Undergraduate research experiences: The ... - Wiley Online Library

THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.) 269:3–10, 2002 DOI 10.1002/AR.10058

EDUCATION NOTE

Undergraduate Research Experiences: The Translation of Science Education from Reading to Doing SUZZETTE F. CHOPIN*

U

ndergraduate students in a research laboratory waste time—professor time and student time. Is that your perception of undergraduate research experiences? Consider these questions: What is the best way to learn to play baseball— studying the rule book, watching professional teams play, or playing the game yourself? What is the best way to learn to ride a two-wheeled bike— reading about balancing and pedaling, watching someone ride a bike, or getting on the bike and pedaling? What is the best way to learn how to cook—reading a cookbook, watching a chef on television, or getting out the beaters and bowls? Clearly, learning by actually doing is superior to learning by reading or watching. But, how is the future generation of scientists being trained? Unfortunately, most of our students are learning by reading and watching and not by doing.

professors learned science by studying the rule book, by reading about science, by attending lectures, by memorizing notes and textbooks. Our companion laboratory sessions tended to be cookbook-style formulas for performing experiments. We added three drops of A to B in tube 1 and it turned pink, so B was a base. We followed the recipe, noted the color change and wrote “base” in our lab reports. Even more disturbing than cookbook science, there were few opportunities to work with professors outside of standard science courses. More commonly, we had to wait until graduate school to experience hands-on, what-if science in a “real” lab. And

Undergraduate science education is undergoing a transformation.

THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW As undergraduate students, the current population of associate and full Dr. Chopin is a professor of biology at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, where she teaches embryology, neurobiology, pathophysiology, and the biological basis of aging. Her research interests focus on toxicology and teratology. Over past 6 years, she has mentored 35 undergraduate students in her laboratory. Her students have delivered more than 30 presentations and have won 10 awards for their presentations. *Correspondence to: Suzzette F. Chopin, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Department of Physical and Life Sciences, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78412. Fax: 361-825-3719; E-mail: [email protected]

© 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

wait we did. And maybe that is why so few people became scientists—science was plodding, science was following a recipe, science was boring. That was then. Now, undergraduate science education is undergoing a transformation. Classrooms promote learning activities that fully engage students in learning and discovery processes. Companion lab sessions stress inquiry-based experiences in which cookbook recipes are discarded in favor of student-derived hypotheses and experimental design. The transformation has permeated the curriculum beyond the classroom. Undergraduate students are now

more involved in faculty mentored research experiences. Students are actually doing science, not merely enduring lectures about science or studying their textbooks. Abrash et al. (1998) noted that research is the most intensive way to teach science. Students are active participants of lab teams, journal clubs, and scientific conferences. These activities supplement traditional science courses, providing benefits to both students and professors.

STUDENTS ARE THE WINNERS The benefits of undergraduate research are tipped in favor of the student. When we tally up the benefits balance sheet, students are the winners (Table 1). Our balance sheet favors students because the outcomes to the student are more concrete, more able to be listed, more amenable to assessment. The tangible, measurable rewards to the professor are overshadowed by the personal satisfaction we gain by playing an active role in the personal and professional growth of our students. In effect, we become their intellectual parents.

Beyond the Cookbook The goal of science education is not merely to train students to follow a recipe, but to train students to devise the recipe: To select the ingredients (question, hypothesis), decide the cooking technique (experimental design), and whip up an excellent repast (results and conclusion). We want to give our students the spice of scientific discovery. But, how can we do this? We have all had students who were top of the class at test time but exhibited the cognitive synthetic abilities of

4 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.)

EDUCATION NOTE

TABLE 1. Benefit balance sheet for the undergraduate research experience For Student

For Professor

Course content in action Science understood as integrated whole Academic motivation Higher graduation rate Postbaccalaureate matriculation Behavior modeling Develop critical thinking Learn problem solving Gain technical expertise Enhance communication skills Initiation to world of the scientist Advising and mentoring Letters of evaluation Personal satisfaction Fun

Extra hands in the lab Question traditional thinking Fearless creativity Professional growth

a flea. I often asked myself how this was possible. How could a student be so clueless about the unifying concepts, the interconnectedness of all disciplines, the big picture? Now I can answer, “Because you never gave them that critical boost, they never leaped to the big picture.” Well, now I am giving them a boost in the classroom, as well as outside its formal boundaries. My colleagues and I are teaching students by providing them research opportunities. Undergraduate research experience translates science content into a real world context. And, this real world context facilitates that leap to the big picture. The knowledge gained after hours of lectures and reading becomes real when students have to use that knowledge in the hands-on research paradigm. The big picture comes into focus. Many students are amazed that what they learned in their science courses is actually used in the research lab. “You mean I really have to know how to make a one molar solution? To focus a microscope? To figure out how to design the experiment?” The epiphany is completed on the realization that the contents of their chemistry, physics, and biology courses are parts of the integrated whole that we call science. The science that involves the intellectual and physical skills necessary to make that solution, to use a microscope, to keep an accurate data book, to repair a pH meter. Students frequently remark that they did not know that they would really have to use “all that stuff.”

Undergraduate research experiences translate into a stronger motivation toward academics, a greater interest in learning more science and a desire for continued education in graduate or professional school. Undergraduate researchers are more likely to progress to graduate school, particularly when research begins early in the student’s career (Tuss and Smalley, 1994; Abrash et al., 1998). Wright (1998) analyzed the responses of former faculty mentors of summer grant programs who were sent a survey designed to evaluate the impact on student participants and faculty research efforts. Fifty-nine percent of the surveys were returned, representing the outcomes of 152 students. One hundred three students had continued to advanced scientific degrees, 9 pursued medically oriented degrees, 4 were pursuing graduate degrees in other fields, 5 were employed as high school teachers, and the remainder were either still undergraduate students or were delaying entry into graduate school for one more year. The Council on Undergraduate Research sent surveys to the 21 students who participated in their Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program of 1998; 19 students responded (Hoagland, 1999). Of the respondents, 14 continued their research at their home institutions, 8 completed honors projects, and 12 eventually matriculated into graduate or professional schools. Another survey (Mabrouk and Peters, 2000) reported that 32% of the 126 students with undergraduate

research experience went on to advanced study. Similarly, the undergraduate research programs supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Spelmann College and the University of California-Davis have significantly enhanced the academic success of the student participants, as measured by increased graduation rates and increased matriculation in graduate and professional schools (Gunter-Smith and Villarejo, 2000). Thirty-five undergraduate students worked at least two semesters in my lab during the past 6 years; many of them were with me for more than 2 years. Of the 27 students who have graduated, 5 are in medical school, 3 are in doctoral programs, 1 is finishing a master’s degree, 1 is enrolled in an MD/PhD program, 1 earned a doctorate in biochemistry, and 3 received master’s degrees.

I Think (Critically), Therefore I Am (A Scientist) Time and again we bemoan the sorry state of our student’s critical thinking ability. We question whether there is any neuronal firing occurring. Undergraduate research experiences are not only the means to improved critical thinking and problem-solving skills, but these skills are the natural outcomes of such experiences. Evaluating scientific literature and relating it to the research project enhance critical thinking skills. Designing experiments by using appropriate controls and determining the number of subjects necessary for statistical validity are components of any research project; these components build problem-solving skills. I expect students to come to our lab team meetings prepared to discuss the experimental design of our next project: what controls do we need, how many dosages make a dose response curve, how many animals per dose. What is actually an organizational meeting for me evolves into a learning experience for the students. Halaby (2001) noted that learning to solve problems by using critical thinking, problem identification, and technical proficiency is a valuable skill, regardless of the student’s ultimate career objective. These skills serve a student well, even if that stu-

EDUCATION NOTE

dent does not become a science professional. Other outcomes cited by Halaby are opportunities for students to master instrumentation; to follow a project from inception to completion; to learn data analysis, organization, and interpretation; and to be initiated into the world of the scientist.

WELCOME TO THE CLUB Part of the initiation process involves developing communication skills. I expect my students to deliver short verbal reports during lab team meetings. These reports are a prelude to delivering polished oral or poster presentations to the scientific community. Mabrouck and Peters (2000) reported that presenting at a scientific meeting was cited by 20% of survey respondents as their most memorable experience. I have found that to be true for my students too. Several of my students have delivered presentations at regional and national meetings, including the Southern Section of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine, the Society of Developmental Biology and the Experimental Biology meetings of FASEB through the American Association of Anatomists (AAA). These societies have always promoted graduate student participation in their sessions and recently have begun including undergraduate researchers among their membership. I organized a symposium, Mentoring Undergraduate Students in Research, for the Experimental Biology 2001 Conference. Undergraduate research experiences were discussed from the perspectives of four professors who had mentored undergraduate research and five current or former undergraduate researchers (Ramsdell, 2001). The professors discussed strategies for success, pitfalls, and funding issues. The students were passionate about the advantages of these opportunities. Our message was that undergraduate research experiences benefit both faculty and students. An added bonus is that these opportunities increase diversity in the biomedical sciences because they provide relevant faculty and peer role models and foster student self-confidence. Given the educational benefits of

THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (NEW ANAT.) 5

TABLE 2. Percentage of high school students enrolled in college immediately after completing high school according to family income*

Year

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

1972 1982 1992 1999

26.1 32.8 40.9 49.4

45.2 41.7 57.0 59.5

63.8 70.9 79.0 76.0

*Data from National Center Educational Statistics, 2001.

of

undergraduate research experiences, it is time for us to focus a more concerted effort on encouraging (and financially supporting) undergraduate student presentations at conferences. The next generation of science professionals will emerge from the ranks of these students. Scientific meetings provide networking opportunities for the undergraduates, but perhaps more importantly, say to them, “Welcome to the club of scientists.”

Call the Professional Fashion Police The working relationship between the professor and the student provides many advising opportunities. As expected, common subjects are suggestions for choosing relevant courses, career options, and postbaccalaureate education. Perhaps less expected but equally relevant subjects revolve around social customs. More students are entering college immediately after high school than ever before. The National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES, 2001) reported that enrollment increased from 49 to 63% from 1972 to 1999. The increase occurred across all socioeconomic levels, such that socioeconomic diversity is the norm at educational institutions today. Although students from all economic strata contributed to the enrollment increase (Table 2), those from low-income families made the most hefty gains, from an annual enrollment of 26.1% in 1972 to 49.4% in 1999. Enrollment of students from middle-income families increased

from 45.2% to 59.5%, whereas enrollment of students from high-income families increased the least, from 63.8 to 76%. Many students have never bought a suit or attended a formal banquet. I have frequently discussed professional dress with my students. Usually these conversations precede a shopping trip to purchase an outfit for delivering a first presentation at a scientific meeting. Is teaching Misty to avoid baring her midriff while delivering her presentation (“We want the audience to look at your slides, not your navel ornamentation”) less important than ensuring she has standard error bars on her graphs? Not really. We are encouraging learning for life.

A Meaningful Recommendation All of us have been asked for letters of evaluation. Most of the requests I receive are for graduate or professional schools, but I have also been asked for letters to prospective employers. What can I say about a student who has taken my classes, been polite, done well on tests, but is really just another name in my grade book? Admission committees and employers want more than “name, rank, and serial number.” The evaluation form asks me to discuss the student’s strengths and weaknesses by providing specific examples of each. I have to get the letter in today’s mail, I am staring at a blinking cursor, and I write a letter that probably does a disservice to the student’s abilities. I am not happy, I have probably overlooked some of the student’s attributes and the admission committee/employer will not get the type of information sought. There is a vast difference when I write a letter for one of my undergraduate researchers. I know the strengths, weaknesses, skills, intellectual ability, personality, integrity, motivation, and commitment of my undergraduate researchers. I can describe the person rather than merely recite his grade point average or scores on standardized tests. My narrative is rich with examples and my student comes alive on the pages. I am satisfied with my narrative, I have made the deadline, and the student has been well served.


Science ⴝ Fun

Helping Hands

Students enjoy the research experience. They enjoy the challenge of problem solving, the camaraderie that develops within the lab, the self-confidence that the experience engenders, and the opportunities to attend scientific meetings. Ninety-eight percent of undergraduate students surveyed would recommend undergraduate research to others (Mabrouck and Peters, 2000). This finding is true on our campus, where opportunities for research tend to spread by word of mouth. Our undergraduate researchers become proselytes for hands-on opportunities. They enjoy being part of a lab team and doing the work of the scientist. They like working with one another and networking with professors. They recognize that hands-on experiences are an invaluable part of their education. They are having fun.

At minimum, the professor gets an extra pair of hands to put away supplies, tidy the lab, wash dishes, and run to the library. Although general scut work is not the goal of undergraduate research, the reality is that such chores are necessary and that helping hands are always welcome. Undergraduate students are content to start out at the bottom of the pecking order, content to perform the mundane chores of the lab. Pretty soon they graduate to pipetting, pouring agar, making solutions. These tasks are novel to them and they do not perceive them as burdensome or repetitive. More importantly, these tasks are signposts on the road to technical expertise. As the student becomes accus-

WHY SHOULD I CARE? Admittedly, the return on investment to the professor is less than that to the student, at least in terms of tangible benefits. The dichotomy between research and teaching in research universities fosters a culture in which research is more highly valued. Successful research efforts, as measured by funded grants, publications, and presentations, are integral in the computation of merit pay and scrutinized at promotion and tenure. Teaching efforts, although not devalued, certainly are a lesser consideration. A professor who wins teaching awards from students and consistently earns excellent student evaluations of instruction but has a mediocre research effort is less likely to advance in rank and pay than an accomplished high-output researcher with poor teaching ability. The hegemony of research is well known. These are the rules of the game at research universities, and professors play by the rules. They jealously guard their research time, frequently at the expense of their teaching responsibilities. In fact, many professors at research universities consider it a burden to deliver more than six lectures annually. Given this culture, is there any benefit to the professor who supervises undergraduate research?

Undergraduate research experiences translate into a stronger motivation toward academics, a greater interest in learning more science and a desire for continued education in graduate or professional school. tomed to working in the lab, as he becomes more technically proficient, he assumes more responsibility for research design and implementation. Ultimately, as the more experienced undergraduate researcher, he will mentor new recruits.

Thinking Beyond the Test Tube Taking on undergraduate researchers has good news, bad news components. These students need more supervision, because they come with a cognitive database containing fewer science facts. In addition, most undergraduates arrive technically deprived, needing more time to perfect the fine motor skills required in some procedures. So, the bad news is that there is more downtime when working with

EDUCATION NOTE

undergraduates than with graduate students; undergraduates need more explanation, more guidance, and have more questions to be answered. However, precisely because they come unburdened with the “facts” of conventional wisdom, they are more likely to think outside the box of scientific dogma. They ask fundamental questions, suggest novel ways to solve problems, question dogmatic authority, and tend to be fearless in their thinking. Hoopes (1993) noted that undergraduates are quite willing to plunge ahead of accepted ideas and to leap above current research constructs. Having undergraduate researchers can stimulate and re-invigorate research projects. They are not hesitant to test unusual hypotheses, nor is their research commitment bound by the time constraints of graduate students who are working toward thesis or dissertation completion. My students contribute to my cultural education. They are my lifelines to the current generation. Because of them, I am not “old school.” I am kept abreast of current music, fashions, “what’s hot, what’s not” and speech patterns. (Hint: Mac daddy is not the inventor of the computer, nor is JLo an oncogene).

Focusing Beyond the Ocular Light (2001) reported that 89 percent of surveyed students identified a specific professor who had a significant impact on them. He states that his goal is to make a difference in his students’ lives. Making a difference means that we have to broaden the focus of our student interactions, to look beyond the circumscribed field of our traditional activities, to stop peering through the ocular. We need to invite undergraduates into our labs, where we have a unique opportunity to make significant contributions to their professional and personal growth. Undergraduate researchers will learn how to design experiments, how to collect and analyze data, how to use instrumentation, how to deliver presentations, and how to conduct themselves in a professional manner. These are the more tangible goods that professors can provide their undergraduate researchers. Less tangi-

EDUCATION NOTE

ble, but perhaps more important, are attributes such as work ethic, integrity, and honesty. It is sometimes difficult to discuss these less tangible attributes without becoming didactic. However, acquiring these attributes should be part of our educational plan for our students. More first generation college students are entering the university, and more students from lower socioeconomic levels are seeking degrees (NCES, 2001). It is likely that the undergraduate researcher is experiencing his or her first relationship with a member of a profession, with someone who goes to work with a headache or a cold, with someone who works late and comes in on weekends. We communicate these attitudes about work subtly, perhaps never openly discuss them, but they are duly noted and internalized by our students. Standards of conduct involving integrity and honesty are verbally communicated in discussions about falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism. However, as students develop their own ethical standards, they are keen observers of our actions. Thus, we can serve as templates for our student’s moral growth.

Mentoring and Positive Feedback Science is an objective, data-driven, impersonal endeavor. We are taught to distance ourselves from our experiment, to view the doing of science critically, with a certain detachment. Our pragmatic approach to science is frequently assumed to be descriptive of scientists themselves. And many of us buy into that description. Scientists are considered to be detached, aloof, dedicated professionals. Scientists are not perceived as warm and fuzzy people; we are not known for discussing our feelings. However, the intellectual satisfaction of science is complimented by the emotional satisfaction we derive when our students share in the discovery process. We feel good, maybe even warm and fuzzy. We feel good when our students make strides in critical thinking, problem solving, and data analysis. I am pleased when a student reports that he finally understands how to prepare graphs and interpret his re-


sults. Data manipulation and extrapolation are integral to science education, so I am achieving my goal. However, I feel even better when I know that I have been part of a student’s personal development during her tenure in my lab. The college years have always been a time for personal growth. As a research mentor, I can have a greater role in her maturation, perhaps adding a bit of polish during the process. I am pleased to be a contributor in her transition to adulthood. When she graduates, the pride I feel for her accomplishments is intoxicating.

Anatomy as a Model Science Anatomy is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of the sciences. What better place for a student to enter the profession than in a lab that uses anatomical

We need to invite undergraduates into our labs where we have a unique opportunity to make significant contributions to their professional and personal growth. techniques? We have the historical imperative, and we have Aristotle as our role model (Blits, 1999). The techniques we use cut across all disciplines and are valuable commodities in the student’s repertoire of technical expertise. Morphologic studies provide scientific rigor and have the added advantage that the student can actually see what is happening.

EXCUSES FOR SAYING NO (GHOULIES AND GHOSTIES) Of course there are reasons why a researcher might rather not take an undergraduate under her wing in the laboratory. I like to call these “ghoulies” and “ghosties.” The ghoulie that haunts undergraduate research is time, the extra time devoted to initiating a novice into the club of the science. Undergraduate students are

more likely to make mistakes than experienced graduate students. Sometimes they err in chemistry calculations, break glassware, forget to record data. Undergraduate students need more explanation, more reassurance, and more direct supervision in the lab. Graduate students are further along in their academic careers, they tend to have more self-confidence and research experience. Graduate students demand less time. A cost-benefit analysis of tangible results favors spending time with graduate students, because these students require less direct supervision and can be expected to deliver a tangible product, a thesis or dissertation, which can be published. But, what about all those intangible rewards? Knowing that we have made a difference in the professional and personal growth of our students, and our own emotional satisfaction at having cultivated a new young scientific mind, can vanquish the time ghoulie. The ghostie is money. But this ghostie is ephemeral and disappears upon further consideration. Undergraduate students are eager for research experiences and are often willing to join a lab team without financial reward. The benefits to the researcher of this type of student are obvious. If a student volunteers her time without any expectations of financial gain, then she is probably a very committed and disciplined student. Not only do I have “free” labor, she may even outshine some of my “paid” researchers because of her obvious commitment to science. She may put in very productive hours and could produce very reliable work, perhaps more so than some technicians or grad students. If funds become available, I already know her work ethic and abilities and, therefore, risk much less when I hire her. We both benefit from such experiences. Give her a chance, and she will shine.

MENTORING UNDERGRADUATES: A PRIMER My suggestions for strategies to ensure successful undergraduate research experiences can be summed up by saying, “Know what you are getting into.” All of us are not meant to be


Step 2: Develop a Partnership

success (http://www.sci.tamucc.edu/ pals/sym/). Our 144 participants enjoyed oral and poster presentations by their peers. Invited speakers discussed the benefits of morphologic studies, the role of anatomical investigations in the graduate curriculum, and the graduate and professional school application process. A panel of undergraduate students explained how they became involved in research and the benefits they derive from such experiences. Three professors, decked out in green hair, baseball caps, jangling jewelry, and exposed boxer shorts, delivered a humorous presentation on how not to deliver a presentation. This performance was enjoyed by all. The symposium provided a venue for our students to present their research and engendered interest in research in the

As much as possible, make the student an equal partner of the lab team. Hold regular lab team meetings to discuss lab “business.” All lab team members are stakeholders in the research; all members should be involved in problem solving, whether the problems are scientific or interpersonal. Consider the student’s suggestions, let him try out his ideas, allow him to be a colleague. Expect that he will be responsible, and demand responsibility if necessary.

My suggestions for strategies to ensure successful undergraduate research experiences can be summed up by saying, “Know what you are getting into.”

undergraduate mentors. Decide if the benefits outweigh the deficits. If you decide to become involved, there are three steps to successful implementation.

Step 1: Commitment A successful undergraduate research experience begins with a committed professor who is willing to become an intellectual parent to a student. Commitment is necessary because mentoring undergraduate researchers is a time-intensive endeavor. The professor must enter into this partnership fully cognizant of these demands and determined to make the time to be a successful mentor.

Step 3: Road Trips Actively seek opportunities for your students to present at scientific meetings. Many organizations provide travel support to students whose abstracts are accepted for publication. My students have received funding from the AAA, the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine, and the Society of Developmental Biology. At my institution, funding is available to help underwrite the cost of attendance of students who present at meetings. I frequently can help a student to finance a trip by cobbling together resources from two or three sources. If there are several undergraduate researchers at your institution, consider organizing an Undergraduate Research Symposium. A colleague and I did, and we received an AAA Outreach Grant for the symposium (Chopin and Moury, 2001). It was held a few months ago and was a great

other students. We hope to make the symposium an annual event, a dress rehearsal for those students planning to present at regional or national meetings.

HELP IS AVAILABLE Many professional organizations provide financial and logistic support for student research (Table 3). However, most of this support is aimed at graduate education. Two organizations, the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) and Sigma Xi, are noteworthy in their support of undergraduate investigators. CUR (http://www.cur.org) was the first organization to support undergraduate research in the sciences. Twenty years ago, thirteen chemists came together to foster research experiences in primarily undergraduate institutions. That effort has grown today

EDUCATION NOTE

to 3,000 members from over 850 institutions. The goal of CUR is to strengthen research programs in science, mathematics, and engineering by acting as the voice of researchers at primarily undergraduate institutions. CUR actively seeks federal and industry support of undergraduate research, develops White Papers on science policy issues, and publishes booklets, directories, and the CUR Quarterly, focusing on topics relevant to undergraduate research. CUR holds biennial conferences, as well as a variety of “how to” institutes. As part of its science advocacy efforts, CUR sponsors the annual Capitol Hill poster session, at which undergraduate researchers present their research to members of Congress and their staff. Three years ago one of my students was selected for the event. She was thrilled to be selected for such an honor, but doubly excited because it would be her first trip to Washington. We were impressed by the caliber of research presented as well as congressional representation. That student is now a doctoral candidate in neuroscience. Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, (www.sigmaxi.org) is another source of support for professors and their students. The members of its 519 chapters actively support research, and many chapters have activities that target undergraduate researchers. These activities include awarding certificates of recognition, sponsoring undergraduate research symposiums, and underwriting the cost of a student to attend a conference. Twice a year the national office calls for submissions by students of Grants-in-Aid of Research. Sigma Xi opens the competition to both graduate and undergraduate investigators. The maximum funding is $1,000 to be used for supplies to support the research; stipends and wages are not eligible for funding. Additional funds are available to award larger grants in astronomy, eye and vision, and blood plasma research. The first applications from my campus were submitted last year. Two of the six students who applied were funded. The National Science Foundation is known for its advocacy of strong, integrated science education through mechanisms of systemic curricular re-

EDUCATION NOTE


TABLE 3. Funding for undergraduate research experiences Organization

Type of funding

Website

American Association of Anatomists

Outreach grant

http://www.anatomy.org/public/pages/index.cfm? pageid⫽194 http://www.anatomy.org/public/pages/index.cfm? pageid⫽149

Sigma Xi

Grants-In-Aid of Research Grants may be provided by individual chapters

http://www.sigmaxi.org/giar/giar.htm

Council on Undergraduate Research

Summer research experiences

http://www.cur.org/programs.html

National Science Foundation

Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI)

http://www.nsf.gov/home/ehr

National Institutes of Health

Extramural funding for minority students Career Opportunities in Research (COR) Education and Training Honor Undergraduates Research Training Initiative for Minority Students: Bridges to the Baccalaureate Degree Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC) Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research (USTAR) Award Minority-Research Infrastructure Support Program (M-RISP)

http://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdev/ colopportindex.html

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine

Student presenters at the Experimental Biology Conference Funding for student presenters at regional meetings may be available

http://www.sebm.org/travel.htm

Travel for student presenters at the Experimental Biology Conference

form as well as funding to support undergraduate research activities (Fortenberry, 1998). The Research Experiences for Undergraduates, the Research in Undergraduate Institutions, the Alliance for Minority Participation and Major Research Instrumentation programs provide funds to develop and maintain research by undergraduate students.

SHOW ME THE MONEY When asked why he robbed banks, notorious gangster Willie Sutton replied, “That’s where the money is.” Federal agencies target their funding of undergraduate research to research institutions. I guess because they think, “That’s where the researchers are.” Of course, the agencies are already pouring dollars into these institutions in

support of these researchers. Sort of like Markovnikov’s rule about adding hydrogen, “Them as has, gits.” What about the rest of us “carbons” at the other institutions? We are effectively excluded from applying for many of these grants. The National Institutes of Health offers a variety of grants for undergraduate research (Minority Access to Research Careers, Minority Biomedical Research), infrastructure support (Minority Research Infrastructure Support Program), and curriculum reform (Bridges to the Baccalaureate). However, these grants specifically target minority institutions to the exclusion of other undergraduate institutions. Professors at undergraduate institutions would welcome the opportunity to compete for grants to help us provide research experiences

for our students, develop our research infrastructure, and initiate curricular improvement. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) recently announced the HHMI Professors Program designed to support an undergraduate research initiative. However, the competition was limited to professors at the 84 institutions listed as doctoral or research universities by the Carnegie Foundation in 2000. This commendable program seeks to have researchers take a more active role in undergraduate course design, undergraduate research, interdisciplinary collaborations and outreach efforts to precollege teachers. For those of us not affiliated with doctoral or research universities, HHMI offers helpful suggestions about placing our students in summer research opportunities (Brown, 2001). At my university, we


have placed well over 100 students into summer experiences during the past 4 or 5 years. A student enjoys a wonderful research experience for 2–3 months during the summer, but what about the rest of the academic year? It seems to me that agencies that support undergraduate research should open the funding opportunity door to institutions such as mine. After all, that’s where most of the undergraduate students are most of the year and that’s where the emphasis on research has taken root (Bradley, 2001). In fact, The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998) reported that research universities have failed their undergraduate students by focusing on a commitment to research at the expense of teaching. The Commission pointed out that many research universities feature renowned professors in their advertising materials, but that undergraduates rarely get a glimpse of Dr. Laureate, much less interact with him. The Commission called for reform based on engaging freshmen in research, teaching them effective communication skills, and constructing internships that translate learning into practical experiences. Gonzalez (2001) reiterated the importance of undergraduate research, but aimed her comments at research universities. The nondoctoral institutions are ready and willing to stand and deliver research experiences to undergraduate students. Many professors at these institutions are already doing just that. Unfortunately, the perception that such experiences are worthwhile primarily at research universities remains part of the conventional wisdom.

VISION FOR THE FUTURE The Committee on Undergraduate Science Education of the National Research Council prepared a blueprint for future science, math, engineering,

and technology education (1999). One component of their vision is that all programs involved in science education should provide opportunities for as many undergraduate students as possible to participate in mentored research. I agree. My vision for the future is that more undergraduate students will participate in research. My vision is one in which professors commit to providing mentoring experiences that guide their students toward professional and personal growth. My vision is that grants supporting undergraduate research become more inclusive and reach out to researchers at primarily undergraduate institutions. My vision is that professors forge partnerships of discovery with undergraduate students, welcome these students into their research labs, allow them to be full participants in their lab teams, and help them to become members of the club of scientists. My vision is that you will take undergraduate students into your lab; they will certainly spice up your life.

LITERATURE CITED Abrash SA, Otto CA, Hoagland KE. 1998. Undergraduate research: Building a road to better undergraduate education. Council on Undergraduate Research. White Paper. Washington DC. Blits KC. 1999. Aristotle: form, function, and comparative anatomy. Anat Rec (New Anat) 257:58 – 63. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. 1998. Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook. Bradley D. 2001. Researching undergrads: Sampling life at the bench. In: HMS Beagle: The BioMedNet Magazine. Issue 112. Available at: http://news.bmn.com/ hmsbeagle/112/notes/adapt?print⫽yes. Accessed October 12 2001. Brown K. 2001. Time, money, mentors: Overcoming the barriers to undergraduate research. HHMI Bulletin. January: 30 –33. Chopin SF, Moury JD. 2001. Undergraduate research symposium in south Texas.

EDUCATION NOTE

AAA Newsletter 10(4):10. Available at: www.anatomy.org/public/pages/ Dec_2001.pdf. Accessed December 2001. Committee on Undergraduate Science Education. 1999. Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology. National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press Fortenberry NL. 1998. Integration of research and curriculum. CUR Quarterly 19:54 – 61. Gonzalez C. 2001. Undergraduate research, graduate mentoring, and the university’s mission. Science 293:1624–1626. Gunter-Smith P, Villarejo M. 2000. Building resources for science education in the 21st century. Workshop 3: Assessing the student research experience. Available at: http://www.bioeducation.net/ grants/bioeducation/plenary3/ workshop3.htm. Accessed October 8, 2001. Halaby R. 2001. Promoting undergraduate research in science. Scientist 15:35. Hoagland KE. 1999. Undergraduate research summer fellowships in science, mathematics and engineering program. Annual report. Washington DC: Council on Undergraduate Research. Hoopes M. 1993. For undergraduates, hands-on research and book learning go hand in hand. Scientist 7:10. Light RJ. 2001. Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Mabrouk P, Peters K. 2000. Student perspectives on undergraduate research experiences in chemistry and biology. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly. 21:25–33. NCES. U.S. Department of Education. 2001. Digest of Education Statistics 2000 (NCES 2001-034). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at: http:// nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2001/section3/ indicator26.html. Accessed October 27, 2001. Ramsdell AF. 2001. High marks for undergrad mentoring in biomedical research. AAA Newsletter 10(2):8. Available at: www.anatomy.org/public/pages/ 01june.pdf. Accessed June 2001. Tuss P, Smalley L. 1994. Introducing undergraduates to research: Long-term impacts of the D.O.E. Student Research Participation program. CUR Quarterly 15:65– 69. Wright L. 1998. AIURP/CURSOR/SURE summer grant programs: A look at our prior recipients. CUR Quarterly 19:34–35.