Introduction – Summer 2024

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Inclusive Excellence initiative funded 57 institutions to improve capacity to include all students in STEM education and research activities. At Towson University, a professional development (PD) program funded by this initiative helped STEM faculty design course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) and incorporate inclusive approaches in class instruction. Core components of the PD centered around training in diversity, equity, and inclusion approaches. An overview of the PD program is presented along with common barriers to creating CUREs and potential solutions for sustaining these pedagogical changes. Over five years, 35 faculty developed 25 CUREs in biology, chemistry, computer science, math, and geosciences. Many aspects of this PD can be maintained without external funding and can be replicated elsewhere.

The STEM Scholars program at Bucknell University was originally supported with a five-year National Science Foundation STEP grant to begin recruitment for a summer program in 2014. The grant, with a one-year no-cost extension, supported six cohorts of students. The recruitment of participants was specifically designed to attract typically underrepresented populations into STEM (Pell eligible, first generation, students of color, female identifying). As a result of successful implementation as measured by retention, persistence, and graduation rates, the university has secured private donations from generous alumni to endow the program. The tenth cohort of scholars participated in the summer of 2024.

Undergraduate research is a high-impact educational practice. However, few studies have analyzed the opportunities and barriers to entry into undergraduate research experiences. A survey for the measurement of undergraduate research science capital (URSC) was developed, rooted at the junction of science capital and social cognitive career theory. Respondents (n = 833) were science majors at four R1 institutions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a five-factor structure for the URSC scale. This study shares the development of the scale that can be used by science departments and their respective institutions to analyze the pathways to undergraduate research and consider what changes may increase equitable access to these experiences.

In this article, the authors describe a model for onboarding and supporting undergraduates during a multisite research project. Undergraduate students had hands-on experiences conducting social media research focused on adolescent and young adult cancer patients and their caregivers. The research was conducted across multiple sites using online platforms and students were onboarded online and worked remotely. Mentoring undergraduates in research is an essential faculty responsibility. However, research involving sensitive topics such as cancer can be emotionally difficult. Students were mentored throughout the project by faculty with regularly scheduled weekly or biweekly meetings. Mental health resources were provided to support students with the difficult experiences they were studying. Students and faculty described how they benefited from this research experience, including lessons learned from each other.

Mentorship experiences involve a variety of motives, but some are more effective than others. The authors hypothesized that personal autonomous reasons (PARs, “for me”) and relational autonomous reasons (RARs, “for us”) for engaging in undergraduate research would be associated with better perceived and scholarly outcomes, whereas controlled reasons (CRs, “I have to”) would be associated with worse outcomes. Fifty-five undergraduate students presenting their mentored projects at university-hosted poster events completed surveys indicating their reasons for working on their project, their perceptions of their project and mentorship, and the number of past and planned future presentations, projects, and mentorship experiences. The results indicated that both PARs and RARs were associated with positive outcomes, but PARs were mostly associated with the project, whereas RARs were mostly associated with the mentorship.

For traditionally underrepresented students, engaging in research experiences often means entering traditionally exclusive places with few role models that reflect their social identities. By looking at a small, public, minority-serving institution where students conduct summer research at other, less diverse institutions, this study explored the use of images posted to public blogs and written reflections as modes for students to demonstrate belonging in traditionally exclusive academic places. Spatial belonging is a conceptual framework that envisions how space and spatial dimensions influence a student’s sense of belonging. Through the lens of spatial belonging and visual rhetoric, the ways undergraduate researchers utilized public and reflective writing to claim space and belonging were examined. Study findings highlighted how students made exclusive spaces work for them and the important role faculty and institutions have in improving the spatial dimensions of research spaces and overall campus climate for traditionally underrepresented students.

Undergraduate research experiences are a documented high-impact practice affecting student learning, attitudes, and career outcomes. However, many of these reported benefits are associated with longer-term research experiences. This study pilots the use of a small group metacognition activity in a 10-week summer undergraduate research program. It was hypothesized that early intervention with metacognition activities in group settings could improve student outcomes by reducing early challenges in the onboarding process. The efficacy of the group metacognition activity was evaluated with a postprogram survey employing a Likert scale. The outcomes of this pilot study suggest that small group metacognition activities can reduce research anxiety, promote cohort building, foster peer-to-peer learning, and encourage self-improvement throughout the research program.

The advantages of collaborative research partnerships are well documented. However, these partnerships are sometimes challenging to implement in undergraduate research programs. This commentary addresses two models of collaborative research (comentorship and multimentor protégé) and the associated benefits and challenges.

Understanding journal norms, viewing peer review feedback constructively, and responding appropriately through revisions to the manuscript text and the Response to Reviewers document are essential elements of a successful manuscript revision. This brief editorial discusses these elements. Responding to peer reviewer feedback is a normal part of the publication process at Scholarship & Practice of Undergraduate Research (SPUR). In this editorial, I offer some tips on how to do this effectively, improving your chances of being published in SPUR and doing this in a shorter time.