Introduction – Winter 2017

Libraries, long the heart of academic life, nonetheless have been perceived as a passive space for physical resources and quiet study. Changes in the dissemination of information, as well as teaching and learning methods that focus on high-impact practices, have driven library staff to reimagine the physical buildings of libraries. To meet the new needs of students, Ohio Northern University planned a full renovation of the first floor of its undergraduate library. Current space and space usage was analyzed, considering how collaborative learning and undergraduate research might be conducted in renovated spaces. Ethnographic studies such as observations, focus groups, and surveys were used to learn how students studied and how they used the space. Assessments completed after renovation revealed that the new space appealed to students and reflected improvement as studying and learning spaces, but further studies are needed.

Through active learning classrooms (ALCs), faculty can rethink and redesign their courses to include more inquirydriven activities and experiences for students. This case study describes one large public institution’s evidencebased and iterative design process for new and redesigned learning spaces. Critical elements include a cross-campus interdisciplinary team charged with planning for learning spaces of the future, the use of data to conceptualize spaces that better support teaching and learning, and the assessment of faculty-student experiences in these new learning spaces. Discussed are professional development programming and support structures for faculty that foster inquiry-driven approaches in the classroom such as faculty learning communities, workshops, and practice sessions; online and crowdsourced resources; sustained course scheduling; and institutional and departmental recognition. Also provided are recommendations for those considering campus learning-space initiatives.

The Research PackTrack (RP) Program provides authentic research experiences to biology undergraduates in a modified studio environment. In semester 1, students are introduced to the process of scientific inquiry and discourse in a student-centered active learning environment with upside-down pedagogies. In semester 2, students work in a dedicated molecular biology studio that includes a research laboratory and adjoining conference room. Students use equipment and techniques specific to their research questions, gaining competence and expertise through experimental troubleshooting based on weekly results. In the conference room, they perform specialized data analyses and interact with research peers and mentors. Survey responses for learning and self-efficacy show significant gains for RP students in factors associated with science as a process and community of practice. Fourteen percent of RP students received state and national awards for projects presented at scientific conferences, and 60 percent found long-term research opportunities after program completion.

The Pembroke Undergraduate Research and Creativity Center’s council assists the director in making funding decisions for the Undergraduate Assistant Scholarship (USA). A rubric was developed to guide the council’s decisions. After the council members have reviewed and rated the USA proposals using a five-point rubric, the proposals then are ranked based on the mean of the ratings. Finally, the council discusses the proposals and makes funding decisions. The Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) was used to compare the mean, median, mean after truncation, and coefficient of variation (CV) as independent variables; the dependent variable was a funded or unfunded proposal. The results showed that the mean was the best predictor for this model. Some psychological theories are discussed to explain the results.

Engaging students in research has the potential to benefit students, faculty, and institutions. The authors present a case study documenting strategic efforts to advance a culture of undergraduate research at Hunter College, City University of New York. Assembling a team, removing obstacles, increasing awareness and engagement, identifying goals, and celebrating accomplishments of undergraduate researchers are discussed. Preliminary findings, including increased engagement in an annual undergraduate research conference as well as higher graduation rates and grade-point averages for students who participated in research, suggest that these efforts have supported positive outcomes both for the institution and its undergraduates.

Mentoring research and development often uses a mentorprotégé model, but research often takes place in teams. In this exploratory study, the authors identify the structures and prevalence of multi-mentoring teams by surveying undergraduate researchers about the people who helped them and the support they received. Research teams were common, and interdisciplinary projects involved more mentors. Faculty were more often considered mentors than others, and those providing information and appraisal were more often mentors than those providing psychosocial support. Students with multiple mentors received more support than those with one or none. Natural science projects experienced higher rates of both mentorship and multi-mentoring, which carries implications for student and faculty development.