Recommended Citation: Gunnels, Charles W., Jaclyn Chastain, Shawn Brunelle, Anna Carlin, Thomas M. Cimarusti, Mary Crone-Romanovski, Richard W. Coughlin, Carolyn Culbertson, Jason Elek, April Felton, Shawn Felton, Debra A. Giambo, Katie Johnson, Shawn Keller, Dawn Kirby, Santiago Luaces, Derek Lura, Peter Reuter, Tunde Szecsi, Rachel Tait-Ripperdan, Scott Vanselow, Judy Wynekoop, Hulya Julie Yazici, Melodie H. Eichbauer . 2024. Undergraduate Research Experiences Grow Career-Ready Transferable Skills. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (1): 15-25. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/1/1

Transferable skills, namely critical thinking, communication, problem solving, and adaptability, serve as the bedrock of a successful and fulfilling career. Employers increasingly demand candidates with career-ready skills in addition to technical competencies. Therefore, institutions of higher education have increasingly fostered academic environments that couple holistic learning with career preparation (National Association of Colleges and Employers 2022). However, the ability of higher education institutions to provide students with material value has been met with increasing skepticism by graduates, employers, and society. For example, a recent report in the Chronicle of Higher Education found that only 24 percent of graduates felt that their undergraduate experience provided significant value (Kelderman 2023). In addition, perceptions about the value of higher education have become increasingly politicized in the United States (Parker 2019). In a time of public scrutiny regarding student loans, tuition, and job prospects, universities must be accountable if they wish to serve the best interests of students and society.

Undergraduate research experiences may be expected to develop career-ready transferable skills as well as, if not better than, other high-impact practices (Ashcroft, Blatti, and Jaramillo 2020; Chadha and Nicholls 2006; Hernandez et al. 2018). To promote the development of transferable skills, Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) implemented an institution-wide quality enhancement plan (QEP) called FGCUScholars: Think, Discover, Write in 2015 that worked with departments to integrate undergraduate research and scholarship across the university to improve students’ critical thinking, information literacy, and written communication (Gunnels et al. 2020). Although some course-embedded undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) and extensive opportunities for individual faculty-mentored research were in place before 2015, implementation of FGCUScholars started the coordinated effort to integrate research skills across the four-year curriculum and diverse majors. The transferable skills associated with FGCUScholars were identified based on an internal assessment and feedback from employers and graduate programs. Although FGCU graduates were seen as proficient in disciplinary and content knowledge, stakeholders indicated that students needed to improve their ability to (a) engage in critical thinking and complex problem solving; (b) conduct research and use evidence-based analysis; and (c) express themselves professionally through high-level writing. To enhance these skills, academic departments were required to scaffold learning competencies, from general education through capstone courses. Although academic majors were encouraged to develop research skills throughout the curriculum and students to engage in research-oriented capstones, some departments used case studies, internship and service-learning experiences, or academic reflections (in which fourth-year students gave thought to their experiences and learning over the previous four years) for their capstones. The variety of capstone formats allowed comparisons of skill levels across types.

To learn how undergraduate research experiences affected the expression of transferable skills over time and relative to other learning experiences, the critical thinking, information literacy, and written communication skills of fourth-year undergraduates who participated in a research-oriented capstone were first compared with those of first-year students and then with fourth-year students who undertook different capstone experiences. If undergraduate research experiences enhanced transferable skills positively, fourth-year students who engaged in research would be expected to demonstrate higher skill levels than first-year students and fourth-year undergraduates who completed alternative capstone experiences.

Methods

FGCU, established in 1997, is a public, regional, comprehensive university serving the academic, research, and workforce needs of Southwest Florida. By 2020, the institution enrolled over 15,000 students, 85 percent of whom were undergraduates (Florida Gulf Coast University 2023). During the FGCUScholars initiative, FGCU employed about 500 full-time faculty members and offered 52 undergraduate majors, with additional graduate degrees.

To understand how undergraduate research experiences affected career-ready transferable skills, the university conducted an annual university-wide assessment of students’ written artifacts based on seven proficiencies modified from the AACU VALUE (Validated Assessment of Undergraduate Education) rubrics (Association of American Colleges and Universities 2009). Critical thinking was assessed based on content development, analysis, and synthesis; information literacy according to students’ proper identification and effective use of evidence; and written communication by audience, disciplinary conventions, and syntax and mechanics (Table 1).

University-wide assessments took place at the end of each academic year between 2015 and 2020 (Szecsi et al. 2019). To ensure broad representation across the university, majors were organized into eight academic units that reflected disciplinary differences among the five colleges (business, education, engineering, health and human services, humanities, natural sciences and mathematics, social science, and visual and performing arts). During the spring semester, all majors were solicited to participate in the annual assessment with the goal of including at least one representative major from each academic unit (Table 2). All artifacts were assessed for majors with less than eight graduating four-year students, excluding student submissions that were set aside for norming. For larger majors, a random sample of artifacts were assessed relative to the size of the major, with a greater number of artifacts assessed from large-size majors than medium-size majors. In addition, approximately 6 percent of the final essays produced by first-year students in a second semester writing class (approximately 115 artifacts per year) were selected at random for assessment.

Faculty participation in the annual assessments was inclusive and voluntary; every assessment included multiple representatives from each of the eight academic units and the university library. The assessment began with a norming session, at which faculty agreed on the language described in the assessment rubric, learned about format differences among artifacts, gained understanding of disciplinary-specific distinctions, and worked toward conformity so that individual assessments reflected standards established by the group. Artifacts for norming were selected randomly and not assessed. Faculty then read, evaluated, and scored artifacts for each of the seven assessed criteria on a four-point scale (Table 1), with each artifact being read and evaluated by at least two assessors. A third and potentially fourth assessor were required if disagreement (< 85 percent agreement) among the first pair of assessors occurred. For each artifact, the average score was calculated for the seven assessed criteria and then a total average was computed to measure overall learning gains.

All statistical analyses were conducted with R (R Core Team 2023). Permutated analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to compare assessment results across academic levels (first-year vs. fourth-year students), capstone experiences (research, internship, case study, or academic reflection) and assessment years (years 1 to 5 of the QEP). Because permutated tests evaluate measured patterns relative to N iterations of random redistributions of the same data set, only the p value, degrees of freedom, and number of iterations that were required to resolve the p values were reported. ANOVA permutation tests with a maximum of 10,000 iterations were executed with the lmPerm package in R (Wheeler and Torchiano 2016). Significance levels were set at an alpha of .05. Visualizations of assessment results were created with the ggplot2 package (Wickham 2016).

Results

Demographics

Thirty-three of the 52 undergraduate majors submitted artifacts from their capstone during the five-year QEP (Table 2); the first-year writing program submitted assessment artifacts every year. By the final year of the QEP, artifacts from 576 first-year students and 702 graduating fourth-year students were assessed. Although the QEP focused on using undergraduate research experiences to improve transferable skills, students completed different capstone experiences depending on their major (undergraduate research, 69.1 percent, N = 485; case studies, 20.1 percent, N = 144; internship/service learning, 5.1 percent, N = 36; and academic reflection: 5.3 percent, N = 37).

Fourth-Year Students

Throughout the FGCUScholars initiative, fourth-year students who participated in undergraduate research capstone experiences showed higher-quality transferable skills in their critical thinking, information literacy, and written communication than first-year students and fourth-year students who completed alternative capstones. Fourth-year students who participated in undergraduate research showed 40.7 percent higher overall learning gains than comparable first-year students (Figure 1A, df = 1, 989; iterations = 10,000; p < .001). Moreover, fourth-year students who completed undergraduate research capstones displayed greater skill levels than fourth-year students who participated in alternative capstones (Figure 1B, df = 1, 711; iterations = 10,000; p < .001), showing on average 15.1 percent higher scores. Undergraduate research students showed the highest scores (22.6 percent) relative to students who completed case study capstones; 8.6 percent higher than students who completed academic reflections; and 2.2 percent higher than internship and service learning students. Among the assessed criteria, research students showed the highest relative scores in critical thinking (content development 14.7 percent; conclusion 11.4 percent) and information literacy (identification, 19.6 percent; effective use, 14.2 percent) compared to fourth-year students who completed alternative capstone experiences (Figure 1C).

Undergraduate Research Students

Repeated exposure to classes that integrated research skills appeared to cultivate students’ critical thinking, information literacy, and written communication. For example, research students in the fifth year of the study showed the highest overall scores (Figure 1D, df = 4, 493; iterations = 10,000; p < 0.001), scoring 21.2 percent higher than fourth-year research students in the first year of the QEP. Students in year 1 of the QEP only experienced the research-based capstone. As FGCUScholars progressed, students in the fourth and fifth years of the QEP received research skill training in their first-year writing course and in at least two additional classes within their major before the capstone. By the fifth year of FGCUScholars, graduating research students showed the highest levels in information literacy skills (identification, 27.8 percent; effective use, 30.8 percent), followed by critical thinking (content development, 24.5 percent; conclusion, 19.3 percent) and written communication skills (context; 15.6 percent; disciplinary conventions, 18.9 percent; syntax and mechanics, 12.7 percent) relative to research students who participated in only a research capstone in year 1 of the QEP (Figure 1E).

Special Cases

During the initiative, several cases shed light on why undergraduate research students may have shown higher career-ready transferable skills. When students completing a particular major had the choice of pursuing a research-based or internship-based capstone, research students showed higher overall skill levels than the internship students (Figure 2A, df = 1, 14; iterations = 2458; p = .039), displaying 28.1 percent higher skills. Of note, research students were required to use primary and secondary sources, which was optional for internship students. The role of information literacy was highlighted by differences among students who completed academic reflections for their capstone. In one group, the use of primary and secondary academic sources was optional (i.e., optional resource), whereas it was required for the other group. Students who completed academic reflections that required sources scored 78.2 percent higher levels than optional resource reflections (Figure 2B, df = 1, 35; iterations = 10,000; p < 0.001). Students who completed required academic reflections with sources demonstrated higher critical thinking (content development 154.2 percent; conclusion 90.6 percent) and written communication skills (context 62.9 percent; disciplinary conventions 69.8 percent; syntax and mechanics 38 percent), in addition to information literacy (identification 164.2 percent; effective use 142.3 percent) than students who produced optional resource reflections.

Discussion

FGCUScholars serves as a reminder that higher education enhances students’ overall learning and growth in ways that also support career and job readiness, with undergraduate research having a significant impact on the ability of students to utilize high-level transferable skills. These skills are vital to reflective thinking, that is, the ability to identify background assumptions and presuppositions that may influence and distort conceptions of truth and knowledge (Laursen et al. 2010; Moore and Parker 2021). Engaging in research requires students to continuously refine their hypotheses, processes, and conclusions. According to the often-cited Delphi Report, “The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and circumstances of inquiry permit” (Facione 1990). The results of FGCUScholars demonstrate how undergraduate research contributes to shaping critical thinkers and thoughtful communicators.

As shown in this study, pedagogies that include undergraduate research experiences build fundamental cognitive and transferable skills that students can use in their professional and personal lives. Findings of the study also showed that research-oriented transferable skills are not only associated with science and engineering, but also with social sciences, humanities, and business. For example, dialogs in these disciplines have centered on the importance of developing career-ready transferable skills in response to workforce needs (Brodhead and Rowe 2013). Beginning with first-year writing courses and continuing through capstone projects, humanities and social sciences FGCUScholars develop and reinforce skills most desired by employers throughout the curriculum (Figure 1D). Students learn to, and continually practice, thinking about problems, evaluating primary and secondary texts, and communicating findings (Figure 2B and 2C). When this was implemented across disciplines, students benefited tremendously. As shown in this study, engaging undergraduates in research is more than an apprenticeship for future scholars: it prepares the next generation of public and private sector employees to delve deeper, find new connections, and help construct a better world.

More research is required to establish long-term benefits associated with these findings. Future research should include external validation of these results, such as annual income and career advancement after graduation, as well as longitudinal assessments of individual students to confirm how these skills develop over time. Nonetheless, these results inform current debates regarding the value of an undergraduate education within the United States. Although concerns about the future of higher education persist, pronouncements of its demise and death are “greatly exaggerated.” Return on investment for education following graduation has increased (Webber 2022), and employer attitudes about higher education have improved (Flaherty and Rogowski 2021). Paying closer attention to the benefits associated with traditional higher education practices, including research-oriented undergraduate learning, can help inform national conversations about higher education that have, in recent times, relied on untested rhetoric. Supporting institutional and societal goals, undergraduate research experiences are a valuable form of experiential learning that benefit students professionally and academically, and merit further administrative support.

Data Availability

Raw data are not publicly available. Results come from annual campus-wide assessments and adhere to FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) guidelines. Prior to analysis, the examined data were anonymized. Anonymous data can be provided by the corresponding author upon request.

Institutional Review Board

S2021-51 was deemed exempt, category C.F.R. 45 Part 46.104(d)(3)(i)(A).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the faculty, staff, administrators, and students at Florida Gulf Coast University who helped them make FGCUScholars such a resounding success. The authors could not have accomplished this work without their sustained support and dedication. They also wish to thank the SPUR editors and three anonymous reviewers. Their insights and suggestions made this a stronger article.

References

Ashcroft, Jared, Jillian Blatti, and Veronica Jaramillo. 2020. “Early Career Undergraduate Research As a Meaningful Academic Experience in Which Students Develop Professional Workforce Skills: A Community College Perspective.” In Integrating Professional Skills into Undergraduate Chemistry Curricula, edited by Kelly Y. Neiles, Pamela S. Mertz, and Justin Fair, 281–299. American Chemical Society. doi: 10.1021/bk-2020-1365.ch016

Association of American Colleges and Universities. 2009. “Inquiry and Analysis VALUE Rubric.” https://www.aacu.org/initiatives/value-initiative/value-rubrics/value-rubrics-inquiryand-analysis

Brodhead, Richard H., and John W. Rowe. 2013. The Heart of the Matter: The Humanities and Social Sciences for a Vibrant, Competitive, and Secure Nation. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Chadha, Deesha, and Gill Nicholls. 2006. “Teaching Transferable Skills to Undergraduate Engineering Students: Recognizing the Value of Embedded and Bolt-on Approaches.” International Journal of Engineering Education 22: 116–122.

Facione, Peter. 1990. “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction.” Delphi Report. California Academic Press. https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/CT-Expert-Report.pdf

Flaherty, Thomas M., and Ronald Rogowski. 2021. “Rising Inequality as a Threat to the Liberal International Order.” International Organization 75: 495–523. doi: 10.1017/S0020818321000163

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU). 2023. “Headcount Enrollment, Fall 2023.” https://public.tableau.com/views/FGCU_IR_Facts_0/HeadcountEnrollment?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no&:display_count=yes

Gunnels, Charles W., Anna Carlin, Derek Lura, Judy Wynekoop, Jaclyn Chastain, Jason Elek, Katie Johnson, et al. 2020. “QEP Impact Report: FGCUScholars: Think, Discover, Write; Enhancing the Culture of Inquiry from Composition to Capstone at Florida Gulf Coast University.” Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32592.69127

Hernandez, Paul R., Anna Woodcock, Mica Estrada, and Paul W. Schultz. 2018. “Undergraduate Research Experiences Broaden Diversity in the Scientific Workforce.” BioScience 68: 204–211.

Kelderman, Eric. 2023. “What the Public Really Thinks about Higher Education.” Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-the-public-really-thinks-abouthigher-education

Laursen, Sandra, Anne-Barrie B. Hunter, Elaine Seymour, Heather Thiry, and Ginger Melton. 2010. Undergraduate Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, Brooke N., and Richard Parker. 2021. Critical Thinking. 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). 2022. Development and Validation of the NACE Career Readiness Competencies. https://www.naceweb.org/uploadedFiles/files/2022/resources/2022-nace-career-readiness-developmentand-validation.pdf

Parker, Kim. 2019. “The Growing Partisan Divide in Views of Higher Education.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisandivide-in-views-of-higher-education-2

R Core Team. 2023. “The R Project for Statistical Computing.” The R Foundation. https://www.R-project.org

Szecsi, Tunde, Charles Gunnels, Jackie Greene, Vickie Johnston, and Elia Vazquez-Montilla. 2019. “Teaching and Evaluating Skills for Undergraduate Research in the Teacher Education Program.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 3(1): 20–29. doi: 10.18833/spur/3/1/5

Webber, Douglas. 2022. “Decomposing Changes in Higher Education: Return on Investment Over Time. FEDS Notes. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. doi: 10.17016/2380-7172.3155

Wheeler, Robert, and Marco Torchiano. 2016. “lmPerm: Permutation Tests for Linear Models.” R package version 2.1.0. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.lmPerm

Wickham, Hadley. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Charles W. Gunnels IV

Florida Gulf Coast University, cgunnels@fgcu.edu

Charles Gunnels is a professor and chair of biology at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU). He teaches animal behavior and biological statistics in R and leads study abroad trips to Caribbean and South America countries. His scientific research focuses on human-animal interactions in urban habitats. In his scholarship of teaching and learning work, he examines how undergraduate research affects student learning gains.

Jaclyn Chastain is a coordinator for academic curriculum and support at FGCU. Chastain has a psychology BA with a management minor and an MA in educational leadership with a concentration in higher education from FGCU. She has been working in higher education for the past seven years, with most of her experience relating to quality enhancement planning, student research, special student populations, and curriculum development. Chastain is currently working on her doctorate degree in education.

Shawn Brunelle is a biology masters student at FGCU. He has been with FGCU since 2013, completing his undergraduate degree in 2018. Brunelle conducts research investigating the flowering genetics of Melaleuca, while also working as an educator, teaching several biology lab courses.

Anna Carlin is an associate librarian at FGCU. At the university library, Carlin has been a subject librarian, designer of instructional materials and tutorials, and manager of media production studios. Carlin served as the information literacy leader on the development and implementation teams that steered FGCUScholars.

Thomas M. Cimarusti is a professor of music history and program coordinator for the BA degree in music at FGCU. As a recipient of numerous grants and teaching awards, Cimarusti works with undergraduate students on various research topics concerning the musical activities of the nineteenth-century religious cult, the Koreshan Unity. His students have presented papers at the National Conference of Undergraduate Research and regional meetings of the American Musicological Society.

Richard W. Coughlin is an associate professor of political science at FGCU, where he teaches courses in political theory, international relations, and comparative politics. His research focuses on Mexican and US political development.

Mary Crone-Romanovski is an associate professor in the Department of Language and Literature at FGCU, where she teaches courses in British literature and culture (1660–1830). Her current research examines representations of the material world in eighteenth-century novels by women. Her publications include articles in Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture and XVIII: New Perspectives on the Eighteenth Century as well as a book chapter in Gender and Space in Britain, 1660–1820.

Carolyn Culbertson is a professor of philosophy at FGCU. She specializes in the philosophy of language and philosophical hermeneutics. She is the author of Words Underway: Continental Philosophy of Language (Rowman and Littlefield International, 2019) and Gadamer and the Social Turn in Epistemology (SUNY Press, forthcoming).

Jason Elek teaches writing at FGCU, writes and records music, plays soccer, and kayaks through the mangrove tunnels of Southwest Florida. The rest of his time is spent chasing around his three young children.

April Felton is an assistant professor in the School of Nursing. Before entering the academy in 2019, she was a neonatal nurse practitioner. Felton teaches in the undergraduate nursing program, including child health nursing and introduction to professional nursing. Her scholarly interests include acquisition of skills by nursing students and innovative teaching practices utilizing simulation.

Shawn D. Felton is the dean in the Marieb College of Health and Human Services at FGCU. Felton returned to FGCU in August 2019 and served as the department chair of health sciences. Felton is engaged in research activities regarding musculoskeletal diagnostic ultrasound, lower extremity biomechanics and EMG activity, simulation in allied health care education, and implementation of micro-badges and digital credentials.

Debra A. Giambo is a professor of English for speakers of other languages in the College of Education. She also is an Honors Faculty Fellow, a member of the Honors Executive Board, and a Global Engagement Fellow at FGCU. Research interests include effective instructional practices for English learners, culturally responsive teacher preparation, English learner literacy, advocacy for English learners, field experience–based research, service learning and study-away experiences, and engaging undergraduate students in research.

Katie Johnson has enjoyed teaching math to others since middle school and is interested in anything that encourages more people (especially underrepresented groups) to study mathematics. She is a professor of mathematics and also coordinates the learning assistant program at FGCU. When not working, Johnson enjoys traveling, reading, cooking, yoga, and playing with her two young children.

Shawn Keller is an assistant professor in the Department of Justice Studies at FGCU. His research is in criminal justice from a biosocial perspective, examining the role epigenetics has on criminal and deviant behavior. He also pursues an interest in the use of future technologies to protect the public: facial recognition, 3D evidence presentation, 3D printing and gun control laws, body cameras with AI assistance, and use of personal and surveillance drones.

Dawn Kirby is associate provost for academic programs and curriculum development. An educator with extensive experience in teaching and administration in public and private universities, she has directed graduate dissertations, written curriculum, directed a National Writing Project site, and served in numerous administrative roles. She is a strong advocate for the value of a liberal arts education and for developing and mentoring students as leaders. Kirby has been a tenured professor since 2003.

Santiago Luaces studies wildlife biology and has a BS in biology and an MS in environmental science. His research has focused on the population ecology of the Florida burrowing owl and the effects of urbanization on their distribution. Luaces is currently working on his EDD, focusing on issues of equity in undergraduate research. He hopes to continue helping students engage in research throughout his career.

Derek Lura is dedicated to student success, which he facilitates though a combination of didactic, dialectic, hands-on, and project-based experiences. He believes that a diversity of techniques are required to teach students with different skills, mindsets, and foundational knowledge. Lura’s research focuses on prosthetic and rehabilitation devices and techniques. He also is engaged in a variety of other projects and uses research a means to facilitate engagement and learning with students outside the classroom.

Peter Reuter, retired, was an associate professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences. He loved teaching undergraduate and graduate courses and inspired students to push themselves to success when challenged. Over the last ten years, Reuter has worked with 30 undergraduate and graduate students on research projects. Students have presented posters at regional, national, and international conferences and have been coauthors of peer-reviewed articles.

Rachel Tait-Ripperdan holds master’s degrees in library and information science and in history. She is an associate liaison librarian at FGCU, specializing in teaching information literacy skills to history, language and literature, communication, and philosophy students.

Tunde Szecsi is professor and program coordinator for the elementary education program at FGCU. She holds master’s degrees in Hungarian, Russian, and English language and literature from Hungary and a PhD in early childhood education from University at Buffalo. She teaches courses in elementary and early education and English for speakers of other languages. Szecsi’s research interests include multicultural education, culturally responsive teacher preparation, humane education, and heritage language maintenance.

Scott Vanselow is an instructor in the School of Entrepreneurship at FGCU, where he teaches entrepreneurship, innovation, and computer science. He also helps to lead and train student participants in the learning assistant program at FGCU. Vanselow earned his MS in computer information systems at FGCU.

Judy Wynekoop is a professor of information systems at FGCU. Before entering academia, she worked as an internal auditor in the retail sector and as a criminal investigator for the federal government. Her research has encompassed individual and team performance in systems development and use, as well as pedagogy in information systems.

Hulya Julie Yazici is currently a full professor of analytics and supply chain management at FGCU. She received her MSc and PhD in engineering management from Missouri University of Science and Technology. She worked with the manufacturing and mining industry in North America and Europe for a decade. She has been in academia for over 30 years, with a dedicated focus on critical thinking, multidisciplinary learning, and scholarship.

Melodie Eichbauer is interim director of the Office of Scholarly Innovation and Student Research and a professor of medieval history, specializing in legal and ecclesiastical history from c. 1000 to c. 1500 CE. She works to ensure that all students have easy access to undergraduate scholarship. Eichbauer believes that research enables student scholars to shape their version of an impactful life, a life in which their scholarly experiences will make a difference in the world around them.

Recommended Citation: MacDonald, Amanda B., Jeanne Mekolichick, Eric E. Hall, Kristin Picardo, Rosalie Richards 2024. Scoping Review: Literature on Undergraduate Research and Career Readiness. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 8 (1): 3-14. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/8/1/2

In recent years, the national narrative on the value of higher education has shifted. Americans are losing faith in an undergraduate degree and its worth as a vehicle for social mobility and a public good. Gallup poll data from 2015 shows that 57 percent of respondents indicated they had a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, compared to 48 percent in 2018 and 36 percent in 2023 (Jones 2024). Employers in the United States also are losing confidence in the value of a undergraduate degree. The 2021 report, “How College Contributes to Workforce Success,ˮ commissioned by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), shows a decrease in employer confidence in higher education dropping from 49 percent in 2018 to 41 percent in 2020 (Finley 2021). Given these data points, the value of higher education is unclear to a growing group of the public and employers.

With an eye on these trends, in 2019 the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) released a white paper, “Undergraduate Research: A Road Map for Meeting Future National Needs and Competing in a World of Change” (Altman et al. 2019) that argued for undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative inquiry (URSCI) experiences as a powerful tool for achieving workforce needs. The authors here use both the more inclusive phrase “undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative inquiry” reflective of the breadth of scholarly and creative activities across disciplines, as well as the more truncated “undergraduate research” more commonly found in the literature. The concise phrase, undergraduate research, is meant to be inclusive of scholarly and creative endeavors as well.

Supporting this position, another data point from the 2021 AAC&U’s How College Contributes to Workforce Success report (Finley 2021) shares that 85 percent of employers surveyed were more likely or somewhat more likely to consider hiring a candidate who had a mentored research experience. Considering these documents together begs the question: What elements of the URSCI experience contribute to workplace readiness and are recognized by prospective employers?

The National Association of Colleges and Employers’ (NACE) annual job outlook survey collects information on the skills employers seek in new undergraduates. Using these data, in 2021 NACE updated their list of career readiness competencies that students need to enter and thrive in today’s work environment. Eight competencies emerged: critical thinking, teamwork, communication, professionalism, career and self-development, leadership, technology, and equity and inclusion (NACE 2024). These competencies represent demonstrated outcomes of student participation in URSCI experiences. Mekolichick (2021) articulates the alignment in a NACE Journal article to assist career center professionals in highlighting the value of undergraduate research (UR) experiences for the workplace. Mekolichick (2023) later elucidates this in the 2023 CUR position paper, “Recognizing Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Inquiry as a Career-Readiness Tool,” aimed at helping faculty intentionally identify these competencies for themselves and their students.

Specifically, URSCI experiences are found to enhance student learning, including growth in communication skills, critical thinking and teamwork, a greater understanding of the research process, technical skills, and data analysis competencies (see, for example, Brownell and Swaner 2010; Lopatto 2004; Osborn and Karukstis 2009). In addition, the literature consistently reports student improvement in related dispositions and social psychological constructs, including confidence, ability to work independently and overcome obstacles, increases in self-efficacy, cultivation of a professional identity, clarification of career path, leadership, and professionalism (see, for example, Hunter, Laursen, and Seymour 2007; Osborn and Karukstis 2009; Seymour et al. 2004). In sum, research clearly demonstrates the overlap between the benefits of URSCI and the career readiness competencies identified by employers. However, given public sentiment on the ability of higher education to achieve workforce needs, there is a disconnect between the documented career readiness skills gained in URSCI experiences and the translation of these experiences to the world of work.

CUR recognized this gap and charged a board working group (2021–2023) to advance this work. At the conclusion of their work in 2023, an implementation work group on undergraduate research and career readiness was established. As work began, the group recognized a need to learn more about the state of the literature. To date, there has not been a thorough review of the extent to which URSCI experiences have intentionally included career preparation in the United States. Taking into account the value shift regarding higher education and the foundational skills desired by employers described above, a scoping review was conducted to systematically map what the literature reveals about what faculty, programs, and institutions are intentionally providing to successfully bridge this articulation gap. This scoping review aimed to answer the question: What intentional career readiness competency programming are faculty, programs, and higher education institutions delivering and assessing in undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative inquiry experiences to help students become career ready?

Methods

The protocol was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P; Moher et al. 2015) and was published retrospectively at VTechWorks. The research methodology in this review was based on the JBI methodologies for scoping reviews as described in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Aromataris and Munn 2020). This article follows the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al. 2018).

Eligibility

For inclusion in this review, studies needed to contain at least one NACE competency and an associated assessment of the competency. Publication types included peer-reviewed journal articles, books, book chapters, news articles, white papers, and reports that were housed in the databases or Google Scholar. It is important to note that additional inclusion and exclusion criteria were added at the full-text screening stage. See criteria that begin with “During the full-text screening.” Additionally, there were studies excluded during the full-text screening process that conducted assessments of undergraduate research experiences after a program concluded and included a career readiness evaluation but lacked either an intentional career readiness objective or an associated assessment. The aim of this review was not to prove that undergraduate research experiences prepare students to be career ready, but rather to map researched approaches that faculty, programs, and institutions have successfully piloted to bridge the noted articulation gap.

Inclusion criteria included:

• Any undergraduate research program in a higher education context; all two- to four-year accredited institutions, including community colleges and public and private schools
• Undergraduate research, industry-based research, research internships, scholarship, or creative inquiry OR
  • Mention of UR as defined by CUR (“a mentored investigation or creative inquiry conducted by undergraduates that seeks to make a scholarly or artistic contribution to knowledge”; CUR 2024) OR
  • Formal UR experience that is mentored, describing student researchers as receiving one-on-one training, research experience, or co-creation of knowledge, scholarship, or creative works
  • CUREs (course-based undergraduate research experiences) or capstone courses that align with CUR definition of UR
• Career readiness as defined by NACE (“a foundation from which to demonstrate requisite core competencies that broadly prepare the college educated for success in the workplace and lifelong career management”; NACE 2024) OR
  • NACE competencies (“career and self-development, communication, critical thinking, equity and inclusion, leadership, professionalism, teamwork, technology”; NACE 2024) OR
  • Industry-based research experience, industry internships with research, employment, professional skills, workplace skills, workplace preparation
• UR, scholarship, or creative inquiry in any discipline, conducted within the United States. Publications can be published by an outlet (e.g., journal).
• No date limits.
• During the full-text screening, the primary goal of the study must include a career readiness intervention regarding one or more NACE competencies (whether explicitly named as NACE or not) with an associated assessment or outcome that is described and designed to measure student mastery of the competency or competencies. Language should state the goal of preparing students for the world of work with a NACE competency—whether explicitly named as NACE or not—that includes an intervention and associated assessment designed to measure student mastery of the NACE competency.

Exclusion criteria included:

• Graduate students of graduate school programs. Middle school or high school students. Except if undergraduate research (etc.) programs or initiatives (as defined in Inclusion) also are included and data or descriptions of interest are (or can be) disaggregated.
• Undergraduate courses with research components only (CUREs or capstone courses that align with CUR definition of UR meet inclusion criteria).
• UR programs hosted by companies outside of higher education institutions (e.g., NASA).
• Outside of the 50 United States; territories of the United States are excluded.
• Publication types excluded are conference proceedings, conference abstracts, opinion pieces, editorials, and reports that can only be purchased from associations.
• During the full-text screening, the primary goal of the study does not include a career readiness intervention regarding one or more NACE competencies (whether explicitly named as NACE or not) with an associated assessment or outcome that is described OR the associated assessment or outcome is mentioned but not described. Studies that include surveys or assessments gathering student feedback on how a UR experience prepared them for their career without a career readiness intervention regarding one or more NACE competencies will be excluded.

Sources

A total of 5 databases were searched in December 2023, and Google Scholar was searched in January 2024. Bibliographic databases were selected to be either non–discipline specific or discipline-specific as related to the research question. An education database was selected to account for interventions taking place in higher education institutions, and a business database was included given the relationship of the outcome with career readiness and the world of work. The following databases were searched:

• Academic Search Complete (1980s–)
• Business Search Complete (1980s–)
• Education Research Complete (1865–)
• Scopus (1800s–)
• Web of Science (1900–)
• Google Scholar (first 204 results)

Search

The search strategy was developed by a librarian on the team, with testing and revisions developed from team discussions. The final search strategy was peer reviewed following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) 2015 Guideline Statement (McGowan et al. 2016) by two librarians outside of this study, both of whom had experience as systematic review coauthors or with evidence synthesis methods. Revisions were made based on their recommendations. The final search strategy used for Scopus was as follows:

TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( ( undergrad* ) W/3 ( scholarship OR creativ* OR research* ) ) AND ( nace OR “national association of colleges and employers” OR (( career* OR job OR jobs OR profession* OR work* OR employ* OR occupation* ) W/3 ( readiness OR ready OR development* OR competen* OR skill* OR prepar* ) ) ) )

All searches were conducted utilizing the title, abstract, and author keywords fields within each database. Filters such as language, publication date, or publication type were not used during the search.

Selection

Covidence was the software tool used for the project (Covidence 2023). To initiate the study, pilot assessments were conducted at the start of each stage of the review process (i.e., title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction). During the title and abstract screening, 50 studies were reviewed for the pilot by the team, and conflicts were discussed and resolved before completing the screening for this stage. During the full-text screening pilot, 25 articles were reviewed. The team noted a high rate of conflicts during the full-text screening pilot, discussed the conflicts, and decided to add additional inclusion and exclusion criteria specifically for this round. To resolve the conflicts, the team repeated the full-text screening stage of the pilot with the revised criteria. During the data extraction stage, key characteristics or pieces of information from the studies were extracted in a structured way. Five studies were screened during the pilot by the team, and conflicts were discussed and resolved before completing the extraction phase. For all stages of the review process, two team members screened each study. All conflicts were discussed and resolved by consensus.

Data

Data were extracted on publication characteristics (reference identification number, journal title, study title, lead author, and year of publication), study characteristics (type of institution, aims/purpose, sample size, and discipline of students), career readiness aspect (NACE competency or skill and associated career readiness intervention), and career readiness assessment (how was it assessed, outcomes of the assessment, and any practices or recommendations the authors wished to share).

Synthesis

During the extraction phase, the team chose the method of copying and pasting relevant information into the form directly from the studies. As a result, there were lengthy responses on the form. Some responses were significantly trimmed during the data cleaning and visualization process to make Table 1 easier to read.

Results

Selection

A total of 2518 studies were imported into Covidence. In all, 888 duplicate items were identified by Covidence prior to study selection. Twelve duplicate items were identified and removed manually during the screening processes of the review. The title and abstract screening included 1618 studies, and 1328 studies were excluded. In total, 290 studies were assessed during the full-text screening. The full-text screening excluded 264 studies for the following reasons: 184 did not include a career-readiness intervention with an associated assessment or outcome; 39 were conference proceedings or abstracts, opinion pieces, editorials, or costly reports; 20 took place outside of the United States; 12 were courses with a research paper or project but not a CURE; 6 were research programs for graduate, middle school, or high school students or may have included undergraduate students but data did not differentiate status, and 3 were undergraduate research programs hosted by companies. There were 26 studies remaining that were deemed eligible for this review (see Figure 1).

Characteristics

The data extracted and charted for this review are showcased in Table 1. Each study’s lead author, year of publication, journal title, discipline(s) of students, type of institution, NACE competency or skill, career readiness intervention(s), and assessment strategy are displayed. The table has been sorted first by year, newest to oldest, then alphabetically by lead author’s last name, and finally by discipline.

Results

For this scoping review 26 articles were identified that met all the inclusion criteria (see Table 1). Figure 2 displays the relevant data charted for each part of the review question and objectives. For example, regarding the “intentional career readiness competency” portion of the research question, the career readiness interview was extracted from each study for data charting (see Figure 2).

Description

Eighteen of the 26 articles identified were published since 2020, suggesting that the focus on career readiness is a recent phenomenon. The primary journals that have published this work are the Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research (n = 5) and the Journal of STEM Education (n = 2). The remaining publications were single articles from a variety of journals. Approximately 81 percent of articles focused on traditional STEM disciplines. Nineteen of the studies occurred primarily at four-year public institutions.

Of the 26 studies evaluated, 21 focused on career and self-development, and 13 targeted communication. Professionalism (n = 6), teamwork (n = 5), and critical thinking (n = 4) comprised the next frequency level of competencies addressed. The competencies least addressed were leadership (n = 1), technology (n = 0), and equity and inclusion (n = 0). Interventions implemented for the purpose of developing career competencies were primarily professional or career development workshops and activities (n = 16), followed by mentorship (n = 10) and skills development (n = 8). Unique interventions included conference participation (n = 4) and team-based research (n = 3). One study used an identity development intervention. When examining assessment methods, surveys (n = 24) were the primary mechanism for gathering data. However, a few studies employed focus groups (n = 4) and reflective assignments (n = 3), with single studies using interviews, assignments, or rubrics.

Discussion

Summary

Of the 26 studies examined, the majority described competency outcomes at large four-year public institutions. Only five represented private institutions with a few (three) partnering with public universities. Only 8 percent of the studies identified minority-serving institutions as partners (Marsh et al. 2016; Roberts et al. 2023). Not surprisingly, approximately 85 percent of the studies reported engagement in recognized STEM disciplines, offering large scope for non-STEM disciplines to assess career readiness resulting from research and creative inquiry.

Evidence clearly demonstrates that among the commonly addressed NACE competencies, research programs have focused primarily on developing career and self-development competency (n = 21) to help students consider how their research experiences can support their future goals. However, critical competencies such as communication skills (n = 13), professionalism (n = 6), teamwork (n = 5), and critical thinking (n = 4) lag significantly.

Although there has been almost no intentional focus on leadership (n = 1), technology (n = 0), or equity and inclusion (n = 0), most of the examined studies measured growth of only one or possibly two competencies. Since development of different competencies may not be mutually exclusive, a more holistic approach may be warranted. It will be important for future studies and interventions to carefully consider how to specifically integrate, build, and evaluate growth of multiple career readiness skills, such as those reported by McClure-Brenchley, Picardo, and Overton-Healy (2020) and Mackiewicz et al. (2023).

The most common interventions involved professional or career development workshops, seminars, and related activities as supplementary components to the undergraduate research experience. These often took the form of consultations on how to prepare for graduate school or other forms of career exploration (e.g., Magana et al. 2023) and opportunities for students to build their professional networks (e.g., Adedokun et al. 2012). Intentional mentoring for career clarification was ranked as the second-most frequent intervention. The finding regarding mentoring for career development was not surprising, as research indicates that high-quality mentoring results in the greatest gains for both student and mentor (Shanahan et al. 2015; Vandermaas-Peeler, Miller, and Moore 2018). Mekolichick (2023) noted how “mentors can infuse the associated sample behaviors within their undergraduate research, scholarship and creative inquiry projects in visible, transparent, and consumable ways for our students to recognize the relevancy, value and leave with the language and ability to tell their URSCI stories” (1). In addition, the salient practices framework of undergraduate research mentoring (Shanahan et al. 2015) provides a useful scaffolding for mentors as they help build students’ career competencies. This framework identifies practices that align well with NACE competencies. For example, dissemination of research results aligns with communication, and building a community of scholars aligns with teamwork. The third most common interventions targeted skill development, which often focused on building communication skills (e.g., Charlevoix et al. 2022). A unique intervention approach was improvisation workshops (Phelps et al. 2021). Whatever the type of intervention or skill, what was clear from these studies was the need for research programs to collaborate with faculty and staff who have the expertise to build career readiness competencies.

An overwhelming majority of the studies used a self-reporting survey to assess gains in competencies. Often surveys were created for the study or were a modified version of other surveys, including EvaluateUR (Grinberg and Singer 2021), the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA; Ethnography and Evaluation Research 2009; Weston and Laursen 2015), and the Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (Lopatto 2004, 2009). As noted, a distinct limitation was that these surveys were not designed to assess gains in several NACE competencies. Rather, most focused on research skills that were linked to competencies such as communication, critical thinking, and career and self-development. Two studies used a mixed-methods approach to assessment, and others employed focus groups, interviews, or other reflections or assignments to demonstrate different competencies. The gap in holistic assessment of student career readiness creates a unique opportunity for the design of specific methodologies to assess the roles of UR experiences in advancing the NACE competencies.

Limitations

This scoping review was conducted as part of a Council on Undergraduate Research working group focused on undergraduate research and career readiness. The group concluded that a scoping review would help members better understand the status of career readiness work in UR programs, and where opportunities lie. The research question, objectives, and decisions made aligned with the timeline required by the group. Some forms of gray literature were excluded by eligibility criteria for types of evidence. These included reports that were not included in databases searched but available for purchase at a high cost on association websites; white papers not indexed in the searched databases or Google Scholar; and all conference proceedings, as some proceedings were only published abstracts and the timeline did not allow for contacting authors for the full-text articles. Reference lists of key studies were not scanned for additional items. Hand searching of websites such as NACE and CUR was not conducted. The data charting form was developed to extract information directly related to the research question and also to inform the group’s work in aspects beyond the scope of the research question and objectives. In a future systematic literature review on this topic, researchers should consider crafting broader eligibility criteria and creating a more detailed extraction form to uncover evidence of career readiness competencies that are discussed but not associated with assessments. Use of the NACE competencies and associated assessments is not currently standard in undergraduate research assessment and evaluation practices. Therefore, data charting this type of information was a challenge. At times decisions were made by consensus to exclude articles that appeared to align with the eligibility criteria and potentially valuable to answering the research question, but lacked specificity.

Conclusions

This scoping review demonstrates that there is room to assess and promote the utilization of UR as a tool for career readiness. The recent release of the Mekolichick (2023) position paper should be the impetus for research projects and associated assessments to employ the NACE competencies to measure growth in the career readiness of undergraduate research students. The 2023 call and findings from this study identify the need for urgent action. More intentional, inclusive pedagogies are required to make more transparent the diverse career readiness competencies derived from UR experiences.

Overall, the findings indicate that there is a strong dependence on the URSCI experience itself as a mechanism to develop and sharpen career readiness competencies, without intentionally identifying and assessing specific elements of the URSCI experience that cultivate career readiness competencies in undergraduate students. The current reliance on the URSCI experience without intentional identification and assessment of workplace competencies in an objective way that documents learning is no longer a sufficient approach to best support student success, particularly given the increasing focus on workforce readiness within and beyond the academy. Design and implementation must entail purposeful alignment of the UR experience with desired competency, performance, and behavior outcomes. To the extent that one measures what one values, this gap in assessment of career readiness competencies gained through the URSCI experience calls attention to the lack of focus on their importance. UR leadership is falling short of demonstrating how the URSCI experience contributes to career readiness.

To better serve undergraduate students, more clearly articulate the value of URSCI, and more visibly support community workforce needs, action is called for. Four steps are presented to get started. First, familiarization with the NACE career readiness competencies; choose one competency as a focus for growth in the next URSCI project. Second, identify one learning outcome associated with a UR experience that aligns with the selected competency and review the sample behaviors. Third, make one change to existing project documents, syllabi, student manuals, assignments, etc., that explicitly names the career readiness competency developed. Refer to articles referenced here or the CUR position paper (Mekolichick 2023) for ideas. Finally, using the NACE sample behaviors as a guide, consider developing student and faculty assessments to identify proficiency (NACE 2024). If one competency is already identified and assessed, consider adding additional competencies and sharing the results publicly. The CUR UR as a Career Readiness Tool work group continues, exploring resources and materials needed to support faculty and institutions. Mentors and higher education leaders advancing URSCI are called on to meet this challenge in service to undergraduate students, higher education institutions, and their communities.

Funding

No funding supported this scoping review.

Data Availability

The protocol and associated data, including search strategies, data extraction form, and data exported following the extraction, are available at VTechWorks (https://hdl.handle.net/10919/118669).

Institutional Review Board

IRB was not required for this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to C. Cozette Comer and Virginia Pannabecker for providing methodological guidance and feedback throughout this review, peer review of the search strategy, and software training.

References

Adedokun, Omolola A., Dake Zhang, Loran Carleton Parker, Ann Bessenbacher, Amy Childress, and Wilella Daniels Burgess. 2012. “Understanding How Undergraduate Research Experiences Influence Student Aspirations for Research Careers and Graduate Education.” Journal of College Science Teaching 42(1): 82.

Alm, Cecilia O., and Reynold Bailey. 2022. “Scientific Skills, Identity, and Career Aspiration Development from Early Research Experiences in Computer Science.” Journal of Computational Science Education 13(1): 2–16. doi: 10.22369/issn.2153-4136/13/1/1

Altman, Joanne D., Tsu-Ming Chiang, Christian S. Hamann, Huda Makhluf, Virginia Peterson, and Sara E. Orel. 2019. “Undergraduate Research: A Road Map for Meeting Future National Needs and Competing in a World of Change.” CUR White Paper no. 1. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Aromataris, Edoardo, and Zachary Munn (Eds.). 2020. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI Collaboration. doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-01

Brownell, Jayne E., and Lynn E. Swaner. 2010. Five High-Impact Practices: Research on Learning Outcomes, Completion, and Quality. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Charlevoix, Donna J., Aisha R. Morris, Kelsey Russo-Nixon, and Heather Thiry. 2022. “Engaging Two-Year College Students in Geoscience: Summer Pre-REU Internships and Professional Development to Prepare Students for Participation in Research.” Journal of Geoscience Education 70: 323–338. doi: 10.1080/10899995.2021.1977770

Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR). 2024. “What Is CUR’s Definition of Undergraduate Research?” https://www.cur.org/about/what-is-undergraduate-research

Covidence. 2023. “The World’s #1 Systematic Review Tool.” Accessed October 17, 2024. www.covidence.org

Dillon, Heather E. 2020. “Development of a Mentoring Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (M-CURE).” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 3(4): 26–34. doi: 10.18833/spur/3/4/7

Ethnography and Evaluation Research, Research and Innovation Office. 2009. “Evaluation Tools: Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA).” University of Colorado at Boulder. https://www.colorado.edu/eer/research-areas/undergraduateresearch/evaluation-tools-undergraduate-research-student-self

Finley, Ashley. 2021. How College Contributes to Workforce Success: Employer Views on What Matters Most. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Fuchs, Jonathan, Aminta Kouyate, Liz Kroboth, and Willi McFarland. 2016. “Growing the Pipeline of Diverse HIV Investigators: The Impact of Mentored Research Experiences to Engage Underrepresented Minority Students.” AIDS and Behavior 20: 249–257. doi: 10.1007/s10461-016-1392-z

Grinberg, Ilya, and Jill Singer. 2021. “ETAC-ABET and EvaluateUR-CURE: Findings from Combining Two Assessment Approaches as Indicators of Student-Learning Outcomes.” In 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings, 37098. ASEE Virtual Annual Conference. doi: 10.18260/1-2–37098

Gueorguieva, Petia, Sayantani Ghosh, Ashlie Martini, and Jennifer Lu. 2020. “MACES Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program: Integrating Research and Education.” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 21(2): 42–48.

Hirsch, Penny L., Joan A. W. Linsenmeier, H. David Smith, and Joan M. T. Walker. 2005. “Enhancing Core Competency Learning in an Integrated Summer Research Experience for Bioengineers.” Journal of Engineering Education 94: 391–401. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00867.x

Hunter, Anne-Barrie, Sandra L. Laursen, and Elaine Seymour. 2007. “Becoming a Scientist: The Role of Undergraduate Research in Students’ Cognitive, Personal, and Professional Development.” Science Education 91: 36–74. doi: 10.1002/sce.20173

Hwang, Jihee, and Corbin Franklin. 2023. “Course-Based Undergraduate Research in Human Resource Development: A Case Study.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 25: 45–56. doi: 10.1177/15234223221138567

Jones, Jeffrey M. 2024. “U.S. Confidence in Higher Education Now Closely Divided,” Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/646880/confidence-higher-education-closely-divided.aspx.

Kistner, Kelly, Erin M. Sparck, Amy Liu, Hannah Whang Sayson, Marc Levis-Fitzgerald, and Whitney Arnold. 2021. “Academic and Professional Preparedness: Outcomes of Undergraduate Research in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 4(4): 3–9. doi: 10.18833/spur/4/4/1

Larasatie, Pipiet, Kathy Young, Arijit Sinha, and Eric Hansen. 2021. “‘A Taste of Graduate School without Really Fully Committing to It’: The Undergraduate Experiential Learning Project at Oregon State University.” Wood and Fiber Science 53: 281–293.

Lindsay, Ana Cristina. 2022. “Avancemos! Building Partnerships between Academia and Underserved Latinx Communities to Address Health Disparities through a Faculty-Mentored Undergraduate Research Program.” Health Promotion Practice 23: 569–576. doi: 10.1177/152483992095

Lopatto, David. 2004. “Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings.” Cell Biology Education 3: 270–277. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045

Lopatto, David. 2007. “Undergraduate Research Experiences Support Science Career Decisions and Active Learning.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 6: 297–306. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039

Mackiewicz, Marilyn Rampersad, Kathryn N. Hosbein, Dawn Mason, and Ramya Ajjarapu. 2022. “Integrating Scientific Growth and Professional Development Skills in Research Environments to Aid in the Persistence of Marginalized Students.” Journal of Chemical Education 100: 199–208. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00633

Magana, Alejandra J., Aparajita Jaiswal, Aasakiran Madamanchi, Loran C. Parker, Ellen Gundlach, and Mark D. Ward. 2021. “Characterizing the Psychosocial Effects of Participating in a Year-Long Residential Research-Oriented Learning Community.” Current Psychology 42: 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01612-y

Marsh, L. E., F. M. Hashem, C. P. Cotton, A. L. Allen, B. Min, M. Clarke, and F. Eivazi. 2016. “Research Internships: A Useful Experience for Honing Soft and Disciplinary Skills of Agricultural Majors.” NACTA Journal 60: 379–384.

Mastronardi, Marialice, Maura Borrego, Nathan Choe, and Risa Hartman. 2021. “The Impact of Undergraduate Research Experiences on Participants’ Career Decisions.” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 22(2): 75–82.

McClure-Brenchley, Kimberly J., Kristin Picardo, and Julia Overton-Healy. 2020. “Beyond Learning: Leveraging Undergraduate Research into Marketable Workforce Skills.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 3(3): 28–35. doi: 10.18833/spur/3/3/10

McGowan, Jessie, Margaret Sampson, Douglas M. Salzwedel, Elise Cogo, Vicki Foerster, and Carol Lefebvre. 2016. “PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 75: 40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

McMahon, Tracey R., Emily R. Griese, and DenYelle Baete Kenyon. 2019. “Cultivating Native American Scientists: An Application of an Indigenous Model to an Undergraduate Research Experience.” Cultural Studies of Science Education 14: 77–110. doi: 10.1007/s11422-017-9850-0

Mekolichick, Jeanne. 2021. “Mapping the Impacts of Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Inquiry Experiences to the NACE Career Readiness Competencies.” NACE Journal. https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/mapping-the-impacts-of-undergraduate-research-scholarshipand-creative-inquiry-experiences-to-the-nace-career-readinesscompetencies

Mekolichick, Jeanne. 2023. “Recognizing Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Inquiry as a Career-Readiness Tool.” Position paper. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Moher, David, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, Alessandro Liberati, Mark Petticrew, Paul Shekelle, Lesley A. Stewart, and Prisma-P Group. 2015. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMAP) 2015 Statement.” Systematic Reviews 4: 1–9. https://rdcu.be/dFLtd

National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). 2024. “What Is Career Readiness?” NACE. https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined

Osborn, Jeffery M., and Kerry K. Karukstis. 2009. “The Benefits of Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity.” In Broadening Participation in Undergraduate Research: Fostering Excellence and Enhancing the Impact, ed. M. Boyd and J. Wesemann, 41–53. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Overbay, Amy, Owen Duckworth, and Joshua L. Heitman. 2023. “The BESST REU: Promoting Soil Science Learning and Shifts in Attitudes toward Science.” Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 52: 1–12. doi: 10.1002/nse2.20100

Phelps, Marianne, Catrina White, Lin Xiang, and Hollie I. Swanson. 2021. “Improvisation As a Teaching Tool for Improving Oral Communication Skills in Premedical and Pre-Biomedical Graduate Students.” Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development 8: 1–7. doi: 10.1177/23821205211006411

Posillico, Caitlin, Sarah Stilwell, Jacqueline Quigley, Crystal Carr, Sara Chadwick, Cindy Lustig, and Priti Shah. 2023. “Extending the Reach of the STARs (Students Tackling Advanced Research).” Teaching of Psychology 50: 433–440. doi: 10.1177/0098628321105602

Richard, Jacques C., and So Yoon Yoon. 2021. “Three-Year Study of the Impact of a Research Experience Program in Aerospace Engineering on Undergraduate Students.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 4(4): 23–32. doi: 10.18833/spur/4/4/5

Richard, Jacques C., and So Yoon Yoon. 2023. “Impact of Engineering Research Experience Programs on Domestic and International Undergraduate Students.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 6(3): 29–47. doi: 10.18833/spur/6/3/6

Roberts, Lindsay R., Criss J. Ririe, Marcella J. Myers, Joshua D. Guggenheimer, and Katherine A. Campbell. 2023. “For Aging Research and Equity: Lessons Learned in Undergraduate Research Education.” International Journal of Aging and Human Development 96: 91–105. doi: 10.1177/00914150221109918

Salto, Lorena M., Matt L. Riggs, Daisy Delgado De Leon, Carlos A. Casiano, and Marino De Leon. 2014. “Underrepresented Minority High School and College Students Report STEM-Pipeline Sustaining Gains after Participating in the Loma Linda University Summer Health Disparities Research Program.” PLOS ONE 9(9): 1–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108497

Seymour, Elaine, Anne-Barrie Hunter, Sandra L. Laursen, and Tracee DeAntoni. 2004. “Establishing the Benefits of Research Experiences for Undergraduates: First Findings from a Three-Year Study.” Science Education 88: 493–534. doi: 10.1002/sce.10131

Shanahan, Jenny Olin, Elizabeth Ackley-Holbrook, Eric Hall, Kearsley Stewart, and Helen Walkington. 2015. “Ten Salient Practices of Undergraduate Research Mentors: A Review of the Literature.” Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 23: 359–376. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1126162

Sturner, Kelly K., Pamela Bishop, and Suzanne M. Lenhart. 2017. “Developing Collaboration Skills in Team Undergraduate Research Experiences.” PRIMUS 27: 370–388. doi: 10.1080/10511970.2016.1188432

Tricco, Andrea C., Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, Kelly K. O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun, Danielle Levac, David Moher, et al. 2018. “PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.” Annals of Internal Medicine 169: 467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850

Vandermaas-Peeler, Maureen, Paul C. Miller, and Jessie L. Moore (Eds.). 2018. Excellence in Mentoring Undergraduate Research. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Weston, Timothy J., and Sandra L. Laursen. 2015. “The Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA): Validation for Use in Program Evaluation.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 14(3): ar33. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-11-0206

Zier, Karen, and Lisa D. Coplit. 2009. “Introducing INSPIRE: A Scholarly Component in Undergraduate Medical Education.” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 76: 387–391. doi: 10.1002/msj.20121

Amanda B. MacDonald

Virginia Tech, abmacdon@vt.edu

Amanda B. MacDonald is an associate professor and the undergraduate research services coordinator for university libraries at Virginia Tech. Her work focuses on creating openly accessible resources to support students and faculty engaging with formal undergraduate research experiences. MacDonald coordinates the Advanced Research Skills Program and is deeply involved in the university’s Undergraduate Research Excellence Program. She previously served as the undergraduate research librarian at Louisiana State University.

Jeanne Mekolichick is associate provost of research, faculty success, and strategic initiatives and professor of sociology at Radford University. She provides strategic leadership and direction for the research and creative scholarship enterprise, online education, faculty success, experiential learning, career services, and strategic initiatives. Mekolichick is a workshop facilitator, consultant, and program reviewer. Her work has been funded for mission-central efforts, including inclusive excellence initiatives, community-based research, undergraduate research, and career readiness.

Kristin Picardo is the assistant provost in the Office of Sponsored Programs, professor of biology, and founding director of the Center for Student Research and Creative Work at St. John Fisher University. She has published with undergraduate research students working in her bacteriology lab, is a former representative of the CUR Biology Division, and served as principal investigator on a track-1 National Science Foundation S-STEM grant.

Eric Hall is professor of exercise science and director of undergraduate research at Elon University. He is interested in the influence of undergraduate research mentorship on student and faculty development. Hall has coauthored 100 research articles, 10 book chapters, and is coeditor of one book. He has received awards for his mentorship and scholarship, including the 2022 Health Sciences Innovative Mentor Award from the Council on Undergraduate Research.

Rosalie A. Richards is associate provost for faculty development and professor of chemistry and education at Stetson University. She is responsible for the vision and strategic leadership of faculty development and support. Richards is a nationally recognized leader in undergraduate research, faculty development, STEM education, equity, and intercultural competence. She has published widely on these areas in higher education and serves frequently as a consultant to universities and other undergraduate institutions.

Recommended Citation: Norman, Leann, Laura Gough, Matthew Hemm, Jacqueline Doyle, Kelly Elkins, Brian Jara, Rommel Miranda. 2024. Integrating a DEI Focus in a CURE Development Model Across STEM Departments. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 7 (4): 61-72. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/7/4/2

Multiple studies show that undergraduate student participation in research promotes student achievement and persistence in their academic career (Bauer and Bennett 2003; Hernandez et al. 2018; Lopatto 2004, 2007; Thiry et al. 2012). Under a traditional “apprenticeship” system, students conduct research in a faculty member’s laboratory. In many cases, these opportunities disproportionately go to students who early on express a desire to conduct research, have superior grades, and may be already familiar with research being conducted at the university (Bangera and Browell 2014). There is a substantial disadvantage to pursuing research for students who transfer from other institutions, struggle during their transition to higher education, have significant jobs or family responsibilities, are unaware of research opportunities and the advantages to engaging in research, or are from historically underrepresented groups in STEM fields (Estrada et al. 2011; Maton and Hrabowski 2004). This system therefore can be inherently exclusive.

From the faculty perspective, mentoring undergraduates in their research programs also comes with substantial barriers and costs (e.g., Ferguson 2023; Johnson et al. 2015, Morrison et al. 2019). This may be particularly challenging at institutions that are not R1, where faculty rarely have postdoctoral scholars or PhD students to assist with undergraduate student mentoring. In these situations, the faculty member must often devote considerable time to training and supporting the undergraduates who may only participate in the research for a year or two, in stark contrast with a PhD student who could be assisting with the faculty’s research for much longer. In addition, depending on the institution, mentoring undergraduates may not be valued for promotion and tenure (Ferguson 2023). These barriers to faculty mentoring undergraduates contribute to an unequal playing field for students seeking out research opportunities, particularly those who may not have a stellar academic record or are unwilling to approach an instructor directly due to cultural norms, inexperience, or insecurity.

One high-impact pedagogical approach that is successful at engaging large numbers of students in research and may avoid some of the issues discussed above comprises course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) classes (e.g., Auchincloss et al. 2014; Bhattacharyya et al. 2020; Shaffer et al. 2010). CUREs also are a mechanism for increasing opportunities for students who are traditionally underrepresented in research, because a CURE may be taken as part of a student’s required courses rather than an add-on, which an independent research (IR) opportunity might be considered. A recent study shows that participation in CUREs may decrease (although not eliminate) the achievement gap between historically underrepresented minority and majority students (Theobald et al. 2020). As many undergraduate institutions introduce diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming, coupling CURE support with professional development for faculty in DEI issues may help institutions change the academic environment and become more inclusive.

Although an abundance of evidence demonstrates that CUREs can result in student benefits as a high-impact practice comparable to IR opportunities (Corwin, Graham, and Dolan 2015; Olimpo, Fisher, and DeChenne-Peters 2016; Rowland et al. 2012; Shaffer et al. 2010; Shapiro et al. 2015), recent attention has been placed on understanding the faculty experience and associated barriers to implementation of CUREs (DeChenne-Peters and Scheuerman 2022; Govindan, Pickett, and Riggs 2020; Shortlidge, Bangera, and Brownell 2017). Not surprisingly, reported faculty experiences differ based on the specific CURE content, institution and class size, and available support systems (DeChenne-Peters and Scheuerman 2022); however, commonalities among challenges faced while implementing CUREs exist (DeChenne-Peters and Scheuerman 2022; Govindan et al. 2020; Lopatto et al. 2014; Shortlidge et al. 2017). Govindan et al. (2020) reviewed perceived barriers and proposed solutions based on experiences learned through various CURE implementations. The barriers discussed included cost, workload/scale, measurements of success, and faculty and institutional resistance, all of which may have equity implications if they prevent engaging more diverse undergraduates in research.

The commonality in barriers to CURE development and implementation suggest a need for professional development (PD) for faculty considering CURE teaching. Networked CUREs, in which one research project is conducted at multiple institutions, can overcome some of these obstacles by providing centralized support to CURE instructors (e.g., Connors et al. 2021; Genné-Bacon, Wilks, and Bascom-Slack 2018; Hanauer et al. 2022; Lopatto et al. 2014). Similarly, many STEM faculty wish to adopt active learning and inclusive techniques in their classes, but without appropriate PD and infrastructure that set aside time for this work, the barrier to such changes is quite high (e.g., Kennedy et al. 2022). This paper describes a PD program created to support faculty members in DEI and the development of STEM CUREs by supporting their learning about inclusive approaches and CURE pedagogy and how to integrate the two. Core components of the PD program, evolution of PD based on faculty feedback, and current efforts to sustain CURE development without external funding are reviewed.

Overview

The Towson University Research Enhancement Program (TU REP) was created with support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) through their Inclusive Excellence (IE) program. HHMI’s IE program goal is for institutions to increase “capacity for inclusion of all students in science.” Although individual projects took different approaches, all were tasked with improving their DEI culture, which in most cases meant helping faculty become more inclusive in their teaching and mentoring. The central focus of TU REP was to provide PD to assist STEM faculty in developing CUREs and to help faculty understand their own personal biases and learn new pedagogical approaches to including all students in their classrooms. Faculty PD was a critical aspect of this grant because PD can help faculty learn and implement new pedagogical techniques, including inclusive strategies (e.g., Biswas et al. 2022; O’Leary et al. 2020), particularly when using a professional learning community or communities of practice approach (e.g., Gehrke and Kezar 2018; Kezar, Gehrke, and Bernstein-Sierra 2017), as done here. At the time of funding, three faculty in biology were teaching CUREs, with the first one developed with funding from a National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER award. A PD program was assembled that incorporated the expertise of those already teaching CUREs and colleagues in several departments and offices at TU. Partnering with the newly created Office of Inclusion and Institutional Equity (OIIE) to incorporate DEI training into faculty PD ensured that faculty had the space and time to consider how CUREs are inherently inclusive and how their approach to students could better support success of all their students.

Cohort-Based PD

A cohort-based PD model was implemented to encourage community and collaboration throughout faculty development of CUREs. Faculty from across the Fisher College of Science and Mathematics (FCSM) were recruited to participate in a yearlong faculty cohort through visits to faculty meetings and an FCSM-wide email that included a link to an application form. Interested faculty completed a simple proposal to apply to the program. Each faculty participant, in consultation with their department chair, could choose either one month of summer salary or a one course (3 credit hour) release during the academic year. In addition, funding was provided for new equipment needed to teach the course, as well as supplies for consumables, field trips, and other course activities. Finally, travel funds also were provided for faculty to attend conferences and HHMI IE meetings.

PD Structure and Activities

Although consistently focused on CURE development and DEI training, PD evolved over the five years of the grant as project leadership learned how to better meet the needs of the faculty in each cohort, as more faculty completed the PD, and as the situational context changed, including teaching fully online during the COVID pandemic. Exit surveys and informal feedback informed these changes. The monthly meetings followed a pattern, although the exact topics within a session changed over time (Table 1). For example, given that most STEM faculty had not received formal pedagogical training, various topics were included for different cohorts. In the first two cohorts, TU experts developed PD sessions that reflected on the nature of science and general science pedagogy. Faculty input indicated that these topics were too general and redundant with their prior knowledge. However, a guest expert who ran a session on backward design and designing assessments to align with student learning outcomes was appreciated by cohorts 2 through 5, as faculty could see how these tools would assist them not only with CUREs but with all their classes.

All PD series included multiple opportunities to learn about CUREs, particularly from peers who had already taught CUREs. The value of sharing experiences led to the development of faculty “spotlight” sessions, during which one faculty member who had already developed and taught a CURE gave a presentation of their course, including aspects they planned to change in the future and tips for handling challenges that arose throughout the semester. As the cohorts progressed, more faculty were available to discuss their courses, providing a broader array of subjects and issues. In addition, most PD sessions included discussion of readings about CUREs in general as well as examples of CUREs from specific disciplines (Table 1; e.g., Auchincloss et al. 2014, Clark, Ricciardo, and Weaver 2016; Kortz and van der Hoeven Kraft 2016; Shortlidge and Brownell 2016). Over time, themes emerged that the leadership team could ensure were discussed with each cohort, such as how much time to devote early in the semester to training students in techniques, assessment strategies and weights, and how much writing to require of students. At the end of the PD, faculty presented their CURE course plans to past and present cohort faculty, including how they were addressing the five CURE components identified by Auchincloss et al. (2014).

Along with CURE pedagogy, the PD sessions included DEI components. For cohort 1, an external speaker conducted one workshop regarding identity and bias. Beginning with cohort 2, when in-house expertise was available from OIIE, the first two PD sessions provided extensive DEI training in microaggressions, equity and equality, implicit bias, and inclusive teaching strategies. It was particularly important for faculty to reflect on their own privilege and identities, because Towson University faculty diversity does not match the diversity of the students. At the time there was no other comparable faculty training offered at TU, and TU REP provided an opportunity for OIIE staff to explore how to help faculty reflect on their own biases in the context of PD directed at developing pedagogy. In addition, these interactions created opportunities for faculty to promote DEI training, because TU REP faculty reached out to their department chairs to request additional department-specific training.

Peer learning, mentoring, and reflection became more important over the course of the five years as more faculty were trained and could serve as mentors. This became acute when PD was online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Faculty in that cohort indicated to TU REP leadership that they felt they were not being prepared to teach their courses the following year. It was identified that the allotted Zoom time inadvertently limited opportunities for informal interactions related to PD. These peer interactions extended beyond the institution when the June PD each year consisted of a regional meeting with three other HHMI-funded IE projects. These meetings incorporated PD regarding DEI issues in STEM as well as progress reports and discussion of challenges. Discussions with faculty outside of TU helped faculty embrace an inclusive mindset.

Program Outcomes

Over the course of five years of funding, 25 CUREs were developed or modified by 35 faculty members across all five departments of FCSM (Figure 1). These CUREs spanned topics such as behavioral neuroscience, cancer prevention, experimental mathematics, next-generation sequencing in forensic science, protein engineering, bio-innovation, and species discovery. CURE development was shaped by both internal and external influences. For example, a substantial number of molecular biology CUREs have been offered at TU (Figure 1). This likely stems from the national dominance of molecular biology CUREs (Buchanan and Fisher 2022) and associated published resources (external), and the demand for molecular biology lab courses in TU’s biology department (internal).

CURE Faculty

CUREs were taught by tenure-track, tenured, and instructional faculty (Figure 1). The percentage of tenure-track or tenured faculty who participated in TU REP was highest in biology (~55 percent) and lowest in computer and information sciences (3 percent). As of spring 2023, 17 of 24 research-active tenure-track or tenured faculty in biology, 4 of 16 instructional faculty in biology, and 6 of 16 research-active chemistry faculty in their second year or higher were teaching CUREs. Many of the tenure-track and tenured faculty described student projects in CUREs that explored new research avenues and techniques, which they subsequently adopted in their own labs. In addition, as a result of teaching CUREs, faculty published pedagogical papers (e.g., Cheng 2022; Miranda et al. 2023; Oufiero 2019).

Instructional faculty, such as clinical assistant professors and lecturers at TU (Figure 1), generally do not have research expectations built into their workload and are not provided with start-up funds or research space. However, many instructional faculty hold PhDs and are interested in continuing to engage in the research process. CUREs provided an important opportunity for these faculty to mentor undergraduates, generate data, collaborate with research-active faculty toward publications, or publish their own pedagogical paper (e.g., Norman 2023).

CURE Students

From fall 2017 until spring 2023, almost 1400 students participated in CUREs at TU, although enrollment varied substantially among departments (Figure 2). In biology, the department in which most CUREs were developed, three times as many students participated in research through CUREs as conducted IR in faculty labs during this period (Table 2, Figure 2). This represented a substantial increase in the number of students engaging in research. Incorporating CURE courses into the framework of the biology major also allowed for better participation of the student body as a whole in authentic research, when compared with students in more traditional IR faculty labs (Table 2).

Classroom Support

Funding to pay undergraduate learning assistants (ULAs) hourly for approximately six hours per week was offered to all interested faculty. Faculty instructors ideally found ULAs who had already taken their CURE or a CURE in a similar discipline, but also relied on referrals from other faculty classes or laboratories. ULAs supported faculty in a variety of ways both inside and outside of the classroom, with specific responsibilities varying based on the course and instructor. Some responsibilities included animal care, preparing reagents, cell culture maintenance, organizing and maintaining equipment, demonstrating experimental procedures, and developing computer code. In all cases, ULAs served as peer mentors to students currently taking the CURE and were present during lab and class time to answer student questions. In total, 21 faculty members (60 percent) taught at least one semester with a ULA.

Anticipated Challenges

Govindan et al. (2020) published a list of anticipated challenges to faculty developing their own CUREs (also see Shortlidge et al. 2017). Within the TU REP funding period, external funds helped address several of these (Table 3). However, many of these challenges could be met without external funding, depending on partnerships available within the institution, including those at the department level, college level, FCSM level, and in other offices (e.g., student affairs, DEI office). Hopefully this paper will provide faculty and administrators who intend to develop CUREs guidance to overcoming some of these challenges.

Cost

Several of the challenges center on cost. Some CUREs cost much more than others to run (e.g., forensic chemistry, cell or molecular biology). At TU, laboratory classes have class fees, however these often do not cover the cost of CURE activities. One approach to reducing costs was to have equipment in the CURE labs that also was used for research, because other funds were available to purchase research equipment. Leveraging internal and external funding sources to ensure equipment is available for CURE students can bring costs down and may allow CURE students to use equipment “in the lab” rather than in a teaching lab, further enhancing their experience as novice researchers. At the departmental level, scheduling courses to balance expensive CUREs that may require funding support with less costly CUREs has been helpful. The most affordable CUREs are those that are in silico, in which the cost is usually limited to access to a particular data set. A field ecology CURE offered in biology is also relatively inexpensive, because most of the cost is for field trip expenses and some consumables each semester. Additional approaches to reducing costs include incorporating publicly available data sets (e.g., Avramovska and Rokop 2023) and developing collaborations and partnerships with external stakeholders (Table 3). Although grant funds were initially used to pay ULAs, these costs are now being met by the Office of Undergraduate Research and Creative Inquiry (OURCI), because the ULAs are supporting research efforts in the courses while gaining more research experience themselves. Similar funding may be available at other institutions. Alternatively, some undergraduate institutions allow ULAs to participate in the role for course credit, which comes at essentially no cost to the department.

Faculty Workload

A commonly reported challenge when developing CUREs (or any new pedagogical approach) is not having the time needed to develop (or teach) a new course (Brownell and Tanner 2012; Lopatto et al. 2014; Shortlidge et al. 2017). This may be particularly challenging if CUREs are new to a department or are not seen as contributing to the instructor’s scholarship. Although the grant helped compensate faculty by funding a summer stipend or course buyout, a more affordable option of workload compensation may be course release or allocating more workload units to a CURE in recognition of the additional time required. In addition, CUREs can be included in faculty onload teaching, whereas IR may not be counted toward teaching load. Faculty workload can also be balanced by building CUREs from previously framed courses to replace a traditional cookbook lab approach. In addition, the use of ULAs in the classroom has proven to be a valuable resource for managing faculty workloads during CURE implementation because they help answer student questions both during and outside of class.

Institutional Resistance

Some faculty or departments may anticipate institutional resistance when developing CUREs. Given the increasing publicity around CUREs, there are now multiple resources available for faculty to share with administrators to explain how CUREs benefit students and faculty (e.g., Rowland et al. 2012; Shaffer et al. 2010; Shapiro et al. 2015). Networked CUREs might help open the door to developing CUREs by demonstrating the feasibility and effectiveness of this approach (e.g., Connors et al. 2021, Hanauer et al. 2022). Fortunately, there was no resistance from the university administration at TU; instead various offices supported these efforts. In fact, CUREs align well with university-wide DEI efforts and are supported because of this by several administrators. However, incorporating DEI into PD may not be permissible at public institutions in some states, so justification for a CURE PD program could be placed solely on the improvement in retention of STEM students associated with CUREs.

If a university strives to increase its research profile, CUREs can be seen as an important contribution to scholarship efforts; this has happened at TU—CUREs are now integrated with planning by OURCI. Two faculty in biology successfully earned grants from the NSF and the National Institutes of Health, with CUREs as an integral part of their proposed research and scholarship demonstrating additional benefits to the institution. Involving institutional stakeholders and outside departments in CURE activities, such as university-wide poster sessions, has allowed for more exposure of the TU REP program. Faculty, staff, and administrators from other parts of the university have become more familiar with the program and participating students.

Student Resistance

Students may also be resistant to enrolling in CUREs, particularly if they require extensive time; in general, TU CUREs meet for six hours each week. As mentioned, student enrollment in biology was facilitated by requiring a CURE for major requirements or as elective credit. Student enrollment was lower in CUREs in departments where the classes did not fulfill graduation requirements. Student poster sessions have also proven to be an important recruitment event, as students not enrolled in CUREs stop by to see the posters, and instructors regularly advertise the courses to their students and advisees. If students are learning about research opportunities as they proceed through their major, a CURE may be most appealing to them because of the available course credit. Furthermore, students are attracted to the project-based grading and semester vs. standard weekly lab reports.

Faculty Resistance

Another key challenge to developing CUREs is faculty resistance, which can come from many directions. As mentioned, with the publicity that CUREs are gaining nationally, there are numerous resources available to help faculty consider a CURE and reduce any associated fears (e.g., Science Education Resource Center n.d.). Exposure to a networked CURE or hearing about a CURE at a conference may help faculty consider this option. Faculty workload concerns can be addressed as previously described.

For TU REP faculty, the grant provided funding and time for faculty to develop their courses and was an incentive for participating in PD. Although CUREs started with the cell and molecular biology faculty, others learned from their experiences to develop courses in other subjects (Figure 1); the challenges were often similar despite the subject matter being different. In some cases, however, challenges were quite different, such as establishing a field ecology course that required vehicles, field gear, and permits to conduct the research. As new faculty join FCSM since the grant has ended, they now ask about teaching CUREs because it has become so common in biology.

Shortlidge et al. (2017) surveyed faculty who had developed independent CUREs and identified the uncertainty of research as a theme that also contributed to faculty resistance. The risk of spending an entire semester trying to effectively generate data and then failing to do so can affect faculty willingness to develop a CURE. In TU REP, having faculty already teaching the courses willingly share their own challenging experiences has helped new faculty understand the challenges but also emphasized the benefits, and may have helped overcome this concern. In fact, at a university like TU, where few departments have PhD and postdoctoral students, many faculty embraced the possibility of bringing their scholarship into the classroom. TU REP faculty have noted that students in their CUREs have helped generate new ideas or normalized the use of a new technique, moving their scholarship forward even when the data generated in the course were not publishable.

Implementation and Sustainability

Moving forward with curriculum changes after funding ended has forced the identification of ways to sustain much of the work that successfully supported faculty in developing CUREs. This section describes activities that leverage existing resources and partners at TU to help expand CURE offerings across FCSM and into new colleges of the institution. For a more detailed description and analysis of faculty perspectives, also see Gough et al. (forthcoming).

CURE Community of Practice

The importance of a faculty community of CURE developers and instructors emerged as one of the most critical aspects of PD. As discussed, during the COVID-19 pandemic, two key differences between online and in-person PD were noticeable: the lack of mealtime for informal interactions and the way in which Zoom made having one-on-one conversations following a group discussion difficult. The importance of these interactions is aligned with recent research on faculty experiences in networked CUREs (DeChenne-Peters and Scheuerman 2022) and participation in communities of practice (CoP) that emphasize the crucial role that personal interactions play in faculty engagement and continuing involvement in new practices when departments or undergraduate institutions are undergoing reform (e.g., Kezar et al. 2017; Gehrke and Kezar 2018). In fall 2022, a CURE CoP was developed with support from the Towson University Faculty Center of Excellence (FACET) to meet two goals: to continue to provide opportunities for peer interactions among TU REP faculty, and to create programming for faculty new to CUREs to learn more about them. Support from a university teaching and learning center for a CoP can include space outside of departments for meetings, invited speakers, technology support in the form of a Blackboard or Canvas site, peer-to-peer mentoring, and funding for food for meetings. TU REP faculty continue to participate in this CoP as speakers, panelists, and participants. In addition, several TU CURE instructors have contributed to the CURE community outside of the university by sharing their course details on CUREnet (Science Education Resource Center n.d.) and publishing their specific CURE development experiences in relevant journals (e.g., Cheng 2022; Norman 2023; Oufiero 2019). In addition, support from an office of undergraduate research embracing CUREs as an important research approach can provide resources and publicity.

Intentional DEI Efforts

The development and implementation of CUREs within TU REP have contributed to both increased faculty participation in DEI PD and increased participation of students from diverse backgrounds in authentic research. TU REP faculty have commented that their involvement in the program caused them to consider inclusive approaches in all their courses and laboratories. For example, several TU REP faculty began incorporating research by scientists from traditionally underrepresented groups in their CUREs and other classes as a result of discussion of this approach during PD. The integration of DEI issues into PD as a high impact practice was relatively straightforward, ensuring that DEI issues were central to program activities.

Partnership with OIIE and focus on DEI during PD led to additional IE activities by TU REP faculty that would likely not have occurred otherwise. For example, TU REP faculty helped lead a DEI task force at FCSM to assess the status of DEI issues and compile a list of recommendations for an incoming dean. One TU REP faculty member has been working to make undergraduate research grants within FCSM more accessible to students with lower GPAs, and similar efforts have been underway in several different arenas to ensure that transfer students have the same opportunities as first-year full-time students. These unplanned TU REP outcomes have occurred as faculty becomes more aware of DEI issues and begins to engage in these topics on committees, in department meetings, and at university activities in ways that will benefit the entire university community.

Logistical and Financial Support

With the end of HHMI funding, collaboration with institutional partners is allowing for new CURE development, although at a slower pace than during the grant period. This strategy may help institutions new to CUREs as well, depending on their mission. For example, once the OURCI director began discussing CUREs across campus as a form of undergraduate research, funds were able to be directed toward ULAs and course supplies for current and future CUREs. FACET provides support for the CURE CoP and also is funding a CURE FACET fellow who is offering one-on-one consultation to faculty designing CUREs, connecting the CURE faculty with OURCI support, and helping lead the CoP. As of December 2023, a new CURE development program is being created with four faculty from colleges outside of FCSM based on support from OURCI, FACET, and TU REP faculty. Similar collaborative efforts may be possible at other institutions internally. Institutions also may take advantage of collaborators nationally (such as CUREnet).

Conclusions

CUREs are established high-impact practices that can benefit students in many ways, including by providing opportunities for research for more students, and particularly students from underrepresented groups. CUREs also can be incredibly rewarding for faculty. TU REP faculty comment that they enjoy being able to facilitate research projects within the structure of a formal class, they are gratified to lead 16 to 20 students through research during a semester, and they are excited to implement more inclusive strategies in their classes. Faculty research programs benefit when students ask new questions or generate intriguing data, on which faculty can follow up in their own laboratories. In addition, CUREs provide an opportunity for instructional faculty to engage in the research enterprise if they are interested in doing so. Research papers coauthored by CURE students demonstrate how CUREs can concretely contribute to faculty scholarship (e.g., VanOrsdel et al. 2018).

Although it can be challenging to develop and implement CUREs, CURE-focused PD and development of a CoP can help overcome these barriers and sustain changes in both CURE and DEI pedagogical approaches. As CUREs continue to gain popularity, more examples can be brought forward as potential ways to engage faculty and students in research in the classroom. Creating a system for peer support, engaging with potential partners within an institution, educating faculty about inclusive approaches, and allowing for some flexibility in workload have helped transform the curriculum. Many of these practices are eased with additional funding, but many of them also can be implemented with cooperation from university administration.

Data Availability

The data, critical questions used in scripts, and instruments underlying this study are available within the text.

COI Statement

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Institutional or Ethical Review Board

Approval not required because the research did not involve human or animal subjects or samples.

Acknowledgments

LN, LG, and MH wrote the manuscript with contributions from JD, KE, BJ, and RM. The authors thank all the Towson University Research Enhancement Program faculty for their engagement in this project and their willingness to teach CUREs, as well as Trudymae Agboka for key support throughout the project. Mary Stapleton, Trish Westermann, and Alexei Kolesnikov have been critical allies in carrying out and sustaining this work. This program is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Inclusive Excellence award to Towson University.

References

Auchincloss, Lisa Corwin, Sandra L. Laursen, Janet L. Branchaw, Kevin Eagan, Mark Graham, David I. Hanauer, Gwendolyn Lawrie, et al. 2014. “Assessment of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 13: 29–40. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004

Avramovska, Ognenka, and Megan E. Rokop. 2023. “A Low-Cost Cure for CUREs: An Undergraduate Microbiology Course Engaging Students in Authentic Research Using Publicly Available Datasets.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 52: 106–116. doi: 10.1002/bmb.21793

Bangera, Gita, and Sarah E. Brownell. 2014. “Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Can Make Scientific Research More Inclusive.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 13: 602–606. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099

Bauer, Karen W., and Joan S. Bennett. 2003. “Alumni Perceptions Used to Assess Undergraduate Research Experience.” Journal of Higher Education 74: 210–230. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2003.0011

Bhattacharyya, Prajukit, Catherine W. M. Chan, Rocio R. Duchesne, Aditi Ghosh, Steven N. Girard, and Jonah J. Ralston. 2020. “Course-Based Research: A Vehicle for Broadening Access to Undergraduate Research in the Twenty-First Century.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 3(3): 14–27. doi: 10.18833/spur/3/3/7

Biswas, Sreyasi, Rocio Benabentos, Eric Brewe, Geoff Potvin, Julian Edward, Marcy Kravec, and Laird Kramer. 2022. “Institutionalizing Evidence-Based STEM Reform through Faculty Professional Development and Support Structures.” International Journal of STEM Education 9: ar36. doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00353-z

Brownell, Sara E., and Kimberly D. Tanner. 2012. “Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and . . . Tensions with Professional Identity?” CBE–Life Sciences Education 11: 339–346. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163

Buchanan Alaina J., and Ginger R. Fisher. 2022. “Current Status and Implementation of Science Practices in Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs): A Systematic Literature Review.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 21(4): ar83. doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-04-0069

Cheng, Diana. 2022. “Problem Solving for Teachers: Action Research in a Cross-Listed Undergraduate and Graduate Course.” Mathematics Enthusiast 19: 833–859. doi: 10.54870/1551-3440.1581

Clark, Ted M., Rebecca Ricciardo, and Tyler Weaver. 2016. “Transitioning from Expository Laboratory Experiments to Course-Based Undergraduate Research in General Chemistry.” Journal of Chemical Education 93: 56–63. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00371

Connors, Patrice K., Hayley C. Lanier, Liesl P. Erb, Johanna Varner, Laurie Dizney, Elizabeth A. Flaherty, Jennifer M. Duggan, Christopher J. Yahnke, and John D. Hanson. 2021. “Connected While Distant: Networking CUREs across Classrooms to Create Community and Empower Students.” Integrative and Comparative Biology 61: 934–943. doi: 10.1093/icb/icab146

Corwin, Lisa A., Mark J. Graham, and Erin L. Dolan. 2015. “Modeling Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: An Agenda for Future Research and Evaluation.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 14(1): es1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-10-0167

DeChenne-Peters, S. E., and N. L. Scheuerman. 2022. “Faculty Experiences during the Implementation of an Introductory Biology Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE).” CBE–Life Sciences Education 21(4): ar70. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-06-0154

Estrada, Mica, Anna Woodcock, Paul R. Hernandez, and P. Wesley Schultz. 2011. “Toward a Model of Social Influence That Explains Minority Student Integration into the Scientific Community.” Journal of Educational Psychology 103: 206–222. doi: 10.1037/a0020743

Ferguson, Carinna. 2023. “Systematic Review of Outcomes for Faculty Mentors in Undergraduate Research.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research 7(1): 25–34. doi: 10.18833/spur/7/1/5

Gehrke, Sean, and Adrianna Kezar. 2018. “Perceived Outcomes Associated with Engagement in and Design of Faculty Communities of Practice Focused on STEM Reform.” Research in Higher Education 60: 844-869. doi: 10.1007/s11162-018-9534-y

Genné-Bacon, Elizabeth A., Jessica Wilks, and Carol Bascom-Slack. 2020. “Uncovering Factors Influencing Instructors’ Decision Process When Considering Implementation of a Course-Based Research Experience.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 19(2). doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-10-0208

Gough, Laura, Rommel Miranda, Matthew Hemm, and Leann Norman “Evaluation of Faculty Change when Developing CUREs Through an Inclusive Lens.” CBE–Life Sciences Education (forthcoming).

Govindan, Brinda, Sarah Pickett, and Blake Riggs. 2020. “Fear of the CURE: A Beginner’s Guide to Overcoming Barriers in Creating a Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience.” Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 21(2): 21.2.48. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i2.2109

Hanauer, David I., Mark J. Graham, Rachel J. Arnold, Mary A. Ayuk, Mitchell F. Balish, Andrea R. Beyer, Kristen A. Butela, et al. 2022. “Instructional Models for Course-Based Research Experience (CRE) Teaching.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 21(1). doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-03-0057

Hernandez, Paul R., Anna Woodcock, Mica Estrada, and P. Wesley Schultz. 2018. “Undergraduate Research Experiences Broaden Diversity in the Scientific Workforce.” BioScience 68: 204–211. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix163

Johnson, W. Brad, Laura L. Behling, Paul Miller, and Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler. 2015. “Undergraduate Research Mentoring: Obstacles and Opportunities.” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning. 23: 441–453. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1126167

Kennedy, Sarah A., Amy M. Balija, Christopher Bibeau, Timothy J. Fuhrer, Lissa A. Huston, Milcah S. Jackson, Kimberly T. Lane, et al. 2022. “Faculty Professional Development on Inclusive Pedagogy Yields Chemistry Curriculum Transformation, Equity Awareness, and Community.” Journal of Chemical Education 99: 291–300. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00414

Kezar, Adrianna, Sean Gehrke, and Samantha Bernstein-Sierra. 2017. “Designing for Success in STEM Communities of Practice: Philosophy and Personal Interactions.” Review of Higher Education 40: 217–244. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2017.0002

Kortz, Karen M., and Katrien J. van der Hoeven Kraft. 2016. “Geoscience Education Research Project: Student Benefits and Effective Design of a Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience.” Journal of Geoscience Education 64: 24–36. doi: 10.5408/15-11.1

Lopatto, David. 2004. “Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings.” Cell Biology Education 3: 270–277. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045

Lopatto, David. 2007. “Undergraduate Research Experiences Support Science Career Decisions and Active Learning.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 6: 297–306. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039

Lopatto, David, Charles Hauser, Christopher J. Jones, Don Paetkau, Vidya Chandrasekaran, David Dunbar, Christy MacKinnon, et al. 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. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-10-0200

Maton, Kenneth I., and Freeman A. Hrabowski III. 2004. “Increasing the Number of African American PhDs in the Sciences and Engineering: A Strengths-Based Approach.” American Psychologist 59: 547–556. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.6.547

Miranda, Rommel J., Cheryl Warren, Kathryn McDougal, Steven Kimble, Joseph Sanchez, Leann Norman, Virginia Anderson, and Matthew Hemm. 2023. “Identifying New Small Proteins through a Molecular Biology Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience Laboratory Class.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 51: 574–585. doi: 10.1002/bmb.21764

Morrison, Janet, John F. Barthell, Anne Boettcher, David Bowne, Cheryl Nixon, Karen K. Resendes, and Juliane Strauss-Soukup. 2019. “Recognizing and Valuing the Mentoring of Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity by Faculty Members: Workload, Tenure, Promotion and Award Systems.” CUR White Paper 2. Council on Undergraduate Research.

Norman, Leann. 2023. “Development and Implementation of a Bio-innovation Focused Course-Based Research Experience for Undergraduate Students.” Biomedical Engineering Education 3: 225–233. doi: 10.1007/s43683-022-00099-8

O’Leary, Erin Sanders, Casey Shapiro, Shannon Toma, Hannah Whang Sayson, Marc Levis-Fitzgerald, Tracy Johnson, and Victoria L. Sork. 2020. “Creating Inclusive Classrooms by Engaging STEM Faculty in Culturally Responsive Teaching Workshops.” International Journal of STEM Education 7: ar32. doi: 10.1186/s40594-020-00230-7

Olimpo, Jeffrey T., Ginger R. Fisher, and Sue Ellen DeChenne-Peters. 2016. “Development and Evaluation of the Tigriopus Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience: Impacts on Students’ Content Knowledge, Attitudes, and Motivation in a Majors Introductory Biology Course.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 15(4): ar72. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-11-0228

Oufiero, Christopher E. 2019. “The Organismal Form and Function Lab-Course: A New CURE for a Lack of Authentic Research Experiences in Organismal Biology.” Integrative Organismal Biology 1(1): obz021. doi: 10.1093/iob/obz021

Rowland, Susan L., Gwen A. Lawrie, James B. Y. H. Behrendorff, and Elizabeth M. J. Gillam. 2012. “Is the Undergraduate Research Experience (URE) Always Best? The Power of Choice in a Bifurcated Practical Stream for a Large Introductory Biochemistry Class.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 40: 46–62. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20576

Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College. n.d. “CURE Collection.” CUREnet: Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences. Accessed July 11, 2023. https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/collection.html

Shaffer, Christopher D., Consuelo Alvarez, Cheryl Bailey, Daron Barnard, Satish Bhalla, Chitra Chandrasekaran, Vidya Chandrasekaran, et al. 2010. “The Genomics Education Partnership: Successful Integration of Research into Laboratory Classes at a Diverse Group of Undergraduate Institutions.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 9: 55–69. doi: 10.1187/09-11-0087

Shapiro, Casey, Jordan Moberg-Parker, Shannon Toma, Carlos Ayon, Hilary Zimmerman, Elizabeth A. Roth-Johnson, Stephen P. Hancock, Marc Levis-Fitzgerald, and Erin R. Sanders. 2015. “Comparing the Impact of Course-Based and Apprentice-Based Research Experiences in a Life Science Laboratory Curriculum.” Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 16: 186–197. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045

Shortlidge, Erin E., Gita Bangera, and Sara E. Brownell. 2017. “Each to Their Own CURE: Faculty Who Teach Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Report Why You Too Should Teach a CURE.” Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education 18(2). doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260

Shortlidge, Erin E., and Sara E. Brownell. 2016. “How to Assess Your CURE: A Practical Guide for Instructors of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences.” Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education. 17: 399–408. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1103

Theobald, Elli J., Mariah J. Hill, Elisa Tran, Sweta Agrawal, E. Nicole Arroyo, Shawn Behling, Nyasha Chambwe, et al. 2020. “Active Learning Narrows Achievement Gaps for Underrepresented Students in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Math.” PNAS 117: 6476–6483. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1916903117

Thiry, Heather, Timothy J. Weston, Sandra L. Laursen, and Anne-Barrie Hunter. 2012. “The Benefits of Multi-Year Research Experiences: Differences in Novice and Experienced Students’ Reported Gains from Undergraduate Research.” CBE–Life Sciences Education 11: 260–272. doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-11-0098

VanOrsdel, Caitlin E., John P. Kelly, Brittany N. Burke, Christina D. Lein, Christopher E. Oufiero, Joseph F. Sanchez, Larry E. Wimmers, et al. 2018. “Identifying New Small Proteins in Escherichia coli.” Proteomics 18: 1700064. doi: 10.1002/pmic.201700064

Leann Norman

Towson University, lnorman@towson.edu

Leann Norman is a lecturer in the Department of Biology at Towson University (TU). She earned her BS at Wagner College and a PhD in bioengineering from the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests include genetics, bioengineering, entrepreneurship, and course related undergraduate research experience (CURE) pedagogy. As a member of the fourth TU Research Enhancement Program (REP) cohort, Norman designed a CURE on the topic of bio-innovation.

Laura Gough is professor and chair of the Department of Biology at Towson University. She earned an ScB at Brown University and a PhD in plant biology from Louisiana State University. Gough’s research interests focus on the plant ecology of wetlands, particularly tundra ecosystems. She has engaged in many professional development activities around diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in STEM in her role as department chair and as program director of TU REP.

Matthew Hemm is an associate professor in the Department of Biology at Towson University. He earned a BS at the College of William and Mary and a PhD in biochemistry from Purdue University. His research interests include identifying and characterizing small proteins and providing authentic research experiences for students. Hemm designed a CURE based on the identification of small proteins in the bacterium Escherichia coli and served as assistant director of TU REP.

Jacqueline Doyle is an associate professor in the Department of Biology at Towson University. She earned her BA at the College of Wooster, MS from Murray State University, and PhD in ecology and evolutionary biology from Purdue University. Doyle’s research interests include molecular ecology, conservation, and population genetics. She teaches a CURE on molecular techniques in ecology, evolution, and conservation, is a member of the second TU REP cohort, and serves on the leadership team.

Kelly Elkins is a professor in the Department of Chemistry at Towson University. She earned her bachelor’s degree in biology and chemistry from Keene State College and MA and PhD degrees in chemistry from Clark University. She is an expert in forensic science and the author of several books. Elkins serves on the TU REP leadership team and mentors faculty on the scholarship of teaching and learning. In the second TU REP cohort, she developed an advanced sequencing methods CURE.

Brian Jara serves as director of inclusive excellence education and support at Towson University, overseeing and executing a university-wide plan for training, education, professional development, and resources on diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and belonging for staff, faculty, and students. Jara earned a BA at Johns Hopkins University and MEd at Pennsylvania State University. He consulted with the TU REP leadership team and delivered some of the professional development sessions.

Rommel Miranda is a professor in the Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences at Towson University. He earned BS and MS degrees at Loyola University and his EdD in science education at Morgan State University. His areas of expertise include scientist-educator partnerships, STEM education, STEM outreach programs, and science teacher professional development. Miranda served as the professional development facilitator and part of the leadership team for TU REP.