A Comprehensive Approach:
Creating a Continuum of Academic Experiences
Powerpoint Presentation

Leaders: Ellen Woods, Senior Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education
Sharon Palmer, Assistant Vice Provost and Director of Freshman and Sophomore Programs
Lina Yamaguchi, Academic Technology Specialist, Undergraduate Research Programs, Stanford University

Recorder: Kathryn J. Kent, PhD, Conference Consultant

Many undergraduates entering research universities do not know how to connect with the research mission, and they are skeptical of the lofty goals set for them to become partners with faculty in the creation of new knowledge. Many faculty members share this skepticism about students' participation in the research enterprise. How can research universities convey the value of undergraduate research partnerships with faculty and the unique teaching and learning opportunities they offer? How can research universities counter skepticism about better integrating undergraduate education with the research mission of the university?

The structure of academic experiences can introduce students and faculty to undergraduate research as a developmental process. Through a comprehensive approach to undergraduate research, the curriculum as a whole, including skill requirements, introductory courses, and general education, can be designed to guide students in their development as active scholars and researchers. A comprehensive approach prepares students to form a close association with a faculty mentor and to cultivate an inquiring habit of mind. In so doing, the university supports the development of personal qualities characteristic of successful researchers. By involving faculty members in each level of this preparation, undergraduate research becomes integral to the activity of teaching.

This session explored the strengths and shortcomings of a comprehensive approach to undergraduate research. The broad goals of the session were to promote a better understanding of the vision or educational philosophy of undergraduate research and to investigate the potential to achieve positive results and increase in student/faculty research partnerships. Recent curricular and organizational reforms at Stanford University provided a case study for discussion of this approach. Session participants divided into sub-groups and discussed the following questions, reporting back to the group as a whole at the end of the session:

• What are the philosophical and practical challenges to creating connections between and among the various components of undergraduate education in support of research? How might these be addressed?
• In what ways is general education at a research university aligned or at odds with the research mission? How do undergraduate requirements reinforce or contradict the integration of research into undergraduate education?
• What are some best practices that have been successful in encouraging the formation of mentoring relationships and the cultivation of a spirit of inquiry, prerequisites for undergraduate research?

Challenges

Faculty Culture
The assumption of this session, and of the Conference as a whole, was that undergraduates at research universities should connect with faculty through research activities. Whether this assumption is incorporated into the culture and practice of the institution is itself the first challenge. In group discussion, participants identified this required cultural shift from both faculty and students as potentially the greatest challenge. Most groups reported faculty acceptance of incorporating undergraduates into the research mission as a major barrier to a comprehensive approach; faculty sometimes resist the idea of students doing research and the extra work involved in structuring such experiences. The tenure process informs the educational philosophy. Attention to undergraduate research mentoring as a teaching activity must be documented for the merit process, and subsequent attention and rewards must follow. The absence of such incentives creates an obvious practical challenge. Faculty perceptions of student potential pose a challenge as well; some faculty members believe that only a small percentage of students have the potential to fully participate in research and scholarly projects.

Student Preparation and Expectations
Likewise, the groups noted that students may be unwilling or unable to participate in research. Reasons include some students' need for remedial education, lack of room in their required courseloads, and lack of interest, which may stem from ignorance of the concept of research or from the students having different goals for what they want from their undergraduate experience.

Several groups discussed the feasibility of expecting all undergraduates to do some form of research and voiced a question that has both philosophical and practical aspects: Can we embrace the notion that it is possible to expect all students to participate in research at large public institutions? It was recognized that there is value in the process and continuum approach, but that the continuum also represents an ideal and is not yet fully applicable for all institutions. In the words of Sharon Prado, Director of Undergraduate Research Opportunities at Boston University, "The philosophical goals should perhaps be broadened to seek the cultivation of inquiry-based learning opportunities, an increased attention to quickening curiosity and engaged responsibility toward learning on the part of undergraduates. The philosophical aim should include changing students' attitudes toward learning, should lean toward motivating and inspiring interest in subjects not necessarily within students' current range of interests-to get beyond that notion that some courses are merely to be endured and tolerated."

In addition, there is often a disconnect between faculty expectations for students and the students' goals and abilities. At least at public institutions more and more remedial courses are being offered - a large number of students come ill-prepared for or disinterested in research. General education requirements could be made weightier and designed to lay the groundwork for learning through inquiry that naturally leads into research activities.

Disciplinary Traditions
Disciplinary differences in the research process can also present hurdles. Research is often perceived as a more natural component of undergraduate education in the lab sciences, whereas in the humanities and social sciences research is more often done individually and independently and there are no formal lab structures through which undergraduates can research a small segment of a problem. Faculty buy-in was noted as a potential problem in the humanities and social sciences. Faculty need an appreciation of what undergraduates can offer them and what rewards and recognition they can expect from interacting with students in this fashion. It is also helpful to consider the different guises that "undergraduate research" can take, such as independent studies and internships.

Requirements
General education and other requirements pose both challenges and opportunities. Both curricular issues and student expectations must be considered. Many introductory courses that constitute general education requirements are large lecture classes taught with the aim of either recruiting students into the major or weeding out those who should explore alternative concentrations. Many students consider general education courses as something merely to be tolerated and in some cases, the introductory science courses send students running into "easier" majors. These courses are often taught in large, impersonal formats with teaching fellows leading labs and discussion sections. This practical approach to general education seems at odds with the research mission.

Major requirements also do not always support the integration of undergraduate research into the curriculum. If an undergraduate curriculum includes credit-bearing undergraduate research courses in a continuum, like Boston University's Chemistry and Biology departments, then the requirements reinforce the integration of research. If, as is often the case in Engineering programs for instance, undergraduates must wait until their senior design project to do research during the academic year, inhibited by a packed major with little room for electives, then those undergraduate requirements would seem to contradict the integration, unless the courses within the major have relevant, related laboratory or hands-on learning experiences to accompany them.

Examples of Effective Programs: Stanford University

The Stanford group presented ways in which they have created a continuum of experiences that allow undergraduates to become gradually involved in research. The session leaders emphasized, however, that Stanford was used as a case study only, not as a paradigm or model. In education, one size does not fit all. Implementation of any initiative must fit the institutional context - its history, vision, and mission.

Administrative Organization and Educational Philosophy
In 1996 Stanford established the office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, which increased both advocacy and resources for undergraduate education. The Vice Provost's role is not "doing it" but "facilitating it" and bringing about communication between existing programs. The Vice Provost's office coordinates the Program in Writing and Rhetoric, Introduction to Humanities, Freshman and Sophomore Programs, Undergraduate Advising Center, Center for Teaching and Learning, and Undergraduate Research Programs. All of these programs play a role in creating a continuum of academic experiences in which students can gradually develop research-related skills and engage at research at varying levels.

Undergraduate research is a developmental process, involving three basic stages. In the beginning, the students develop their ideas and interests. At the intermediate stage they gain experience and skills in their area of interest, through working on faculty-led research projects or participating in summer programs. In the advanced stage, they engage in long-term independent research. Some students never go any further than the first or second step, but others do find that they gain sufficient confidence, skills and relationships with faculty to pursue independent research. The goal at every stage is to stretch students beyond their comfort level.

Three basic assumptions drive Stanford's comprehensive approach:

1. Students studying toward baccalaureate degrees are "undergraduates," not solely "college students." This terminology emphasizes the potential progression from undergraduate to graduate student.
2. One goal of undergraduate education is to prepare students to engage in productive research with faculty.
3. A comprehensive approach is developmental in nature. The curriculum is designed to meet students where they are and guide them to the next level of achievement. Each element along the continuum contributes value to students' education whether or not they reach the highest levels.

Some Elements of the Continuum
Writing and Rhetoric
A core building block of this continuum is the Writing and Rhetoric Requirement, which must be completed by all students. It consists of three levels, reflecting both core aspects of faculty work and preparation for life. Level 1, in existence since the founding of the University, consists of writing, argumentation, and library research skills. Level 2, still in a pilot phase, will emphasize oral presentation skills. Level 3, implemented in 1996, focuses on writing in the major. This progression acknowledges that writing is a skill that involves continuous improvement. The hope is that approximately a third of the oral presentation courses will be taught by individual departments rather than limiting courses to those offered by the writing program. Level 3 is revolutionary in a quiet way. A pedagogy consultant has been identified for each major to work with faculty on changing existing courses so that writing in the course emphasizes writing, re-writing, and revision.

Introductory Seminars
Introductory seminars for freshman and sophomores lay the groundwork for future research by introducing students to a topic, providing them with critical inquiry skills and helping them build relationships with faculty. These seminars aim to help faculty understand the relationship between their teaching and their research, to encourage high expectations for students while recognizing basic foundational information that students need, and to support pedagogical innovations in seminar settings.

The Office of Freshman-Sophomore Programs (FSP) recruits faculty, provides them with support, and publicizes the courses. Stanford currently offers 223 freshman and sophomore seminars. Freshman seminar enrollment is capped at 15, and sophomore seminar enrollment is capped at 13. The courses are elective, and the majority of students take at least one; by the end of their second year 75% of students have participated in a seminar. Some groups of undergraduates are less likely to participate because of constraints on their schedules: Engineering students, for example, often cannot fit a seminar into their course load. In order to reach a greater range of students, not just the self-starters, the FSP Office is working with varsity coaches and others on campus.

One barrier to student participation is a "timidity factor" -- the seminars do not feel as "safe" to students as large lectures because it is not as easy to hide in the back. Students are encouraged to see the seminars as a good opportunity to gain access to faculty and develop confidence in their ability to work with them. The promotional brochure includes faculty biographies and photos, emphasizing that the seminars are about building relationships.

The faculty have responded well. The seminars provide opportunities for them to build teaching around their research interests instead of broad introductory topics. They can choose among applicants if there are more applicants than spaces in the course. They find that they like teaching younger students, whose fresh perspectives make them more creative than older undergraduates and graduate students. Medical school faculty also find the seminars a great way to recruit research assistants.

So that the seminars would not simply be additional teaching requirements, Stanford expanded the size of the faculty, with allocations tied to each department's commitment to teach freshman and sophomores. Contract letters between the University and the departments specify how many courses the department has to offer. For smaller departments that are not likely to develop on-going courses over the long term and thus increase faculty, annual allocations exist for individual courses for one year. Faculty cycle through the seminars so that the same people do not teach them year after year. Fund-raising to support this effort is ongoing.

General interest lunches and workshops are provided to faculty to support the seminars. These events feature introductions to software and other resources and tips from experienced faculty. The FSP Office also sponsors panels on topics such as assessing student presentations and designing seminars to meet other general education requirements. These events provide opportunities for faculty to connect with others in different fields. They find unexpected intersections in the work they do and the challenges they face, and share best practices which translate across fields.

One successful example is Craig Heller's seminar on the "Physiology of Physical Performance," in which students do experiments on one another studying ways to increase human endurance and performance by manipulating oxygen and other variables. Student athletes can connect their interests to research through these topics. Another is Carol Delaney's seminar "Investigating Culture," in which students are charged with being ethnographers in a new culture. They look at the way offices or residence halls are organized or the way students dress in different settings. The seminar has been directly beneficial to her research; she has used former students as research assistants and testers for her new textbook.

The relationships that students form with faculty in the seminars are designed to extend beyond the classroom. In the Sophomore Mentoring Program, faculty members are asked to advise former seminar students until they declare a major. 44% of eligible faculty members have volunteered to do so, and 15% of sophomores work with their former instructor. In addition, over 50% of the student-faculty research projects tracked by the URP office have grown out of relationships formed in an introductory seminar.

Undergraduate Research Programs
Stanford's Undergraduate Research Programs (URP) office supports students in a number of ways. It offers advice on developing research ideas and finding opportunities to work with faculty, as well as on applying to post-graduate fellowships and to graduate school. Students may receive grants for their own independent research projects under faculty guidance. For faculty and departments, URP provides funds to support undergraduates as members of a professor's research team. URP also sponsors the Summer Honors College to support students writing honors theses and senior projects and offers advising and other services to these students during the year. In addition, it offers the Summer Research College, an eight-to-ten week residential program for students participating in departmental research programs and other faculty-led research endeavors over the summer.

In October 2002, the URP held the inaugural Symposium of Undergraduate Research in Progress (SURP), now an annual event. The Symposium is held on reunion weekend so that alumni can see the presentations and talk to the students. Because of the early fall date, the presentations emphasize methodology and process rather than results.

Web-based tools greatly facilitate the administration and promotion of research programs to large numbers of students. The URP office developed and maintains the Web-based Iliad and Odyssey databases, which provide online listings of all faculty projects that provide research opportunities to students. The Iliad database lists research interests for approximately 80% of the faculty, 20% of whom have active research opportunities, and the Odyssey database lists all current research opportunities. The listings include a description of the faculty member's research, what skills and background students require, what credit is available, the expected time commitment, how to apply, and other information students may need. Students can search listings by department or keyword. The databases were developed using Filemaker Pro, a relatively inexpensive system that is already used extensively at Stanford and can be easily integrated with existing systems. The system is secure so only Stanford students can access it.

URP also uses its Web site to provide information about the Symposium to faculty and students and to collect information from them. Students submitted their abstracts along with requests for space and technical needs through the online application. Submission of the applications automatically generates emails to the students' advisors to let them know of the application and request their approval. All information on the application is contained in a database, which allows URP staff to generate personalized acceptance letters and create an online publication of students' abstracts and intellectual biographies. In addition, the database allows URP staff to notify students of research-related workshops such as poster design, data collection, and oral presentation, developed in partnership with other VPUE programs.

Conclusion

The structure of Stanford's programs provides a pathway through the research university that emphasizes mentoring and active learning, and therefore guides students toward participation in research. Undergraduate education prepares students to undertake creative independent scholarship whether or not they actually do so. While increasing the number of students who reach the level of independent research is the ideal goal, for some students, a supervised research experience may be the more appropriate final level.

The structure of the research university is decentralized by nature, and the office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at Stanford exists in large measure as a centripetal force to counter these organizational divisions for the benefit of undergraduate education. The activities aim toward establishing connections among the faculty in order to create a sense of fellowship among those who teach in the introductory seminars programs, direct departmental research and honors programs, and share the experience of mentoring undergraduates.

This session showed how one institution, Stanford University, has made progress in integrating and coordinating undergraduate programs with the goal of bringing more faculty and students into productive research partnerships, despite the fragmentation and decentralization that characterize the autonomous activities of research and teaching at a research university.

Examples of Effective Programs: Other Universities

Participants noted courses and initiatives at other universities that contribute to a comprehensive approach to involving undergraduates in research.

The University of Texas at Austin has developed a series of seminars and other opportunities for students at different levels to progressively explore the University's array of intellectual offerings. The program, known as "Connexus: Making Connections in Undergraduate Studies," includes Forum Seminars for freshmen and sophomores, Connexus Clusters of thematically-linked courses, and Bridging Disciplines Programs in which students take a set of courses that provide multidisciplinary perspectives on a selected topic and participate in research and/or internship experiences that tie the topic to the student's major.

The University of Delaware's Undergraduate Research Program provides extensive opportunities for undergraduate research experiences in the humanities and social sciences in addition to opportunities for students in the lab sciences. Students in all disciplines are encouraged to become involved as early as their freshman year. The University of Delaware has also made extensive efforts to incorporate problem-based learning techniques into the undergraduate classroom.

In Biomedical Engineering at Johns Hopkins University, in order to achieve a balance between coverage and depth and to expose students to a greater spirit of inquiry within the classroom, electronic versions of the lectures are provided ahead of time and class time is spent on discussion and on applications of the lecture material.

Recommendations to Universities

Administrators and faculty need to undergo a "culture shift" to accept the idea of undergraduates being able to participate in research and to contribute something worthwhile. Students need to undergo a similar culture shift to consider that some basic research experience should be a fundamental part of their education - no matter whether they are on the way to graduate school or not.

Universities need to "teach the students we have," acknowledging the wide and diverse range of skills that entering students bring from high school. Universities need to address specific practical challenges that include large numbers of students; students' uncertainty regarding majors (which implies a need for portable skills from introductory courses); the lack of faculty resources; and graduation requirements. In many state universities, for example, students have a narrowly pre-professional orientation. Institutions need to help students see and develop research skills appropriate to their goals.

In order to realize the benefits of undergraduate research, the following issues need to be explicitly addressed:

• Link opportunities to strategic objectives of undergraduate education and make clear how students and faculty can benefit from in the experience.
• Define roles students can play in research in various disciplines.
• Provide workshops where students can get research skills.
• Broaden the definition of "research" beyond the lab-science model to include experiences in the humanities and social sciences as well as creative activities.

The reward structure needs to change. Faculty need to be able to define examples of undergraduate mentoring and teaching that could count toward merit and tenure.

• Resources matter. Institutions should try to develop incentives for departments to enable them to hire additional faculty (as Stanford did), as a reward for paying attention to undergraduate education. The group felt strongly that this kind of recognition has great potential to change the prevailing campus attitude toward undergraduate research and increase the number of faculty and students involved in undergraduate research experiences.
• Consider redefining "service" as including mentoring and supervising undergraduate research.

Institutions should build on existing programs to create opportunities for research where appropriate and feasible.

• Use the General Education program as a vehicle for implementing undergraduate research.

The first two years should lay a foundation for discovery, creativity, inquiry based learning and critical thinking. Implementation of this vision includes:

• Low enrollment seminar courses or practicum sections of larger courses.
• A reward system for faculty and departments that encourages development and continuation of such courses.
• Incorporation of "active learning" into general education and introductory courses in the major.

Institutions should provide a variety of experiences that introduce students to research in stages. Examples of such a continuum may include:

• A spring seminar for freshman, in which faculty present non-technical lectures and tours of labs.
• Student participation in research groups after they have declared a major.

Institutions should also seek to create innovative partnerships. For example:

• Pair seniors with freshmen to share their expertise and engage in peer teaching. The team-based approach has the advantage of "built-in" helpers: peers can help each other and take some of the load off the faculty members.
• Encourage clustering of freshmen, peer education, and other ways to promote undergraduate research within student life.
• Use undergraduate research as a way of reaching out into the community and linking student efforts with community needs.

Recommendation to the Reinvention Center

A study of the extent to which universities recognize and reward undergraduate research mentoring in the promotion and tenure process might prove valuable.

Resources

Web sites:
Stanford University
Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education: http://vpue.stanford.edu
Office of Freshman-Sophomore Programs: http://fsp.stanford.edu
Undergraduate Research Program: http://urp.stanford.edu
Summer Research College: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/undergrad/urp/SRC/srcgoals.html
Reinvention Center Spotlight on Stanford: http://www.sunysb.edu/Reinventioncenter/Research%20spotlight.html

University of Delaware
Undergraduate Research Program: www.udel.edu/UR
Problem-Based Learning: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/

University of Texas at Austin
Connexus: www.utexas.edu/students/connexus
Reinvention Center Spotlight on Connexus: [URL when posted]

Boston University
Department of Biology: http://www.bu.edu/biology/undergrad_program.html
Department of Chemistry: http://www.bu.edu/chemistry/undergrad/research/
In these departments, specially-designated research courses allow students, starting at the freshman level, to design and implement research projects under the supervision of a faculty member.