.e., group proj-

APPENDIX B 243
ects, less diversity of projects), it is not clear that costs are sustain-
able without some type of permanent funding (i.e., an endowment).
Although our administration is encouraging undergraduate research-
like experiences in all departments, the budget that they are applying
to this mandate is not likewise rising to meet the increased needs.
The Gonzaga University (WA) Biology Department uses a combination of

CUREs and apprentice-style research opportunities. The Phage Hunters
course has been adapted to include isolation of new phage as the lab for
the introductory biology course (BIOL 105: Information Flow in Biologi-
cal Systems) and phage annotation in the lab for sophomore-level genetics.
Faculty received training on how to develop a CURE through a collabora-
tive Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) grant that supported seven
colleges and universities; this helped the faculty and accelerated implemen-
tation of CUREs. Supply costs are managed by charging a $95 lab fee. Fac-
ulty efforts are supplemented by two lab coordinators and undergraduate
teaching assistants, who receive course credit for their efforts. A research
coordinator oversees the apprentice-model research program, which in-
volves approximately 30 students per semester and about 65 students per
summer, up from 20 in 2006.
Hope College’s (Holland, MI) Division of Natural and Applied Science is

initiating a program called “Day1 Research Communities” for first-year
students; capacity in five communities is about 170 students of 400 eligible.
This program also emphasizes developing a “community of scholars.”
Hope also has a significant apprentice model program and CUREs for
upper-level students. Two of the five tracks are two-semester programs
(“Phage Discovery” and “Watershed”) that demand more time investment
by students and faculty and are thus more expensive to run. “Watershed”
students come to campus a week early for fieldwork and live together dur-
ing the year. A post baccalaureate lab director involved in both courses
helps to lessen demands on faculty, as do upper-level students who serve
as teaching assistants. Funding from HHMI has helped to expand course-
based research experiences in general, but this has been done with an eye on
sustainability. Unfortunately, cutting-edge techniques tend to require more
expensive consumables and up-to-date equipment. If needed, the college
will tap endowed funds.
Ivy Tech Community College (IN) “has come to appreciate the value of
a URE for community college student” and offers both CUREs and sum-
mer UREs to students in biotechnology and nanotechnology. Students can
participate in the NSF Community College Innovation Challenge and in
the iGEM competition. The faculty make use of a wide range of support

organizations, including CCURI, CUR, CUREnet, the Cold Spring Harbor

Laboratory DNA Learning Center, CyVerse, and local industrial partners. A
mix of internal and external resources is available for supply costs, etc., but
need remains for a dedicated lab and for funds for high tech expenditures.
No stipends are available to students. Students who participated in UREs
have presented posters at a variety of meetings and are reported to exhibit
significant personal gains. Local industry is now requesting job applications
from these students.
The Kapiolani Community College (HA) Math and Sciences Department

is using a wide range of URE platforms, including bridge programs, grant-
supported UREs, research-intensive courses that are part of the associates
degree, elective CUREs, internships, and collaborative projects. In spring
2016, 49 of 391 registered students were in the elective CURE courses. A
mix of institutional resources and grant funds are being used to support
new staff in a STEM Center to support the new lab courses. There has been
steady growth in enrollment and graduation numbers.
Lincoln University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Biology provides aca-

demic year undergraduate research both via a CURE (biotechniques course)
and apprentice-style research (funded through an HBCU-UP grant that
provides $500/student for supplies). Funding comes from research-active
faculty with external grants and some departmental supply budget. The
school is establishing an undergraduate research office with funding via
Title III. Undergraduate research has been showcased at a campuswide
symposium for the past 15 years.
At Longwood University (Farmville, VA), faculty are bringing research into

the biology curriculum using both national CUREs (Genomics Education
Partnership, synthetic biology) and a local CURE (Pilobolus distribution
in nature). About 10 percent of the biology students participate per year,
and plans are under way to expand this. A summer apprentice-style URE
is also available at Longwood. While an Office of Student Research was
initiated 8/2015, “[the] classroom related research programs typically are
not recognized by University programs and exist solely at the discretion of
faculty using course lab fees to support the project.” The Genomics Edu-
cation Partnership, a national CURE, “provides essential resources that
are outside of the expertise and budget of our faculty”; both small grants
from GCAT and contributions from industry have also helped support the
genomics CURE.
Loyola Marymount University (Los Angeles, CA) has an undergraduate stu-

dent body of about two-thirds of the 9,500 students enrolled. About a year

APPENDIX B 245
ago, the Office of Undergraduate Research went from a faculty director

with administrative support to two permanent staff positions (three-quarter
time associate director and half-time administrator coordinator). A research
symposium started 8 years ago. UREs for all fields of study are primarily
through apprentice-style experiences offered in both the summer and aca-
demic year. In the academic year, students are compensated via work-study
funds, academic credit arranged through departments, or as volunteers.
During the summer, students receive stipends, housing costs, academic skills
workshops, and social gatherings through a university program. Some stu-
dents are funded through outside grants to faculty. Faculty mentors receive
no compensation from the university but receive recognition that may help
toward tenure and promotion. The symposium participation has increased
over the years. The cycle of increased URE participation spurred interests
in staffing increases. Increases in staffing raises undergraduate research on
campus, which starts the cycle again.
The Moreno Valley College (CA) Department of Natural Sciences and

Kinesiology has expanded research experiences for biology and chemistry
students. A major goal is to increase the transfer rate to four-year institu-
tions, including top schools. The primary vehicle is class-based projects, but
a few students are working on individual projects. Resources are very lim-
ited: only one biology lab, faculty (no lab instructors or teaching a ssistants),
and the budget for the cook-book labs. Growing recognition by administra-
tors and faculty of the importance of UREs is cited as the most valuable
resource. The faculty report that increased participation in STEM research
leads to students being more engaged, enthusiastic, and persisting in STEM.
At North Carolina Central University (Durham, NC), laboratories for the

three introductory biology courses (required of all majors) have been trans-
formed into research-infused labs. Participation in the research version is
voluntary, and over the past 3 years 39 percent of the 440 eligible students
have participated. The research experiences are organized in 5- to 10-week-
long modules, and they maintain a continuity of practice using S. cerevisiae
as the model system. Labs are designed to require only the scheduled lab
times. This system seems to work well for the university’s students, who are
29 percent first generation, 65 percent Pell-grant supported, with little or no
prior research experience. While this is a research-active campus “there are
not enough labs to accommodate the large number of STEM majors. . . .
CURE courses are essential for our university to expose large numbers of
STEM students to a research experience.” A grant from HHMI has sup-
ported the introductory biology courses, including hiring a lab coordinator
and supporting Science Education Post-Docs; the latter program will be lost
when the grant ends, as state funding is extremely tight.

Penn State Brandywine, with around 1,600 students, is primarily a two-

year college in which the majority of students transfer to complete their
baccalaureate degrees. They have recently added four-year degrees in bi-
ology and in engineering (these have not been in place long enough to
have graduates), and anticipate a program in environmental science. The
campus is working toward expanding degree programs, with the goal of
becoming a stand-alone four-year degree campus in the Penn State system.
All types of undergraduate research are available (“engaged scholarship”):
CUREs, apprentice-style during academic year and summer. Community-
based research and service learning are available. There are challenges to
the undergraduate research between terms due to liability issues for stu-
dents who are not currently enrolled in credits. The recent formation of a
faculty Undergraduate Research Committee centralizes funding efforts (the
committee has a budget), and a new mini-grant program for students can
cover research expenses. Two recent additions to undergraduate research
on campus are awards for outstanding student researcher and outstanding
faculty mentor (given annually). A quote on how the college does this:
What we needed to do was start having campus-wide conversations

about how we as a campus define undergraduate research. . . .
Once we came together across disciplines for at least one campus-
wide meeting a semester, we immediately grew as a community
and had more faculty buy-in. . . . Our campus also has an institu-
tional membership to CUR, and that has shown us faculty that the
administration is also serious about undergraduate research and
“branding” us as a campus that engages students and takes the
research process seriously as a student learning outcome.
At St. Edward’s University (Austin, TX), the Biology Department faculty

are participating in the Genomics Education Partnership and in the HHMI
Phage Hunters program, and they are now starting to convert the freshman
series labs to a local CURE.
While an institution-specific CURE has advantages with regard to

focusing on local scientific questions, . . . they lack several benefits
that come with participation in national CUREs . . . quality of
infrastructure (project materials, databases, resources), and the
resources to develop these; possibility of publication (education
and scientific literature) for students and faculty; high impact on
students career aspirations based on exposure/participation with
a national collective; presentation at national venue—students see
themselves as part of the scientific community.

APPENDIX B 247
Trinity University has built on a long history of undergraduate research

in STEM fields. Undergraduate research has been expanded into the s ocial
sciences and humanities in the past 3 years. Both apprentice-style UREs and
CUREs engage students. CUREs are primarily in upper-division courses, but
are beginning to be part of introductory biology courses through a CURE
on pollination. Engaged learning occurs in the social sciences through
CUREs. Observed outcomes, whether or not related to undergraduate
research, are increases in the number of entering students interested in
STEM, the number of STEM majors, and the number of first generation
and minority students at Trinity.
The University of Maryland, College Park initiated FIRE (First-Year Inno

vation & Research Experience) in 2014-2015 to provide inquiry-based
experiences and broad mentorship for non-honors freshmen from all aca-
demic disciplines. The goal is to help students (about 400 this year) to view
themselves “as a professional,” help them select a major, and increase aca-
demic success, as well as to integrate the education and research missions
of the university. The program is modeled after the Freshman Research
Initiative at University of Texas at Austin (see Box 3-9), with a similar three-
semester structure. But FIRE also supports students in their transition during
their fourth semester to the next step—whether an apprentice-style research
experience, an internship, etc. Each research stream is led by a Ph.D.-level
Research Educator, who plays a critical role for the success of the program.
Assessment plans include participation in a HHMI-funded collaboration
with Duke University, University of California, Santa B arbara, and others
to use a new core assessment to measure student growth, satisfaction, self-
efficacy, confidence, and motivation.
At the University of Pittsburgh, there has been a significant increase

in CUREs targeted at first- and second-year students in biology, with some
CUREs in chemistry as well. Both national efforts (SEA-Phages [Science
Education Alliance Phage Hunters; see Box 3-7] and the Small World Initia-
tive) and local CUREs based on research interests of individual faculty are
being implemented. The goal is to enroll all introductory biology students
(freshmen and sophomores) in either a one-semester or two-semester CURE
by 2018. Costs are being managed by charging a lab fee for supply costs
(currently $75, but may rise to around $150) and by using undergraduate
teaching assistants, who do not get paid, for the majority of teaching assis-
tant positions. Senior-level staffing remains an issue; there are about 1,200
introductory biology students per year, presenting challenges in terms of
scale. The school reported on a “Persistence in The Sciences (PITS) survey,
that links variables such as Project Ownership, Science Identity etc. with
a self-reported interest in continuing in STEM. The PITS data show very

strong impacts in this area in all of the CREs we have assessed . . . in con-
trast to traditional labs that score very poorly….”
At the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, undergraduate research has

long been important to institutional identity. Expansion of UREs has been
continuous, with punctuated growth in 1997 and 2010 due to a differen-
tial tuition program to support experiential learning. Differential tuition
provides expansion in student and faculty stipends and funds for stu-
dent travel to professional conferences. Funds from this source approach
$1 million. Programming efforts to support expansion of UREs target
underrepresented students, first-year students, and international research.
Current efforts focus on mentoring support, CUREs, community-based
research, and first-year student participation. “These are being tackled
during significant budget cuts, so [the efforts] are using human resources
rather than funding.” Revising the curriculum supports a faculty research
track, and CURE development is funded by an NSF grant with University
of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. The on-campus symposium is now a week-long
celebration with increased participation by students and faculty.

Appendix C
Committee and Staff Biographies
James Gentile (Chair) is emeritus dean for the natural and applied sci-
ences and Kenneth G. Herrick professor of biology at Hope College in
Holland, Michigan. He is also a past president of Research Corporation
in Tucson, Arizona, a foundation dedicated to science since 1912. He has
conducted extensive research on metabolism and the conversion of natural
and x enobiotic agents into mutagens and carcinogens with funding from
the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation (NSF),
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the World Health Organiza-
tion. He is the author of more than 150 research articles, book chapters,
book reviews, and special reports in areas of scientific research and higher
education, and he is a frequent speaker on issues involving the integration
of scientific research and higher education. He serves on the Biosphere2
Governing Board and the boards of the Science Friday Foundation, and
American Association of Colleges and Universities Project Leap Initiative.
He received his Ph.D. in genetics from Illinois State University and under-
took postdoctoral studies in the Department of Human Genetics at the Yale
University School of Medicine.
Ann Beheler is executive director for emerging technology grants at Collin

County Community College, near Dallas, Texas. She has been involved in
the information technology (IT) industry for more than 30 years. She is the
principal investigator for an NSF National C enter that focuses on IT and
communications as well as other NSF grants. She also led a large national
Trade Adjustment Assis tance Community College and Career Training
Grant (Department of L abor). She has corporate experience through lead-
249

ing her own consulting firm and managing IT-related divisions and grants in
community colleges in Texas and California. She created and taught in one
of the first networking degree programs in Texas. She is known for bring-
ing together business and industry effectively, using a streamlined process
to identify with them the knowledge, skills, and abilities they predict will
be needed by “right-skilled” job candidates in the future. She then works
with faculty to align curriculum such that those who complete certificates
and degrees in IT have the knowledge, skills, and abilities that will make
them readily employable in high-paying IT positions. She holds an M.S. in
computer science from Florida Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in com-
munity college leadership from Walden University.
Janet Branchaw is assistant professor of kinesiology at the University of

Wisconsin–Madison. She is also the director of the Wisconsin Institute for
Science Education and Community Engagement and associate director of the
Mentor Training Core of the National Research Mentoring Network. She is
chairperson of the Leadership Committee for NSF’s Biology Research Expe-
riences for Undergraduates and directs an NSF-funded Research Experience
for Undergraduates on integrated biological sciences. She developed train-
ing curricula for research mentors and for undergraduate research mentees.
She led a project to develop a common assessment tool for use across NSF’s
Research Experience for Undergraduates programs. Her research focuses on
the development, implementation, and evaluation of innovative approaches
to undergraduate science education, with an emphasis on undergraduate
research, assessment of student learning, and broadening participation in
science among underrepresented groups. She received her Ph.D. in physiol-
ogy from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Kerry Brenner (Study Director) is a senior program officer for the Board
on Science Education. In addition to directing this study on Strengthen-
ing Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students, she recently
coordinated a workshop on service learning in undergraduate geosciences
education and collaborated with the Board on Life Sciences (BLS) on a con-
vocation on Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate
Curriculum. In past work with BLS, she served as study director for the
project that produced Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate Biology Edu-
cation for Future Research Biologists. As an outgrowth of that study, she
participated in the founding of the National Academies Summer Institutes
for Undergraduate Education. She has led a standing committee for the
Department of Defense on Medical Technologies, multiple studies related
to microbiology and biosecurity, and a study of the decision-making process
for reopening facilities contaminated in biological attacks. Her bachelor’s

APPENDIX C 251
degree is from Wesleyan University (Middletown, Connecticut) and her

Ph.D. in molecular biology is from Princeton University.
Deborah Faye Carter is associate professor of education in the School of

Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University. Previously she was
an assistant professor of higher education at Indiana University, where she
also was program chair of the Higher Education and Student Affairs pro-
gram. While at the University of Michigan, she was an associate professor
in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education and
then became the center’s director. She was awarded the Bobby Wright Dis-
sertation of the Year Award from the Association for the Study of Higher
Education and the Harold Johnson Diversity Award from the Univeristy of
Michigan. She has been a member of or has chaired several committees in
national organizations inluding the American Educational Research Asso-
ciation, the Association for the Study of Higher Education, and the Ameri-
can College Personnel Association. Her areas of research include the impact
of college on students, especially students of color or low-income students;
students’ degree aspirations; students’ transition to college; and the effects
of undergraduate research on students’ major choices and graduate school
attendance. She received her Ph.D. in higher education from the University
of Michigan.
Melanie Cooper is the Lappan-Phillips professor of science education and

professor of chemistry at Michigan State University. Her research has focused
on improving teaching and learning in large-enrollment general and organic
chemistry courses at the college level, and she is a proponent of evidence-
based curriculum reform. She has also developed technological approaches
to formative assessment that can recognize and respond to students’ free-
form drawings, such as the beSocratic system. She is a fellow of the Ameri-
can Chemical Society and the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS). She was on the leadership team for the Next Genera-
tion Science Standards. She has received a number of awards including the
American Chemical Society award for achievement in research on teaching
and learning in chemistry, the Norris award for outstanding achievement
in teaching chemistry, and the Outstanding Undergraduate Science Teacher
Award from the Society for College Science Teaching. She received her Ph.D.
in chemistry from the University of Manchester, England.
Edward J. Coyle is the John B. Peatman distinguished professor of electrical

and computer engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology and a Georgia
Research Alliance Eminent Scholar. He is the founder and director of the
Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) program, which integrates research and
education by embedding teams of undergraduates in the graduate research

groups of faculty. He is also the founder and director of the VIP Consor-
tium, a group of 15 universities committed to growing and disseminating
the VIP program. He was a co-recipient of the National Academy of Engi-
neering (NAE) 2005 Bernard M. Gordon Prize for innovation in engineer-
ing and technology education and a co-recipient of the American Society
for Engineering Education’s 1997 Chester F. Carlson Award for innovation
in engineering education and the IEEE Signal Processing Society’s 1986 Best
Paper Award. He was elected a Fellow of the IEEE in 1998 for his contri-
butions to the theory of nonlinear signal processing. His current research
interests include undergraduate education, signal and image processing, and
wireless sensor networks. He received a B.S. degree in electrical engineering
from the University of Delaware and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering and computer science from Princeton University.
Sarah C.R. Elgin is Viktor Hamburger professor of arts and sciences and
a professor of biology, professor of genetics, and professor of education
at Washington University in St. Louis. Her research on fruit flies focuses
on epigenetics, gene regulation, and heterochromatin formation. In 2002,
she became a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor with the goal of
integrating primary research in genomics into the college curriculum. This
project has been expanded and disseminated as the Genomics Education
Partnership (GEP), a consortium of more than 100 college and university
faculty. GEP undergraduates participate in gene sequence improvement
and annotation projects, with the goal of publishing the results in primary
research journals; more than 900 undergraduates are co-authors on GEP
papers. She has awards for contributions to science education from the
Genetics Society of America and other professional societies. She is a fellow
of AAAS and the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. She serves on the
editorial boards of Chromatin & Epigenetics and CBE–Life Science Educa-
tion, on the science advisory board for CyVerse, and on the advisory board
for CourseSource. She earned her B.A. in chemistry from Pomona College
and her Ph.D. in biochemistry from the California Institute of Technology.
Mica Estrada is an assistant professor in the Department of Social and

Behavioral Sciences and the Institute of Health and Aging at the University
of California, San Francisco, School of Nursing. Her expertise is in social
influence, including the study of identity, forgiveness, intergroup relations,
and integrative education. She is leading longitudinal, theory-driven re-
search and evaluation for several interventions designed to increase per-
sisentence of historically underrepresented students in STEM fields. Her
publications from these studies assess how students’ orientation toward
the scientific community predicts their perseverance in and commitment to
that community. She is co-principal investigator on a NSF Climate Change

APPENDIX C 253
Education Partnership grant that provides educational tools and learning

opportunities to San Diego regional leaders and residents regarding the
changing climate. Her work in the local community includes promoting
the Quince Project for Latina teens. She received a Leadership Institute
Graduate Award from the Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and
Native Americans in Science in 2013 and the Adolphus Toliver Award for
Oustanding Research in 2016. She earned her B.A. in psychology from the
University of California, Berkeley, and her Ph.D. in social psychology from
Harvard University.
Eli Fromm is Roy A. Brothers university professor and professor of elec-

trical and computer engineering at Drexel University. He has been princi-
pal investigator on bioengineering research projects involving implantable
transmitters and sensors for physiologic measurements and on initiatives
for undergraduate research. At Drexel, he was vice president for educa-
tional research, vice provost for research and graduate studies, interim
dean of engineering, and interim head of the biosciences department. He
held positions with General Electric and E.I. DuPont and was a NSF pro-
gram director, Congressional Fellow on the U.S. House of Representatives
Science Committee staff, and visiting scientist with the Legislative Office
of the Research Liaison, Pennsylvania House of Representatives. He is a
fellow of multiple professional societies in engineering and engineering
education, a member of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and
the inaugural recipient in 2002 of the NAE’s Bernard M. Gordon Prize for
significant contributions to engineering and technology education. He has
received numerous other awards and honors from professional societies in
engineering, from the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology,
and from multiple universities. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering and
an M.S. in biomedical engineering from Drexel University and a Ph.D. in
physiology and bioengineering from Thomas Jefferson University.
Ralph Garruto (NAS) is research professor in biomedical anthropology at

the State University of New York, Binghamton. He is a human population
biologist whose research focuses on natural experimental models of disease,
using both field and laboratory approaches. His cross-disciplinary research
include studies of neurodegenerative disorders including amyotrophic lat-
eral sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, as well as food chain disorders, health
transition studies, obesity and bionutrition, malaria, Lyme and other tick-
borne diseases, and prion diseases, especially chronic wasting disease. He
has field research projects in Micronesia, Vanuatu, Ukraine, China, Siberia,
and upstate New York. His laboratory focus is on cellular and molecular
mechanisms of neuronal degeneration, host-pathogen interactions, experi-
mental modeling, use of mitochondrial DNA in biomedical and evolution-

ary studies, and the study of gene-environment interactions in health and

disease. He currently has 50 undergraduates associated with his laboratory.
They work in teams with graduate students, and he meets with each at least
weekly. The undergraduates typically stay for several years working in the
field or laboratory or modeling risk of infection. He received his B.S. in
zoology, M.A. in anthropology, and Ph.D. in anthropology (human popula-
tion biology) from Pennsylvania State University.
Eric Grodsky is associate professor of sociology at the University of

Wisconsin–Madison. His expertise is the sociology of education and quan-
titative methods. His research is on understanding the pathways students
take into and through higher education, including the changes over time in
the effects of grades, test scores, and course-taking on college attendance
and completion. He has also evaluated the relationship between STEM
course-taking, degree completion, and labor market outcomes for students
who complete sub-baccalaureate degrees or who start but fail to complete
their postsecondary credential. He serves on the editorial board of Educa-
tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, is the deputy editor for Sociology
of Education, and is an incoming associate editor for the American Educa-
tional Research Journal. He served as chair of the Sociology of Education
Special Interest Group for the American Educational Research Association
and as president of the Sociology of Education Association. He chaired the
Sociology of Education section of the American Sociological Association
in 2015-2016. He received his B.A. in anthropology and sociology from
Kenyon College, his M.S. in sociology from the University of Wisconsin–
Madison, and his Ph.D. in sociology with a minor in education policy from
the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
James Hewlett is a professor of biology at Finger Lakes Community Col-

lege, where he also serves as director of Biotechnology/Biomanufacturing.
He is the New York Hub Director of the Northeast Biomanufacturing
Center and Collaborative and serves on the editorial board of the National
Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, the editorial board of CBE–Life
Sciences Education, the advisory board for Rochester Institute of Technol-
ogy’s Center for Bioscience Education and Technology, and the steering
committee for the University of Georgia’s Course-based Undergraduate
Research Experiences (CURE) Network. His areas of research include
molecular and macro-level indicators of stress in corals and coral reef eco-
systems, biomarkers for early detection of symbiotic breakdown in corals,
and employment of noninvasive DNA-based mark-and-recapture methods
in studying populations of the eastern red-tail hawk and North American
black bear. He leads the Community College Undergraduate Research Ini-
tiative, which uses inquiry-based teaching to expose students to scientific

APPENDIX C 255
investigation in introductory biology courses and provides resources for 26

institutional partners throughout the United States and a portfolio of sup-
port services to institutions and faculty. He earned a B.S. in biology from
Bucknell University and an M.S. in physiology/marine science from the
University of Connecticut.
Laird Kramer is director of the STEM Transformation Institute and profes-

sor of physics in the College of Arts & Sciences at Florida International
University. His work focuses on facilitating institutional change through
implementation of, and research on, evidence-based educational practices.
He led transformation of the undergraduate physics experience at the
university, creating more well-prepared majors by implementing modeling
instruction–based studio physics courses, establishing student-centric meth-
odologies, and establishing a high school–university research and learn-
ing community. He fostered a community that enables future teachers to
implement their instructional craft, built by operating more than a decade
of intensive, summer professional development in modeling instruction for
high school teachers. He earned a B.A. in physics from George Washington
University and a Ph.D. in physics from Duke University.
Jay B. Labov is Senior Advisor for Education and Communication for the
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. He has directed
or contributed to 25 National Academies reports focusing on undergradu-
ate education, teacher education, advanced study for high school students,
K-8 education, and international education. He directed the National Acad-
emy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine committee that authored Science,
Evolution, and Creationism. He oversees the NAS efforts to confront chal-
lenges to teaching evolution in the nation’s public schools, coordinates NAS
efforts to work with professional societies and state academies of science
on education issues, and oversees the work of the BLS on improving edu-
cation in the life sciences. An organismal biologist by training, he was on
the biology faculty at Colby College for 18 years. He is a Kellogg National
Fellow, Fellow in Education of AAAS, Woodrow Wilson Visiting Fellow,
2013 recipient of the Friend of Darwin award from the National Center
for Science Education, and current chair of the AAAS Education Section. In
2014 he was named a Lifetime Honorary Member by the National Associa-
tion of Biology Teachers and received a National Academies Staff Award
for Lifetime Achievement.
Marcia C. Linn is professor of cognition and development, specializing

in education in mathematics, science, and technology, in the Graduate
School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley, where she
investigates science teaching and learning, gender equity, and design of

learning environments. She leads the Technology-Enhanced Learning in Sci-

ence Community and is a member of the National Academy of Education
and fellow of AAAS, American Psychological Association, Association for
Psychological Science, and Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sci-
ences. She was chair of the AAAS Education Section and president of the
International Society of the Learning Sciences. She received the first award
in educational research from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents,
as well as rewards from the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching and the American Educational Research Association. She twice
won the Outstanding Paper Award of the Journal of Research in Science
Teaching. She was a Fulbright Professor at the Weizmann Institute (Israel)
and visiting fellow at University College, London, and the Institute J. J.
Rousseau (Geneva). She served on the Science Board of AAAS, Graduate
Record Examination board of the Educational Testing Service, M cDonnell
Foundation Cognitive Studies in Education Practice board, and NSF Edu-
cation and Human Resources Directorate. Her B.A. in psychology with
emphasis on statistics and a Ph.D. in educational psychology are from
Stanford University.
Linda A. Reinen is an associate professor of geology at Pomona College.

She uses field, laboratory, and numerical modeling methods to explore the
mechanical behavior of crustal rocks in tectonically active regions. Through
apprentice-style and classroom research experiences, her students inves-
tigate the surface deformation associated with active faulting in the San
Andreas Fault system and the active margin in New Zealand. A long-time
proponent of teaching through student research, she codeveloped a Re-
search Methods CURE that for two decades has been central to the Pomona
College geology curriculum. She led workshops on engaging undergraduate
students in research for the National Association of Geoscience Teachers,
American Geophysical Union, Geological Society of America (GSA), Coun-
cil on Undergraduate Research, and Project Kaleidoscope. Her community
outreach includes discussions of the Great California ShakeOut and other
earthquake-related topics with grade school, college, local business, and
community group audiences. She was a National Association of Geoscience
Teachers Distinguished Speaker, Geosciences Counselor for the Council
on Undergraduate Research, and 2003 recipient of GSA’s Biggs Award for
Excellence in Earth Science teaching. She was a Visiting Research Scholar
(University of Auckland, New Zealand) and a Visiting Assistant Research
Geophysicist (University of California, Riverside). She holds a Ph.D. from
Brown University.
Heidi Schweingruber is director of the Board on Science Education and has

been involved in many of its major projects since its formation in 2004. She

APPENDIX C 257
co-directed the study that wrote A Framework for K-12 Science Education
(2011), which became the first step in revising national standards for K-12
science education. She was study director for a review of NASA’s pre-college
education programs and co-directed the study that produced Taking Sci-
ence to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. In addition
to editing National Academies reports on education, she co-authored two
award-winning books that translate findings of National Research Council
reports for practitioners: Ready, Set, Science!: Putting Research to Work
in K-8 Science Classrooms and Surrounded by Science. She previously
was a senior research associate at the Institute of Education Sciences in
the Department of Education, director of research for the Rice University
School Mathematics Project, and faculty member in psychology and educa-
tion at Rice University. She has served on advisory boards for the Merck
Institute for Science Education, the Discovery Learning Research Center at
Purdue University, and Building Capacity for State Science Education. Her
Ph.D. in developmental psychology and anthropology is from the University
of Michigan.
Amy Stephens is a program officer for the Board on Science Education and
an adjunct professor for the Southern New Hampshire University Psychol-
ogy department, where she teaches online graduate-level courses in cognitive
psychology and statistics. Her background is in behavioral and functional
neuroimaging techniques, and her research has examined a variety of stu-
dent populations, spanning childhood through adulthood. Her prior work
at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) Center for Talented Youth focused on
characterizing cognitive profiles of academically talented youth, to develop
alternative methods of identifying and aiding talented students from under-
resourced populations. Her research has also explored the effectiveness of
spatial skill training on performance in math and science classes, as well
as overall retention rates in STEM-related fields for students entering the
JHU engineering program. She holds a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience
from JHU and continued as a postdoctoral fellow jointly in the Center for
Talented Youth and the School of Education.
Heather Thiry is a researcher at the Ethnogaphy and Evaluation Research

Center of the University of Colorado Boulder. She conducts research and
evaluation studies on underrepresentation of women and minorities in
STEM disciplines, the professional socialization of graduate students, and
pedagogical reform initiatives in STEM education. Her research interests
include the social and cultural factors that enhance or hinder educational
reform, scientific career paths and career decision making, and the under-
representation of women and minorities in the sciences. She has published
on the professional development of education-engaged scientists and the

overrepresentation of women scientists in teaching and outreach. Her cur-

rent work focuses on learning progressions, exploring when students are
most receptive to learning certain skills along the path from novice to
experienced researcher. She has taught educational foundations and policy
courses for preservice teachers, directed a service-learning program at a
community college in California, and served as a counselor in an urban
elementary school. She has run programs at the K-12 and community col-
lege levels to provide case management and social services for low-income
and first generation students. She received her Ph.D. in educational founda-
tions, policy, and practice from the University of Colorado Boulder.

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24622 SHARE

Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students:

278 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Committee on Strengthening Research Experiences

James Gentile, Kerry Brenner, Amy Stephens, Editors

Board on Science Education

Board on Life Sciences

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-45280-9

Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Con-

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Reports document the evidence-based consensus of an authoring committee of

Proceedings chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, sym-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COMMITTEE ON STRENGTHENING RESEARCH EXPERIENCES

James Gentile (Chair), Hope College, Holland, MI

Kerry Brenner, Study Director

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION

Adam Gamoran (Chair), William T. Grant Foundation (president),

Heidi Schweingruber, Director

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

BOARD ON LIFE SCIENCES

James Collins (Chair), School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University

Frances Sharples, Director

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

I have had the privilege and honor to be involved in undergraduate

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

curriculum [December 2016].

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

UREs can add an important dimension to undergraduate STEM edu-

James Gentile, Chair

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

This report represents the work of thousands of individuals, not only

• At the first meeting, different perspectives were presented on under-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

— Institutional change. Presenters included Paul Hernandez (West

• Erin Dolan, on current knowledge and future directions of course-

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

A. Manduca, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College; Maria

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Heterogeneity of Undergraduate Research Experiences:

3 Undergraduate Research Experiences in the Larger System of

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Research Documenting Student Participation in UREs 97

— Institutional change. Presenters included Paul Hernandez (West

2 Heterogeneity of Undergraduate Research Experiences:

3 Undergraduate Research Experiences in the Larger System of

8 Considerations for Design and Implementation of

Conclusion 3: Studies focused on students from historically underrepresented

(President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012, p. 25).