Best practices for chemistry REU programs 9780841233539, 0841233535, 9780841233522

Table of contents :
Content: 1. Overview of Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs2. Over Thirty Years of REU Programs in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at The University of Alabama3. Professional Development for REU Students4. Summer REU Program Integrating Deaf and Hearing Participants in Chemistry Research5. The TIM Consortium: A Dispersed REU Site at Primarily Undergraduate Institutes6. Chemistry REU Leadership Group: Support for the Chemistry Undergraduate Research Community7. The Chemistry REU Program at West Virginia University8. Summer International REU Program in the United Kingdom9. Entering Mentoring: A Mentor Training Seminar for REU Mentors10. Coordination of the Chemistry REU Program at the University of Nebraska?Lincoln11. Importance of a Truly Cohesive Theme in a REU Program12. A Distributed, Multi-Institution REU Site on Environmental and Green ChemistryEditors' BiographiesAuthor IndexSubject Index

Citation preview

Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1295

Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs Mark A. Griep, Editor University of Nebraska−Lincoln Lincoln, Nebraska

Linette M. Watkins, Editor James Madison University Harrisonburg, Virginia

Sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education

American Chemical Society, Washington, DC Distributed in print by Oxford University Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Griep, Mark A., editor. | Watkins, Linette M., editor. | American Chemical Society. Division of Chemical Education. Title: Best practices for chemistry REU programs / Mark A. Griep, editor (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska), Linette M. Watkins, editor (James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia) ; sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education. Other titles: Best practices for chemistry research experience for undergraduates programs Description: Washington, DC : American Chemical Society, [2018] | Series: ACS symposium series ; 1295 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018023576 (print) | LCCN 2018031858 (ebook) | ISBN 9780841233522 | ISBN 9780841233539 (alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Chemistry--Study and teaching (Higher)--United States. | National Science Foundation (U.S.)--Awards. Classification: LCC QD453.3 (ebook) | LCC QD453.3 .B47425 2018 (print) | DDC 540.71/1--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018023576

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48n1984. Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society Distributed in print by Oxford University Press All Rights Reserved. Reprographic copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act is allowed for internal use only, provided that a per-chapter fee of $40.25 plus $0.75 per page is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Republication or reproduction for sale of pages in this book is permitted only under license from ACS. Direct these and other permission requests to ACS Copyright Office, Publications Division, 1155 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. The citation of trade names and/or names of manufacturers in this publication is not to be construed as an endorsement or as approval by ACS of the commercial products or services referenced herein; nor should the mere reference herein to any drawing, specification, chemical process, or other data be regarded as a license or as a conveyance of any right or permission to the holder, reader, or any other person or corporation, to manufacture, reproduce, use, or sell any patented invention or copyrighted work that may in any way be related thereto. Registered names, trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Foreword The ACS Symposium Series was first published in 1974 to provide a mechanism for publishing symposia quickly in book form. The purpose of the series is to publish timely, comprehensive books developed from the ACS sponsored symposia based on current scientific research. Occasionally, books are developed from symposia sponsored by other organizations when the topic is of keen interest to the chemistry audience. Before agreeing to publish a book, the proposed table of contents is reviewed for appropriate and comprehensive coverage and for interest to the audience. Some papers may be excluded to better focus the book; others may be added to provide comprehensiveness. When appropriate, overview or introductory chapters are added. Drafts of chapters are peer-reviewed prior to final acceptance or rejection, and manuscripts are prepared in camera-ready format. As a rule, only original research papers and original review papers are included in the volumes. Verbatim reproductions of previous published papers are not accepted.

ACS Books Department

Contents 1.

Overview of Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs .................................. 1 Mark A. Griep and Linette Watkins

2.

Over Thirty Years of REU Programs in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at The University of Alabama ....................................................... 17 John B. Vincent and Stephen A. Woski

3.

Professional Development for REU Students ...................................................... 33 Holly C. Gaede

4.

Summer REU Program Integrating Deaf and Hearing Participants in Chemistry Research ............................................................................................... 45 Gina MacDonald, Kevin L. Caran, Christine A. Hughey, and Judy Johnson Bradley

5.

The TIM Consortium: A Dispersed REU Site at Primarily Undergraduate Institutes .................................................................................................................. 59 KC Russell and Shannon M. Biros

6.

Chemistry REU Leadership Group: Support for the Chemistry Undergraduate Research Community ................................................................. 73 Linette M. Watkins and Jeffrey D. Evanseck

7.

The Chemistry REU Program at West Virginia University ............................... 85 Brian V. Popp and Michelle Richards-Babb

8.

Summer International REU Program in the United Kingdom ....................... 107 Terence A Nile and Anne G. Glenn

9.

Entering Mentoring: A Mentor Training Seminar for REU Mentors ............ 121 A. E. Greenberg

10. Coordination of the Chemistry REU Program at the University of Nebraska−Lincoln ................................................................................................ 139 Mark A. Griep, Marilyne Stains, and Jonathan Velasco 11. Importance of a Truly Cohesive Theme in a REU Program ............................ 157 N. I. Hammer and G. S. Tschumper 12. A Distributed, Multi-Institution REU Site on Environmental and Green Chemistry .............................................................................................................. 177 James A. Rice

vii

Editors’ Biographies .................................................................................................... 187

Indexes Author Index ................................................................................................................ 191 Subject Index ................................................................................................................ 193

viii

Chapter 1

Overview of Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs Mark A. Griep*,1 and Linette Watkins*,2 1Department

of Chemistry, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0304, United States 2Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, United States *E-mails: [email protected] (M.A. Griep); [email protected] (L.W.).

This book was conceived as a way to disseminate information about successful NSF-sponsored Chemistry Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Sites. Eleven chapters describe specific REU sites and one chapter describes the Chemistry REU Leadership Group. The authors have shared the expertise they acquired from a broad range of approaches, multi-disciplinary collaborations, and multi-institutional collaborations. Each author contributes distinctive and partially overlapping perspectives into the complex factors that result in running a successful summer research program. Half of the authors participated in a symposium titled “Best Practices for Chemistry REU Programs” at the spring 2017 national meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS). Each described their program’s distinctive features in the context of their overall summer experience, such as the integration of deaf and hearing impaired, coordination of an international program, and multi-institutional programs. The other half of the authors participated in one of the symposia hosted by the Chemistry REU Leadership Group at spring ACS national meetings between 2013 and 2016. Each of these symposia focused on a different aspect of successful REU programs. These authors describe excellent models for professional development and mentor training workshops among many others. This book hopes to provide undergraduate research advisors at universities © 2018 American Chemical Society

across the nation with information they need to design more thoughtful and beneficial college undergraduate research programs for their majors, and to provide investigators with useful information to write more effective proposals that will fund more summer research programs.

Introduction This book was conceived as a way to disseminate information about successful Chemistry Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) programs. Most chapters are written by REU program coordinators and administrators whose REU Site grants were renewed at least once (Table 1). These chapters are based on presentations given at one of the following spring ACS national meetings: 2013 New Orleans; 2016 San Diego; and 2017 San Francisco. Many of the useful principles described in this book are the result of experience in managing the myriad factors that lead to a summer experience with few hiccups. That is, the chapters describe how their activities and workshops achieve program goals while also offering tips for dealing with any potentially detrimental features they experienced in previous years. It is our hope that the information in these chapters will help others develop and improve undergraduate research programs at their institutions.

A Brief History of Chemistry REU Sites The world’s future depends on creative chemical ideas, which means there is a need to train more chemists. One of the most effective externally funded programs for training students for future careers as chemists is the NSF-funded REU Program (1, 2). According to the Program Solicitation (3), “REU Sites are based on independent proposals to initiate and conduct projects that engage a number of students in research. REU Sites may be based in a single discipline or academic department, or on interdisciplinary or multi-department research opportunities with a coherent intellectual theme.” Every discipline supported by NSF is eligible for this grant program. The REU program began at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1987 when it was re-established after a five-year hiatus (4). In fact, two of the programs described in this book (University of Alabama, Texas A&M) have been funded almost continuously since 1987. From 1958 to 1982, the NSF program was called Undergraduate Research Participation Program. Given the longevity of this program, it is surprising that this is the first book on the subject of Chemistry REU Programs.

2

Table 1. Chemistry REU programs described in this book Chapter

Funded Unit

Program Distinguishing Feature

First Funded

2.

University of Alabama

Ties to Local Schools with Limited Research Opportunities

1987

3.

Texas A&M University

Professional Development Programs

1987

4.

James Madison University

Integration of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students

1990

5.

The Theoretically Interesting Molecule (TIM) Consortiuma

Collaboration of Primarily Undergraduate Institutions

2002

6.

Chemistry REU Leadership Group

Support and Improve Chemistry REU Programs

2002

7.

West Virginia University

Chemistry of Health and Catalysis

2007

8.

University of North Carolina Greensboro & Guilford College

Ties to Local Schools for International Research Experiences

2010

9.

University of WisconsinMadison

Mentor Training Workshops

2011

10.

University of NebraskaLincoln

Communicating Science Workshops

2011

11.

University of Mississippi

Strengthening the Department’s Physical Chemistry Program

2013

12.

South Dakota State Universityb

Collaboration with Primarily Undergraduate Institutions

2015

a

The current TIM Consortium members are University of San Diego, Grand Valley State University, Northern Kentucky University, University of Richmond, and Colby College. b The collaborating institutions are Black Hills State University and Northern State University.

Proven Effectiveness of Chemistry REU Sites Prior to this book, there were no publications about Chemistry REU programs that a principal investigator could use as a reference while writing a proposal. On the other hand, the following four journal articles and a book document the effectiveness of other types of STEM undergraduate research programs. A highly-cited paper (5) (934 citations on Google Scholar) from 2004 provides an analysis of student-identified gains following research experiences in a range of disciplines at four private colleges in Summer 2000. Specifically, the authors compared responses from 76 participants with 63 students who applied but had not been accepted into their program. The strongest conclusions were that the students who did research were more confident in their ability to do research, 3

and to understand what it means to work like a scientist. This study is cited because it indicates that undergraduate research experiences are effective learning experiences. Another highly-cited paper (6) (762 citations) from 2007 provides evidence from an even broader analysis of approximately 4500 undergraduates and 3600 faculty, graduate student, and postdoc mentors who participated in undergraduate research opportunities. The NSF-funded research experiences took place in 2002 or 2003 during both the summer and academic year. There was also a follow-up survey of about 3300 undergraduates who had participated in the initial survey. The strongest conclusions were that the experience helped students clarify their interest in research careers, raised their awareness of graduate school, and increased their understanding of their major. These gains were independent of gender and ethnicity and appeared to suggest that introducing research as early as the Freshman year would be even more beneficial. This study is usually cited to justify the inclusion of graduate preparation workshops. A paper and a book offer a more detailed analysis about the relative importance of the steps involved in undergraduate research (7, 8). The results are derived from surveys of thousands of students participating in summer or academic year undergraduate research programs. One of the key findings is that the single most effective experience is when students design their own projects. The most recent paper that demonstrates the effective of undergraduate research programs is from 2011 and was managed by an NSF Program Officer for REU Sites in Biology (9). This paper analyzes the descriptive metrics (number of applications, acceptance rates, race and ethnicity, sex, types of enrichment activities, and how programs measure their success) relating to REU Sites funded or co-funded by the NSF’s Directorate for Biological Sciences during Summer 2006 through 2009. Although this paper does not describe the goals of individual REU Site programs, it provides a set of metrics and activities that proposal writers could use to establish a baseline for quantifying success.

Characteristics of Recently Funded Chemistry REU Sites Before summarizing the various Chemistry REU Sites described in this book, it is useful to provide an overview of currently funded Chemistry REU Sites so it becomes clear how these programs are representative of the larger whole. Since the NSF Chemistry REU website maintains a list of its currently funded grants (10), visitors to the site can learn about such characteristics as average funding levels, average terms, typical start dates, and research foci. However, keep in mind that the website is maintained irregularly and appears to include expired grants and to capture only about three quarters of currently funded grants. Therefore, we limited our analysis to those grants from the website that were funded as of 25 February 2018 and that started between 2014 and 2017. Nearly all of those funded in 2014 appear to cover four summer terms. Since then, all grants have covered three summer terms. The average funding per REU Site has increased roughly with inflation. It was 296 ± 58 thousand dollars in 2014 and has increased to 333 ± 72 in 2017 (Figure 1). On the NSF Chemistry REU website 4

(10), the number of total funded grants was 13 in 2014, 21 in 2015, 15 in 2016, and 14 in 2017. If, instead, one uses the NSF search engine, you will find that the number of total funded REU grants by the Chemistry division was 20 in 2014, 23 in 2015, 19 in 2016, and 20 in 2017.

Figure 1. Average grant size for Chemistry REU Sites, 2014-2017. The research foci of the funded programs (Figure 2) were discerned from the program title, the “Research Topics/Keywords” field, and “Comments” field on the NSF Chemistry REU website (10). The largest percentage of programs, 44%, have a materials focus as do all but one of the multi-disciplinary programs. Approximately half of these mention specific materials such as liquid crystals, nanomaterials, polymers, and sensors. Another quarter of these programs mention computational chemistry in combination with synthesis. The last quarter of the materials programs have an environmental focus with some of them specifically mentioning agricultural chemistry or renewable energy.

Figure 2. Research Foci of Chemistry REU Site Funded from 2014 to 2017. Approximately one-third of the Chemistry REU Sites have a classical chemistry focus (Figure 2). Most of these programs list opportunities in four or five traditional areas of chemical research: analytical, biochemistry, inorganic, organic, and physical. Although choosing a chemistry focus may not seem innovative, chemistry is a broad discipline with a vast array of research opportunities at the boundaries between its five areas. About one-sixth, actually 16%, of Sites have a biochemistry focus. Most of these programs are funded by the Biology Division and co-funded by the Chemistry Division. The competition for REU Sites is strong in every NSF Division and the proposals are primarily funded based on the strength of external reviews. 5

The number of grants that can be awarded is determined by the size of the appropriation to each Division’s REU program, which is, in turn, determined by the Congressional appropriation to NSF. The result of the federal appropriations cycle is that the start dates for REU Sites from the Chemistry Division occur between March and September (Figure 3). Unfortunately, these award dates are not in good synchrony with launching an REU program because a February or early March start date would be ideal for the timely vetting of applicants for a summer program. Nevertheless, if an REU Site Coordinator receives notice of funding in late March to early May, it will likely be possible to find excellent students who could start in early or middle June simply because the student demand far exceeds the supply of research opportunities. If funding begins during the summer months, however, it appears that many coordinators request a September start date to set up a funding cycle that ends a month after their next year’s summer program ends so they will have information for their annual report.

Figure 3. Funding Start Month for Chemistry REU Sites, 2014-2017.

The Chemistry REU Leadership Group The Chemistry REU Leadership Group is supported by a special grant from NSF “to improve the REU program through workshops, travel grants, symposia, and other innovative activities” and to “provide guidance to current and prospective REU Site PIs (11).” The Leadership Group was formed after a fruitful NSF-funded “Workshop for Chemistry REU Site Directors” in 2001. Every year, the Leadership Group hosts a symposium with a different theme at the Spring meeting of the American Chemical Society. Every three years, they host a PI Workshop. The Workshops are also open to prospective REU Site PIs to help them develop their plans. Over half of the currently funded PIs have attended at least one of these meetings. The Chemistry REU Leadership Group hosts a website (11) that provides a great deal of useful information for anyone running or planning an REU Site. The information encompasses a wide range of factors to consider, including thoughts about leveraging resources, different mechanisms to pay participants, thoughts about the use of volunteers, and a typical timeline for running a program. They also 6

provide ideas for addressing the nuts and bolts issues like broadening participation through recruitment, selection, and inclusion ideas, the online application form, assessment metrics, and post-program tracking ideas. All of these components of a good program are mentioned in several chapters and often from different perspectives.

Choosing a Program Theme At NSF, all proposals are evaluated for intellectual merit and broader impacts. The REU program is no different except that it is perhaps more challenging to incorporate innovation in the intellectual merit of the program components with elements of existing successful models. This means the principal investigator will need to choose which components to innovate and which components can be considered reliable enough to use as a scaffold for the innovative components. One possibility for determining areas for innovation is to consider the strengths of the institution that will be hosting the REU Site and applying existing strengths of the department or university to the REU Site. One of the very first considerations when planning an REU Site is how your group of research advisors will define themselves. It has to be inclusive enough that the program coordinator will be able to find advisors for six to ten REU students. In several of the chapters, the authors indicate that it is useful to have a slight excess of potential research advisors to accommodate faculty leaves and so forth. Among the authors in this book, the most common choice is to have a chemistry theme, in which case the research advisors are a subset of faculty from a single department. These faculty already know each other and have many common departmental goals. It also means the students will be working within one (or perhaps two) campus buildings, making it easier to assemble formally and informally. A departmental focus also makes it easier to leverage departmental resources for things ranging from a welcome picnic to the occasional pizza party. James Madison University is an example of a program that used a chemistry theme to innovate by recruiting participants who are deaf or hearing impaired. This group of students is very underrepresented in the sciences. Planning for their summer experiences includes very specific recruitment outreach and the need to embed a cohort of communication intermediaries. The Theoretically Interesting Molecules (TIM) Consortium provides an example of a narrow thematic focus. Their organic chemistry focus allows them to bring together faculty and students from five Primarily Undergraduate Institutions: Colby College, Grand Valley State University, Northern Kentucky University, University of Richmond, and University of San Diego. Each collaborating institution pairs a research advisor and local undergraduate with a summer participant. Coherence occurs when the everyone gathers twice each summer for shared research mentorship activities. Only two of the Sites described in this book have a mostly materials research focus. The University of Mississippi has an REU Site in Physical Chemistry that includes training in “computational chemistry, theory, spectroscopy, 7

nanomaterials, energy, and biophysics.” South Dakota State University leads a consortium REU Site in Environmental and Green Chemistry with Northern State University and Black Hills State University. Their research topics include “green materials, geochemistry, solar energy, photovoltaics, and nanomaterials.” They create programmatic coherence with weekly meetings, some of which are by video teleconferencing and others of which are in person.

Broadening Participation All REU Sites are open to U.S. Citizens or Residents regardless of gender, age, disability, race, color, religion, marital status, veteran’s status, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. Even so, it is common to recruit specific types of participants to meet the broader impacts component of the proposal. The most common participant goals are females and underrepresented minorities although James Madison University has developed a program for participants who are deaf or hearing impaired. In each proposal, target choices are justified by citing the relevant statistics. For instance, information about STEM bachelor and graduate degrees can be obtained in the latest NSF Science and Engineering Degrees, by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients Report (12). These degree-earning percentages can then be compared to the relevant subpopulation percentage in the U.S. Census estimates (13) to establish that particular targets are underrepresented. Participant Recruitment To enhance the number of targeted students in the application pool, most programs send emails to thousands of other colleges and universities including the 106 Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU) (14), 239 Hispanic-serving institutions (15), and 37 Tribal Colleges (16). Several programs described in this book have a regional focus. The benefits of this approach is increased awareness about your REU program and your graduate program, if applicable, as more regional students participate. Some programs also visit regional schools to recruit students. For instance, the University of Alabama recruits at regional HBCUs. Many programs recruit at the regional ACS meetings, and conferences that target underrepresented groups, such as the national meetings of the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES), National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE), and the Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS). Participant Selection Applications are typically accepted from November until early February or March. There is no uniformity to the applications but they often include some combination of the following: a resume, demographic information, a statement of interest in research, a transcript, and one or two letters of reference. Selection of 8

participants should include both subjective evaluations aligned with the specific program goals along with systematic ranking helps ensure a diverse group of participants in the programs. Building a Strong Sense of Community It is a friendly gesture for research advisors to send an email to the students shortly after they are selected to welcome them into their lab. The notes usually include attachments or links to papers related to the student’s future research project. This helps the students develop a sense of belonging to the program even before they step onto the campus. The most extensive pre-summer community-building exercise in this book takes place as part of the International REU program run by the University of North Carolina - Greensboro. Their REU Site draws participants primarily from schools centered around Greensboro but then sends the students to two schools in the United Kingdom – University of Bristol and University of Bath. Their program is a combination of two highly impactful experiences – Travel Abroad and REU. Since the students don’t spend time at the host institution, it is necessary to meet in advance to foster the creation of a group identity, which is achieved with online video conferences. Once they are in the UK, everyone gathers for a biweekly group meeting that switch between the two institutions.

Mentor Training Most REU programs in this book describe the importance of mentor training. Mentor training is important for anyone who will act in a supervisory capacity. Mentorship has a long history whereby an apprentice learns a trade or skill from a master. An important consideration for research mentors is the complexity of the endeavor (17–19). Research has no established path, only a direction, and there are many ways the skills can be taught. In essence, the research mentor trains the apprentice how to think about the research problem. In addition, as a consequence of close proximity and experience, the research mentor usually offers advice about graduate schools, work/life balance, and how to navigate a successful career in science. There is considerable evidence in the literature that mentors are critical for shaping positive research experiences. One early study from 2001 concerning the responses from 107 undergraduate STEM researchers at the University of California-Davis reported a strong correlation between satisfying research experiences and mentoring (18). Specifically, 57% were satisfied with their experience and said their mentor was helpful. Among those who were somewhat satisfied or unsatisfied, two-thirds indicated that they were mentored by someone other than a faculty member. This result strongly indicates the need for mentor training if you are going to rely on non-faculty mentors. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has developed an eight-hour mentor training program that can be easily incorporated into any research program (20–22). It is most helpful for those that are new at mentoring, such as graduate students or post docs, but includes many features that are useful for experienced 9

mentors. The program begins with selecting an appropriate research project and defining expectations and ends with the development of a personal mentoring philosophy. One of the issues is acknowledging that students need a great deal of help at the beginning of the experiences but at some unpredictable point along the way they become more independent. Mentor training is also a critical juncture at which a discussion of how to broaden participation and promote inclusion should take place.

Nuts and Bolts Program Elements First Day and First Week From the moment the students gather for the first time, participants should feel they are welcome and that they will gain the experiences they are expecting – how to do chemical research. What incoming participants don’t often realize is that benchwork is part of a larger conglomeration of activities. Therefore, it should be clear from the first meeting that there is a formal schedule in place to introduce them to the wider research world. You should communicate which activities are required and which are optional. This is a balancing act because social activities help form the bonds that build relationships, but are not informal if they are required. The first informal gathering should take place within the first few days of the summer program when students feel the most like an outsider. This first social activity is an excellent opportunity for a group photo, which rasies the issue of gathering photo permissions in advance of participant arrival. Safety Workshops The chemical sciences place the greatest emphasis on safety training among the science and engineering fields. In fact, the American Chemical Society (ACS) published the following statement in 2016: “[The ACS] believes recognition of the obligations to the safety and health of both individuals and the environment is essential for those working with chemicals (23).” It is no surprise then that every REU Site requires participants to complete safety training before they can begin research. Many institutions require researchers to complete their own online safety training protocols prior to their arrival on campus. After they arrive, chemistry departments often host a chemistry-safety-specific seminar that REU students must take. An interesting alternative is that the American Chemical Society (ACS) has created an 11-module online program in chemical and laboratory safety. Individuals who successfully complete the program receive an ACS certificate (24). This is part of the movement to infuse safety thinking into the culture of chemical research. Responsible Conduct of Research Workshops To infuse ethical thinking into the culture of the research experience, the REU Program Solicitation (3) requires students to be trained in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). To help meet this requirement, the Program Solicitation (3) 10

directs attention to a NSF-funded Online Ethics Center (25) without specifically prescribing its use. It provides case studies and tips on how to design activities that will introduce students to the responsible conduct of research. Two programs in this book (Texas A&M and West Virginia University) require students to complete the comprehensive online Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative RCR training (26) before they arrive on campus. Most other programs in this book introduce an ethics workshop during the first week. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln program also has a follow-up discussion in the third week about authorship order and what type of contributions merit authorship. The University of Alabama has weekly noon hour ethics seminars given by university administrators, local and state politicians, and even the head football coaches. Finally, the TIM Consortium introduces its participants to specific case studies at its first gathering and then has students revisit and report on those same case studies at their end-of-summer meeting.

Informal Social Activities Most universities offer a range of social activities throughout the summer. It is important to provide participants with a schedule and a map in advance so they can plan. Some programs have developed signature activities such as the University of Mississippi program, which uses basketball as a unifying activity for the participants, mentors, and research advisors.

Training Exercises for Instrumentation and Computer Skills The types of training exercises for REU participants depends on the nature of the research theme. The nature of these training sessions varies widely – online exercises, group tours, and/or individualized sessions. Most programs have instrument tours or training for NMR, X-ray diffractors, and mass spectrometers. Several programs teach students how to keep a research notebook, use SciFinder, and/or use LINUX. West Virginia University also teaches how to use ChemDraw.

Workshops for Graduate School Preparation The bread-and-butter workshops for every program are the ones associated with measurable outcomes. Therefore, the graduate school preparation workshop is likely to have the greatest influence on the future choices of your participants because it was noted earlier that the REU experience has been shown to be very useful in helping participants decide to enter graduate school (6). It is no surprise that all the REU Sites in this book have workshops with presentations (or panels) by faculty and graduate students on the admissions criteria used by graduate programs, how to apply to graduate school, and possible future career opportunities. 11

Science Communication Workshops The other bread-and-butter workshops for training future scientists are related to science communication skills (posters, reports, and oral presentations). These skills are also associated with measurable outcomes that take place sooner than when particpants earn their bachelor’s degrees, enter a graduate program, or accept a STEM job. For instance, students who present a poster at a regional or national meeting usually do so within a year of their REU experience. Once again, it is no surprise then that all the programs in this book have workshops in science communication. Although these science communication programs vary widely in their approach, each chapter describes how goals and assessments are related to outcomes. Here we will describe just two examples. The International REU program hosted by University of North Carolina Greensboro ends with a symposium where every student gives the same short presentation twice, once at Bristol and and once at Bath. The program coordinators use these presentations to determine academic grades for the UNCG Study Abroad course in which the students are enrolled. Communication is the focus of the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing program at James Madison University. Throughout the summer, students discuss journal articles related to science communication, attend weekly group meetings, weekly signing lunches, and several speed-communication events presenting two slides in two minutes with as many partners as possible. All students in the program work with interpretors to facilitate communication between deaf and hearing students and the summer ends with a symposium of posters and presentations where students demonstrate both their science and effective communication skills with deaf students. Most programs also encourage students to present their poster or oral at their home institution as further dissemination. It is also a way to raise awareness about the REU program. All reports, posters, presentations, and publications generated by participants should acknowledge the REU grant number. Without the grant number, the NSF program officer won’t accept them with the annual report or post them on the NSF grant webpage. Since renewals take place every three years, coordinators would be wise to remind everyone (research advisors, mentors, and participants) repeatedly about the importance of including the REU number on their products.

Assessment Metrics and Post-Participation Tracking Ideas Assessment is the only way to ensure a program is meeting its goals and gathering information for timely corrections. Formative Evaluation and Regular Meetings Nearly all of the programs describe the value of weekly or biweekly cohort meetings to help create group cohesion, provide students with opportunities to demonstrate learning gains, and to provide the program coordinator with information about issues that should be dealt with sooner rather than later. In 12

this regard, the University of Mississippi chapter includes a detailed list of the formative goals and evaluation. The first few weeks are perhaps the most critical because that is when students and mentors are interacting the most. Therefore, coordinators should be listening for hiccups during the meetings in the first, second, and/or third week to make sure students know where their project is headed when they give their short orals, written reports, or poster abstract drafts.

Summative Evaluation After students complete their summer program, you can begin to assess program quality through participation surveys. The NSF REU Program Solicitation (3) directs attention to the NSF-funded Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) (27). It is an online survey that can be sent to students after they complete their summer program. None of the programs in this book indicate that they use the URSSA. Instead, four programs (James Madison University, South Dakota State University, The TIM Consortium, and West Virginia University) mention that they have used or are using the HHMI-funded Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE) survey created in 2003 (28). An advantage to using the SURE survey is that you can compare the performance of your students with thousands of students in other programs (7, 8). Most of the programs in this book have developed their own pre- and post-surveys to address their specific goals.

Post-Participation Tracking Your program’s impacts are assessed by tracking longer range outcomes. One of the more common outcomes described in this book is for students to present a research poster at a regional or national ACS meeting. Some programs mention that they have travel funds set aside for this purpose. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln summer program is set up as a competition whereby half of the participants will receive travel funds. Those students who ranked in the bottom half are encouraged to seek travel funds from their home institution’s ACS Local Section. Since about one-fifth of the non-awardees find a different source for travel funds, over half of the UNL participants have attended a national or regional meeting. For longer term tracking, half of the programs describe how they help students create LinkedIn accounts. This professional online resource allows former participants to update their information when they earn degrees, enter graduate programs, and embark upon careers. Some programs contact students by email or phone every year despite ever-changing email addresses and phone numbers because it allows them to interact their former participants on a personal level on a regular basis.

13

Conclusion Since 1987, over 180 different institutions have hosted REU Sites funded by the NSF Chemistry Division. This book documents eleven successful and innovative Chemistry REU Sites, highlighting commonalities as well as unique aspects of the programs. Each chapter demonstrates how the programs described have managed to balance innovation with the elements necessary for running successful summer research experiences. Although the benefits of mentored research experiences is well documented, the demand for summer research opportunities is approximately ten times the number of funded opportunities. The students, and the scientific endeavor as a whole, would benefit greatly if more research opportunities were available for students. The editors hope that the information in this book will encourage others to develop summer research programs and to submit proposals for REU program support.

Acknowledgments We thank all of the chapter authors for sharing information about their programs so that everyone can benefit from their experience. We acknowledge funding from NSF grants 1156560, 1460829.

References 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

Kuh, G. D. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter; AAC&U: Washington, DC, 2008 [cited 2250 times according to Google Scholar on 3/1/2018]. Laursen, S.; Hunter, A.-B.; Seymour, E.; Thiry, H.; Melton, G. Undergraduate Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2010. Chemistry Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program Solicitation NSF 13-542; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm (accessed 02/17/2018). Kinkead, J. What’s in a name? A brief history of undergraduate research. CUR Quarterly 2012, 33, 20–29. Seymour, E.; Hunter, A.-B.; Laursen, S. L.; Deantoni, T. Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education 2003, 88, 493–534 [cited 934 times according to Google Scholar on 3/1/2018]. Russell, S. H.; Hancock, M. P.; McCullough, J. Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science 2007, 316, 548–549 [cited 762 times according to Google Scholar on 3/1/2018]. Lopatto, D. Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE - Life Science Education 2007, 6, 297–306 [cited 503 times according to Google Scholar on 3/1/2018]. 14

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24.

Lopatto, D. Science in Solution: The Impact of Undergraduate Research on Students Learning; Research Corporation for Science Advancement: Tucson, AZ, 2009. Beninson, L. A.; Koski, J.; Villa, E.; Faram, R.; O’Connor, S. E. Evaluation of the research experiences for undergraduates (REU) sites program. CUR Quarterly 2011, 32, 43–48. REU Sites: Chemistry; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC. https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/list_result.jsp?unitid=5048 (accessed 02/17/2018). Chemistry REU Leadership Group Website. https://chemnsfreu.com (accessed 02/17/2018). Science and Engineering Degrees, By Race/Ethnicity of Recipients: 2002–12 Detailed Statistical Tables; NSF 15-321; May 2015; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/ nsf15321/ (accessed 02/17/2018). U.S. Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/ quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216 (accessed 02/17/2018). U.S. Department of Education List of HBCUs, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Washington DC. https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/files/2014/09/HBCU-Directory.pdf (accessed 02/17/2018). Hispanic Association of Colleges & Universities. https://www.hacu.net/assnfe/CompanyDirectory.asp?style=2& company_type=1,5&search_type=0 (accessed 02/17/2018). American Indian Higher Education Consortium. http://www.aihec.org/whowe-serve/TCUroster-profiles.htm (accessed 02/17/2018). Hakim, T. Soft Assessment of undergraduate research: reactions and student perceptions. CUR Quarterly 1998, 18, 189–192. Shellito, C.; Shea, K.; Weissmann, G.; Mueller-Solger, A.; Davis, W. Successful mentoring of undergraduate researchers: Tips for creating positive student research experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching 2001, 30, 460–465. Gafney, L. The role of the research mentor/teacher: student and faculty views. Journal of College Science Teaching 2005, 34, 52–57. Branchaw, J., Greenberg, A., Yoon, T. Chemistry Research Mentor Training Seminar, 2011. http://www.cimerprojec.org (accessed 02/01/2018). Pfund, C., Branchaw, J., Handelsman, J. Entering Mentoring; W.H. Freeman & Company: New York, 2014. Byars-Winston, A.; Branchaw, J.; Pfund, C.; Leverett, P.; Newton, J. Culturally diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education 2016, 37, 2533–2554. American Chemical Society. Safety in the Chemistry Enterprise Public Policy Statement, 2016−2019. American Chemical Society. Chemical and Laboratory Safety Website. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/chemical-safety.html (accessed 02/17/2018). 15

25. Online Ethics Center. http://www.onlineethics.org/ (accessed 02/17/2018). 26. Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. Responsible Conduct of Research Statement. https://about.citiprogram.org/en/course/responsibleconduct-of-research-basic/ (accessed 02/17/2018). 27. Evaluation Tools for Undergraduate Research. Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) Website; University of Colorado: Boulder, CO. http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/undergradtools.html (accessed 02/17/2018). 28. Lopatto, D. Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings. Cell Biology Education 2004, 3, 270–277.

16

Chapter 2

Over Thirty Years of REU Programs in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at The University of Alabama John B. Vincent* and Stephen A. Woski Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The University of Alabama, 250 Hackberry Lane, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0336, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

The Department of Chemistry at The University of Alabama has run nine consecutive NSF-sponsored REU programs from 1987-2017. We have hosted to date 373 undergraduate students primarily from the Southeast with limited access to research opportunities. These include 51% women and 22% from underrepresented groups. The large majority of these participants (~82%) have attended or plan to attend graduate programs in STEM fields, while the rest work in industry, education, or the health field. The success rate of our students entering graduate school and the average of one presentation/publication produced per student are hallmarks of this effective program.

© 2018 American Chemical Society

Introduction A long-standing goal of the Department of Chemistry at The University of Alabama is to provide research opportunities for students with limited access to research opportunities, particularly those at institutions in the southeastern United States. Toward this goal, the department has hosted participants in National Science Foundation-funded Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Programs for the summers of 1987-2017. Despite running continuously for over 30 years, the program has remained remarkably similar in basic design from the first NSF REU proposal submitted by Prof. Lowell D. Kispert. Despite new facilities and turnover in the Chemistry faculty over these decades, the only substantial changes have been a change in emphasis from the five areas of chemistry (analytical, biochemistry, inorganic, organic, and physical) to the interdisciplinary research foci of the department (Biological Chemistry, Materials and Energy Chemistry, and Environmental Chemistry) and a modernization of the assessment procedures. In this review, we will describe the history, outline the design and structure, and highlight the results of the program. We hope that what has been learned can inform others developing REU programs.

Design of the REU Program Nature of REU Student Activities All individual projects involve state-of-the-art research on real and significant problems in the interdisciplinary fields of environmental, materials/energy or biological chemistry. The chosen projects are not just training exercises but provide opportunities for new discoveries in these fields. Care must be taken to offer projects that are not overly sophisticated for inexperienced undergraduates working in only a 10-week program. Many of the proposed projects are outgrowths of previous projects on which undergraduates have worked successfully in the chemistry department. The faculty supervisors know that students are to be treated as research partners, not as technicians or dishwashers. Our faculty members have substantial experience with undergraduate researchers and are committed to this vision of the REU program. Other researchers at the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral level may work on related problems and, thus, can constitute an important resource for the summer students. (Normally, these postdocs and graduate students would have previous experience working with undergraduate research students.) Because the students bear primary responsibility for performing the research and reporting results in a research report and an oral presentation, an overt and well-defined relationship exists between results and student competence. The goal of increased competence is served by giving the student as much responsibility as he/she can handle. Throughout the program, students are exposed to the entire process of research. Early on, students receive guidance on the use of a scientific library (UA’s Rodgers Science & Engineering Library) as well as online resources such as SciFinder. Next, they receive training in safe laboratory practices, in how to keep 18

a scientific notebook, and in the use of research instrumentation. The systematic accelerated exposure to such fundamentals is crucial for the development of the students’ research competence as they practice and build upon these. Students, even those with equivalent academic credentials, vary widely in their ability to do independent work. Thus, setting a general goal for expectations is difficult. All of the participating faculty members are experienced research directors at both the graduate and undergraduate levels; each intends to encourage and foster the development of independence. First, each of the projects is designed for undergraduates with sophomore- or junior-level background in chemistry. Secondly, each student works on a well-defined short-term problem, clearly distinguished from any other efforts in the same research group. In this way the students will not be dominated by more experienced teammates within a group effort. Moreover, an appreciation of the goals of the REU program exists among our faculty; projects are designed to introduce students to the numerous skills and thought processes required in chemical research. Students are encouraged to take the initiative and use the literature to address problems that arise. Therefore, students are treated as serious, independent researchers providing individual contributions to science. That some of the summer work is published with undergraduate coauthors supports this statement. Apart from these general sentiments, specific measures can be taken to enhance the student’s capacity for independent work. Thus, prior to the arrival of participants, the PI discusses the goals of the program with each participating faculty member on an individual basis. The development of independence is of considerable importance, and supervisors are urged to keep this in mind. Supervising faculty are asked to hold frequent scheduled meetings with the student participant throughout the summer to maintain awareness of the student’s progress and to help overcome potential difficulties. Halfway through the program and again at the end, faculty supervisors will provide informal reports covering two items: steps taken by the supervisor to foster independence and progress made by the student towards this goal. This procedure provides formal accountability that serves to remind the supervisor of the importance of this goal and stimulate thought and action. Before students arrive, they are asked to write a paragraph on their expectations for the summer. They discuss their expectations with the PI during the first week of the program; the PI meets again with the students in the last two weeks of the program to discuss whether their expectations (which might be revised after the first meeting) were met. Very early in the program (third or fourth week) students are asked to present a 3- to 5-minute update of their research progress and any problems encountered to the REU group and the faculty of the REU program committee. (The program committee is consists of the PI, co-PI, and about four other faculty members with years of experience mentoring REU students). Students are encouraged to ask questions about one another’s projects. The program committee guides the discussion, if necessary, by asking questions. If a student responds with too many replies such as “well, that’s what the post-doc told me to do,” this indicates a poor development of independence. In these cases, the PI will contact the supervisor to discuss the situation. As a matter of interest, the procedures outlined in this paragraph have 19

been strongly endorsed by REU participants. Finally, during the last week of the program, each student presents a 20-minute seminar for an audience composed of the REU advisors, other interested parties, and all REU participants. Each is required to submit a ≥10 page report on his/her accomplishments and to submit a draft abstract on their summer research in ACS meeting format. The presentation, report and abstract are prepared with the advice of the supervisor but primarily are the student’s work. This requirement serves to promote independent thinking and is often the step which causes the experiences to “crystallize” for the student by causing them to think in depth about their project. This final report also serves as a starting point for the post-participation activities. Students are encouraged to construct a poster to be displayed at their home institution. Ideally, they will also interact with their advisor to prepare a poster to present at a regional or national scientific meeting; this frequently occurs after the 10-week program concludes.

Management of the REU Program On Campus The REU program is overseen by the PI with assistance from the Co-PI and input from the program committee. The department has a secretary whose assigned duties are devoted to supporting the department’s undergraduate program; the job description explicitly includes providing support to the REU program. Participants receive official “visiting scholar/student” status from The University of Alabama. Thid ensures they are covered by University insurance for job-related accidents and illnesses. Health issues occurring outside the laboratory are covered by their parents’ group policies. Campus ID cards are issued to allow access to University facilities such as the libraries and recreation centers (although a fee is required for some of the latter). The participants are housed in shared air-conditioned, furnished 3-bedroom apartments with utilities provided. This University facility is a short walk from the Chemistry Department and Science Library. Each apartment includes a full kitchen, large living room, and laundry. Each bedroom is wired for internet access, and the apartment (as well as the whole campus) has wireless internet access. Residence in neighboring quarters fosters group spirit and enhances the learning experience because students are able to share with each other the trials and tribulations of their research work. In recent years, we have been able to house the students in one or two adjacent apartment buildings, each with a capacity of only 18 students. Participants of the same sex are randomly assigned to the 3-bedroom apartments.

20

General Chronology See Table 1 for the general chronology.

Table 1. General chronology January

Mailing of program announcements and application materials to 350 predominantly undergraduate institutions in the central, eastern and southeastern U. S. that have limited opportunities and resources to carry out research.

February 28

Deadline for applications. Telephone calls to pull in late materials such as letters of recommendation.

March 1

Begin selection and notification of participants.

Late March

Preparatory phase; finalize housing.

Mid April

Correspondence - program details: project,stipend, housing, etc.

Late April

Correspondence - e-mail: discussion of project with faculty advisor.

Early May

Correspondence - program schedule, relevant literature, etc.

Beginning of June

Research Phase - program commences.

Early August

Last day on-site activities (end of 10 weeks), reports due.

Late August

Conclusion phase - follow-up activities.

Education Research is, indeed, the best learning experience and is the central focus of the program. All other considerations are aimed at making research an enjoyable and fruitful process. We expect that many of the participants, particularly those from smaller schools, will not be experienced with some of the indispensable (but also expensive) research instruments. Accordingly, we provide instruction in the use of the NMR spectrometers, FT-IR, EPR, and UV-VIS spectrophotometers, mass spectrometers, X-ray diffractometer, gas and liquid chromatographies, etc., as needed. These “hands-on” experiences are tailored to each participant’s needs and interests. The participants also learn the fundamental properties of spectroscopy and other instrumental methods. Thus, the participants gain an appreciation of the inner working of sophisticated, but “user-friendly”, instrumentation rather treating them as a “black box.” For those carrying out materials science projects, special instruction is provided in the use of techniques such as AFM, XPS, and Auger spectroscopy in the university’s Central Analytical Facility (CAF). The very nature of the experience requires that heavy use be made of the library during both the preparatory and active phases. Our science library, with 200,000 volumes and >15,000 serials, is located in the Rodgers Science and 21

Engineering Library, a short walk from Shelby Hall, home of the chemistry department. During the first week, the members of the REU program are given a tour and an introduction to the facility by the Science library faculty. Participants are instructed on searching of the chemical literature using SciFinder and other electronic resources. As formal visiting students, participants have access to a wide variety of University-provided software; a list provided on our Office of Information Technology’s website, although some restrictions can occur depending on the detailed terms of the University’s license agreements. Because of the diversity of student research projects, a seminar series supervised by the members of the program committee is a focus of the program. Participants attend weekly Monday faculty research seminars and weekly Wednesday noon hour ethics seminars. Each Friday, a one hour demonstration on the operation of specialized instrumentation is given. In addition, the students participate in group meetings that are conducted within individual research groups. In the third week of the program, 5-minute progress reports are given to the REU Program Committee and REU students. During the last week of the program, the students each give a twenty-minute seminar on their research results. This set of meetings address an important concern of the program – that the students build their own culture as undergraduate researchers and not become totally isolated within the graduate/postdoctoral research structure of the department.

Research Environment Research Facilities Each participant is provided bench and desk space equivalent to that available to our graduate and undergraduate researchers, as well as full library privileges and access to SciFinder. The departmental research facilities are essentially what one would expect of a Ph.D.-granting state university. The University of Alabama Department of Chemistry has >60,000 square feet dedicated to research in Shelby Hall. Over three-fourths of this $60 million state-of-the-art interdisciplinary research facility is occupied by the chemistry department. All tenure/tenure-track faculty have participated in the program.

University Commitment The University’s commitment can clearly be shown: for example, in summer 2006 it supported 4 (of the 8) students to keep the program running while our previous grant was in a no-cost extension. This support came from all levels of the University as the Department of Chemistry, College of Arts and Sciences, Graduate School, and Office of Academic Affairs each provided support for one student. Similarly, these units also promised to support a total of up to 6 REU students to guarantee continuity for summer 2010 if our REU proposal had not been successful. 22

The University also provides social activities to instill camaraderie amongst students from different backgrounds. For instance, during the first weekend of the program, students visit a local park(s) and a shopping mall and then end their day with a picnic at a faculty member’s house. During the second week of the program, the students are made the focus of the Dept. of Chemistry’s summer picnic, that often terminates with faculty/staff vs. REU volleyball games. Later during the summer, students tour the art museum of the Gulf States Paper Corporation, one of the finest private collections in the Southeast (the company provides the tours at no cost for our group). At the end of the first week of the program, a university photographer takes a REU group photo and a photo of each REU student in their research laboratory. The University issues a press release on the REU program (which is often featured in the University’s student paper and University and College of Arts and Sciences publications and often picked up by the local city newspaper). Additionally, the University sends a student photo with accompanying text to each REU student’s local hometown newspaper. The University fully supports the REU program by making available the research facilities and its faculty and staff at no direct cost to the program. The faculty advisors are also fully supportive by requesting no salaries for supervising from NSF, yet they are willing to allocate large amounts of time working with the participants. Frankly, after 30+ years of consecutive funding, the REU program is an engrained part of the annual routine of the faculty and staff of the Dept. of Chemistry and other participating entities on the UA campus. Staff from Environmental Health and Safety provide laboratory safety and fire safety training for our students. A Ph.D. faculty member from the science and engineering library provides training on the use of the library and SciFinder at no cost to the program. Staff from housing have made special arrangements for our students to check-in and check-out of the apartments. Student Recruitment and Selection Recruitment Participation is intended primarily for those students who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents, have completed either two or three years of college-level work (including two years of college chemistry), and have maintained a B-average or above in chemistry. Exceptional students who do not fulfill either of the last 2 requirements are also considered. Although harder to quantify, we also look for evidence of unusual ability and interest in laboratory research. Most applicants are expected to be chemistry majors; however, strong applications from other majors are considered where postgraduate study in the broadly defined chemical sciences is clearly a goal. Usually no more than one student funded by the NSF REU award in any year is from The University of Alabama. The others are sought by mailing flyers describing the program to ~350 institutions in states which either border or lie east of the Mississippi River where research programs are limited. The program is also advertised on a variety of web sites including the department’s webpage, the Chemistry Internet Resources for Research by Undergraduate Students [CIRRUS, 23

(http://cirrus.chem.plu.edu)], and the NSF website. Applications are available on the department’s web page. We particularly encourage applications from underrepresented students. Follow-up telephone calls are made to four-year institutions which both have a high population of students from underrepresented groups and a degree program in chemistry. We also follow up with students from such institutions to ensure that we receive complete applications. The department participates with groups that support underrepresented students such as the Women in STEM Experience (WiSE) symposia at UA and through a chapter of the National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE) in our department. Faculty members have attended the annual national meetings of NOBCChE and distribute applications and information on our REU program. Our efforts have been successful. During the past 11 years, our REU participants have been 58% women and 38% minorities Finally, both the University and the Chemistry Department are in full compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Dormitories, cafeterias, laboratories, and libraries have been rendered suitable for physically-challenged students. The Department of Chemistry meets all current safety and disability codes.

Outreach Based on our past experience, we have identified furthering ties to regional undergraduate institutions, including HCBU’s, as an area for strengthening our program. To achieve this, we budgeted travel money to permit 2 or 3 faculty mentors from REU participants’ colleges to come for a few days to work alongside their students selected for our REU program. The REU Advisory Committee chooses faculty based on student suggestions. These faculty are provided research space and have available the mentorship of the faculty at The University of Alabama. At the end of the summer project, the REU students can return to their colleges and continue their project during the school year, traveling to The University of Alabama to carry out measurements that might require specialized equipment. Their faculty can assist the students in preparing posters and papers for presentation of research results at regional ACS Meetings. This allows for a more extensive research experience for both the students selected and the faculty at the undergraduate schools where research opportunities are limited. Opportunities for continued interaction between UA faculty and the visiting faculty are also being explored. One visit, for example, led to a UA physical chemist working with a visiting faculty member from a small southeastern college to design and institute an undergraduate physical chemistry course where none had been offered previously. We have also publically disseminated results of our programs at national and regional meetings. A poster and an invited oral talk describing our program were presented at the 223rd National ACS meeting in 2002 (1, 2), and posters describing the program were presented at the 56th Southeast Regional ACS meeting in 2004, the 229th National ACS meeting in 2005, and the 239th National ACS meeting in 2010 (3–5). Prof. Vincent gave an invited presentation on the ethics component 24

of the program at the 14th annual meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics in 2005 (6) and an invited presentation on the program at the 245th National ACS meeting in 2012 (7). Prof. Vincent has rotated off the NSF Chemistry REU Leadership Group after serving over 3 years and gave a presentation at the organization’s meeting for chemistry REU PI’s in July 2012 (San Antonio, Texas) on tips for writing REU renewal proposals.

Selection of Participants, Matching Participants to Projects, and Preparing Students for Projects Applicants are asked to submit a list of grades for courses in chemistry, mathematics, physics, and other sciences and two letters of reference, one of which must come from an instructor in a laboratory course. Applicants are also asked to indicate preferences as to research project titles, but these are not used in the selection of participants. In addition, applicants are asked to write a brief, one-page letter about their career goals and how participation in our REU program is expected to help them attain those goals. We do not ask applicants about their gender or race/ethnicity. The REU program committee reviews applications. The PI and Co-PI compile a final ranking from which participants are chosen. Successful applicants are contacted by telephone or e-mail and by letter and urged to commit themselves to the program within two weeks. A list of research topics (without the names of faculty members) is provided in the recruitment materials and in the application form, and participants are asked to rank choices. Applications are circulated amongst participating faculty who also expressed preferences. The PI and the program committee work out the pairings. While student choice is a leading criterion, constraints exist as indicated below. No faculty supervisor generally directs more than one student. Student choices must be consistent with background and training. Both supervisor and student are offered a veto if the proposed pairing is not satisfactory. After completion of the matching, each participant receives an information packet from the PI that includes the name of the research advisor, administrative details, and such paperwork as may be required (housing, tentative schedule, etc.). Shortly thereafter, each supervisor corresponds with the student indicating both the goals of the project and specifically what is expected of the student. In addition, library work is suggested in an effort to provide the student with a good foundation in the chemistry fundamental to the project. Evaluation Measures To Gauge Success A key gauge of success is the enthusiasm and support that REU participants exhibit in exit interviews and in discussions with their college instructors and colleagues after the student returns. This enthusiasm is further measured by the number of applicants we receive in subsequent years based on the 25

recommendations of faculty because of the maturity gained, knowledge acquired, and confidence built in their students in our program. In subsequent years, surveys indicate which professional or industrial positions they occupy and whether the REU program was of any help in preparing them for their current position. Since our program has been in existence for >30 years, follow-up surveys have enabled us to determine who completed a Ph.D. degree and whether they are satisfactorily employed. It is at this point in life, one can ask -- “well, did it do any good?” We find that many go on and on with “yes! This program was the spark that made a deciding difference”. We can also measure success by the number of papers and presentations that the program generates because of research started or completed during the program.

Mechanisms for Assessment by Participants – Students, Staff, and Faculty Before the start of the REU program, the participating students are asked to write a short paragraph on their expectations for summer. On the first day of the program, the PI meets with the participants to discuss the expectations of the students. The students are invited to send any feedback at any time on the program to the PI. The final Wednesday afternoon session of each summer is reserved for a meeting of the PI and REU participants (as a group) to discuss how well the participants’ expectations were met; the students are encouraged to discuss any aspect the program as well. Participants are also invited to individually make any comments to the PI. During the week after the conclusion of the program, the participants are asked to fill out an exit interview form assessing the positive and negative features of the program and how it helped them toward achieving their goals. While students are specifically asked to rate the Monday, Wednesday, and Friday seminar presenters to make certain that these presentations meet our expectations, most of the questions are more open-ended. We have had success over the years using open-ended questions, rather than using a standardized assessment tool. Each faculty supervisor is asked for written comments on the student and the project attempted. All other participating faculty and staff are also asked to supply comments on the program. The accumulated data is examined and discussed by the PI, co-PI, and program committee. Recommended changes or improvements can be incorporated in the program the following year. Despite our more than three decades of experience, we continue to make every effort to improve the quality of the research experience that we can deliver to students. For instance at the welcome session, the PI summarizes unusual issues that have arisen during previous years and indicates how students might resolve them. Thus, the PI works to develop a relationship with the REU students where they communicate issues at any time; this includes giving the students the PI’s cell phone number and informing them they can call at any time.

26

Follow-Through Procedures To Promote Continuation of Students Interest and Involvement in Research After the research phase is complete, the PI initiates several follow-up activities including a letter to the chair of each participant’s home department. This letter focuses on the overall participation of each student in the program. It points out that at the end of the program the student will return to the home institution with a copy of their written report, PowerPoint presentation, and potentially a poster from their research projects. The home department is asked to schedule a time when the REU participant can present their work to their peers. It is also suggested that in their junior/senior year(s) students can continue their summer research projects in collaboration with their supervisor at University of Alabama. If this is not possible, then some more modest but similar activity will be suggested. Participants are strongly urged to submit abstracts to ACS national or regional undergraduate research symposia when feasible; travel money is budgeted for such activities. Faculty ensure that a refined form of the research presentation, suitable for these symposia, is prepared. When warranted, papers are given at other or additional scientific meetings, and manuscripts often are published in refereed journals with the REU student listed as co-author.

Tracking Participants During the program, students are requested to set up a Linked-in account to help us follow them through their careers. Each year former REU participants in the current grant period are sent a request to update their contact information and academic or employment status. In those cases where these efforts are not returned, contacts are made to former teachers, colleagues, parents, etc. until communication is reestablished. Our student records go back to 1976. The completeness of the data in Table 2 demonstrates our success in this area. For example, in the process of writing our last REU proposal, we made direct contact with all the REU students from that grant period.

Table 2. The University of Alabama NSF-REU Participant Demographics NSF REU Program Years

Total # of Students

Male

Female

Underrepresented Minority

States of Origina (College or University)

2015-2018

27

12

15 (56 %)

10 (37 %)

12 + PR

2010-2014

40

16

24 (60 %)

14 (35 %)

11

2007-2009

37

13

24 (65 %)

15 (41 %)

11

2003-2006

47

25

22 (47 %)

8 (17 %)

15

2000-2002

45

21

24 (54 %)

12 (27 %)

15

Continued on next page.

27

Table 2. (Continued). The University of Alabama NSF-REU Participant Demographics NSF REU Program Years

Total # of Students

Male

Female

Underrepresented Minority

States of Origina (College or University)

1996-1999

52

23

29 (56 %)

13 (25 %)

17

1993-1995

47

25

22 (47 %)

7 (15 %)

12

1990-1992

41

25

16 (39 %)

3 (7 %)

14

1987-1989

37

21

16 (43 %)

0 (0 %)

14

Total

373

181

192 (51 %)

82 (22 %)

30 + PR

a

AL, AR, CA, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MS, MN, MO, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA OR, WA, WI, WV, Puerto Rico.

Results of the REU Programs By the Numbers REU Program The format of the summer program as described above reflects the collective experience garnered during the department’s 9 consecutive NSF-sponsored REU programs (1987-2017, see Tables 2 and 3.) Lowell Kispert was PI on the first six REU programs (1987-2006). John B. Vincent was PI of the last three REU programs (2007-2018) and co-PI of the previous 2 programs (2000-2006). Stephen A. Woski was co-PI of the last three REU programs. These programs hosted 373 undergraduate students primarily from small colleges east of the Mississippi River (192 women (51%) and 181 men). Over this time, 22% of students were from underrepresented groups. Notably, this proportion has increased to 38% with the current PI’s and our emphasis on recruitment of these students. A vast majority (82%) of these former REU participants either plan to attend, currently attend, or have graduated from graduate schools in chemistry, while the rest work in industry or the health field. The success rate of our students entering graduate school and the presentation/publication records of our students (~1 per student, 1987-2017) distinguish the strengths of our program. A special ingredient, which generally helps our program get off to a fast start, should be mentioned. We have found that it is important to have highly structured schedule to start the program to instill camaraderie amongst students from different areas of the country. On the first day, students are welcomed, introduced to the basics of the program, instructed on laboratory safety (by staff from our Environmental Health and Safety Office), instructed on how to keep a scientific notebook, introduced to the participating faculty and all research projects, given a tour of the building, and shown the location of the science library. Most projects are initiated on the second day with close faculty supervision; this initiation includes familiarization with equipment and personnel, as well 28

as preparing for the evening’s science library and SciFinder training session. Encouraging camaraderie fosters enthusiasm within the group and requires social interaction as well: during the first weekend, the group tours local museums (such as the Civil Rights Museum in Birmingham) and area parks. This tour breaks for shopping and lunch and terminates with a picnic at a faculty member’s house. A department-wide picnic is held during the second week of the program at the park adjacent to campus along the Black Warrior River. Later during the summer, the students visit a local private art museum. Throughout the summer, participants are housed in adjacent furnished apartments to foster cohesiveness and socialization. This arrangement minimizes interference from unrelated groups on campus during the summer and provides time to discuss science, research successes and failures and future goals. The REU students meet on Mondays with selected faculty to discuss the scope of research activities on campus. Included are professional development seminars covering topics like “how to apply to graduate school.” Techniques talks are presented each Friday to describe specialized research facilities and capabilities. Finally, each student gives a 20-minute oral presentation and turns in a written report at the end of the session to summarize their experiences and accomplishments. The program concludes with a luncheon banquet for the students and advisors.

Ethics When NSF started a program of ethics add-ons for REU programs, we were fortunate to apply and receive funding in the first year. The add-on allowed a student to pursue a summer-long ethics project or to combine an ethics project with a laboratory-based project. During the first few summers, students surveyed ethical decision-making in graduate students, post-docs, and faculty at Alabama and at several institutions in the Southeast. After this, the ethics participant identified and invited speakers for weekly ethics presentations. This is the origin of our current Wednesday series of ethics seminars. This series has been successful in recruiting a wide variety of speakers including University administrators, local and State politicians, and even head football coaches Gene Stallings and Nick Saban to discuss ethics.

Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) Program From 2001-2009 the Chemistry Division of NSF allowed add-ons to REU proposals to provide research experiences for teachers in secondary schools, During this time our RET programs involved 34 teachers who spent 10 weeks on campus to perform research projects. All of these teachers were women, and ¾ were African-Americans. Several of the teachers came from some of the poorest counties in the State of Alabama. As with the undergraduate participants, many teachers gave presentations on their research at regional and national ACS meetings, and a few were co-authors on articles or book chapters. The teachers 29

brought valuable differences of opinions to ethics discussions and other aspects of the overall program.

Table 3. The University of Alabama NSF-REU Participant Outcomes NSF REU Program Years

# of Presentations and Publicationsa

# Attending or planning to attend graduate school

2015-2018

22 to date

24 (89 %)

2010-2014

39

35 (88 %)

2007-2009

39

29 (78 %)

2003-2006

62

40 (85 %)

2000-2002

57

35 (78 %)

1996-1999

49

45 (87 %)

1993-1995

41

35 (74 %)

1990-1992

23

35 (85%)

1987-1989

37

27 (73 %)

Total

369

305 (82%)

Prior to 2007, these numbers include publications acknowledging REU students and include presentations students self-reported having made at their home institutions. Starting 2007, only presentations and peer-reviewed publications or book chapters that appear in print with student co-authors are included.

a

Every Participant and Summer Program Is Unique in Its Own Way While the tables can show our overall success, the interactions at a personal level are key. For example, one student came to the PI with only two weeks left in the program to reveal that they had been in a wheelchair only months earlier and on crutches until days before the program started. With tears in their eyes, they expressed that their physical pain was returning and that may have to leave the program. Leaving was particularly painful as the REU program for them was a test to prove to their family their ability to live on their own and go to graduate school away from home. After the PI explained that the program would arrange for her to travel home early or would work with them in any way possible to help them make it through the program to the end, the participant decided to attempt to and ultimately persevered to the end (and went on to graduate school). Another participant came to the PI explaining that they had had terrible experiences in undergraduate research at their home institution and had decided to apply to culinary school unless their REU experience changed their mind. In tears, the participant announced that they were applying to graduate school. During the evening of April 27, 2011, a violent EF4 multiple vortex tornado ripped a path up to a mile and one-half wide through the city of Tuscaloosa, missing The University of Alabama by a couple blocks. With the power and other services out indefinitely, final examinations were canceled, and the University closed until 30

the campus was safe for occupancy. With the REU program scheduled to start only a month later and participants already having accepted, the future of that summer’s program was in question. However, the staff and administration worked hard to get the University back on line for interim and summer classes. In a demonstration of their support for the REU program, this included getting the facilities for the REU program (such as turning over the apartments) back online as well. Over the last 30 years, we believe that we have made substantial progress towards our goal of providing students with a valuable research experience that propels them to graduate school and a professional career in chemistry. We also believe that we can continue to improve our program, particularly as we strive to reach students who are historically underrepresented in STEM disciplines. However, we can state without any doubt that the participation of nearly 400 students have enriched the faculty, students, and staff of The University of Alabama.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the student participants and the faculty, staff, and administration of The University of Alabama for all the efforts to make the program successful. We would also like to thank the National Science Foundation and The University of Alabama (Office of Academic Affairs, College of Arts & Sciences, and Department of Chemistry) for financially supporting the program.

References 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

Kispert, L. D.; Vincent, J. B. The NSF chemistry REU program at The University of Alabama. Abstracts of Papers, 223rd A.C.S. National Meeting, 2002, CHED 126. Kispert, L. D.; Vincent, J. B. Experiences in an REU program with substantial minority student participation. Abstracts of Papers, 223rd A.C.S. National Meeting, 2002, CHED 181. Kispert. L. D.; Vincent, J. B. The NSF chemistry REU program at The University of Alabama. Abstracts of the 56th Southeast Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society, 2004, Abstract #100. Vincent, J. B.; Kispert, L. D. NSF-funded REU chemistry program at The University of Alabama. Abstracts of Papers, 229th A.C.S. National Meeting, 2005, CHED 238. Vincent, J. B.; Woski, S. A. NSF research experiences for undergraduates in chemistry program at The University of Alabama 1987-2010. Abstracts of Papers, 239th A.C.S. National Meeting, 2010, CHED 091. Perhonis, J.; Muskavitch, K. M. T.; Skvirsky, R. C.; Graber, G. C.; Vincent, J. B.; Wilson, S. E. Teaching research ethics in research experiences for undergraduate programs. Abstracts, Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, Fourteenth Annual Meeting, February 24-27, 2005. Vincent, J. B. Over two decades of experience in a Chemistry REU program at The University of Alabama. Abstracts of Papers, 245th A.C.S. National Meeting, 2012, PROF 10.

31

Chapter 3

Professional Development for REU Students Holly C. Gaede* Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, P.O. Box 30012, College Station, Texas 77842, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Immersion in research will always be the primary goal of REU programs. However, students engaged in meaningful research projects receive additional benefit when they are intentionally introduced to research culture. This introduction can be accomplished through many different avenues, such as workshops, discussion, lectures, demonstrations, and field trips. Many topics are of value to novice researchers, including but not limited to, safety, ethics, and graduation school application and admission procedures. This professional development is intended to increase students’ understanding of the research process, confidence in their own skills, and awareness of career opportunities in the sciences for Ph.D. chemists.

Introduction Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) is a National Science Foundation wide program that funds active research participation of undergraduate students in any of its supported areas of research (1). One of the aims of the REU program is to broaden participation in science and engineering among underrepresented groups, and to increase participation of students who would not otherwise have research opportunities. Accordingly, providing appropriate projects in quality research environments is the priority for REU sites. Mentoring of the participating students is an important characteristic of successful programs, and one aspect of mentoring includes intentionally introducing the undergraduates to the culture of research. A comparative and longitudinal study of undergraduate students who did and did not participate in formal undergraduate research has shown that undergraduate STEM students report greater educational and career gains if they participate in authentic, professional communities of practice (2). © 2018 American Chemical Society

One method for achieving this introduction is through professional development programming, and indeed quality of professional development opportunities is part of the specific review criteria used for evaluating REU proposals (1). The REU program in the Department of Chemistry at Texas A&M University is primarily focused on preparing students for graduate study in the chemical sciences, and so our professional development programming is designed to facilitate this. The skill set for preparing students for the workforce strongly overlaps that of graduate school preparation (though it is not identical (3)) and most of the topics would be helpful for REU programs with other aims. Our program has run (with some interruptions) since 1987, with hundreds of students from across the country participating over the decades. The author has directed the program, including organizing the professional development activities, since 2007. Most of our formal professional development program occurs through weekly meetings with REU student cohort. The range of helpful professional development is vast, and includes an array of topics, from “hard skills” like instrument training to “soft” communication skills. The development opportunities can be provided in a number of venues, including lectures, workshops, small group discussions, field trips, tours, and informal (even unscheduled) interactions. The providers of this development can vary, and in our program, have included program alumni, program director, faculty mentors, graduate students, university staff, and outside experts. The objective of this chapter is provide suggestions to current and future REU directors about important professional development topics, as well as provide reference for helpful associated resources. Table 1 shows a possible timeline for the introduction of these activities during a ten-week program.

Table 1. Typical Timeline of Professional Development Events Topic

Week of Program

Presenter(s)

Prior to program

CITI RCR online traininga)

Self-directed

Week 1

Safety

Environmental Health & Safety staff; research mentors

Week 1

Laboratory Notebooks

Selected faculty mentor

Week 1-2

Technical training

Research mentors; departmental technical staff

Week 2

Library Resources and Literature Searching

Chemistry Librarian

Week 2

Brief Project Presentations

Student Participants

Week 3

Outreach Demonstrations

Chemistry Road Show Coordinator

Week 3

Social Media for Scientists

REU Director Continued on next page.

34

Table 1. (Continued). Typical Timeline of Professional Development Events Topic

Week of Program

Presenter(s)

Week 4

Ethics Case Study Discussion

Selected faculty mentor

Week 5

Career Day

Invited Ph.D. Alumni

Week 6

Scientific Writing & Authorship

Selected faculty mentor, associate journal editor

Week 7

Scientific Presentations

Selected faculty mentor

Week 8

Graduate Student Panel

Selected Graduate Students

Week 9

Graduate School Application and Admission

Departmental Graduate Admissions Coordinator

Week 10

University Undergraduate Research Symposium

Student Participants

Week 10

Departmental Undergraduate Research Symposium

Student Participants

a)

The Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program) Responsible Conduct of Research

Safety A crucial value that must be inculcated into developing researchers is a knowledge of safe laboratory practices, and an insistence on implementing these practices. In December 2016, the American Chemical Society recognized laboratory safety as one of its core values (4). At the August 2016 meeting, the ACS board approved an online workshop in chemical and laboratory safety that is under development; students (or others) will be able to receive an ACS certificate for successful completion of the 11-module program. In the meantime, several safety resources are available at the American Chemical Society website subsection on chemical and laboratory safety (5). We have had professionals from our office of Environmental Health & Safety speak with our REU participants about safe laboratory practices, including for example, personal protective equipment and waste disposal. A speaker from Dow (an alumna of our graduate program) has spoken with our students about safety practices in industry, and particularly the resources available online at the Dow Lab Safety Academy that has videos introducing students to safe laboratory topics, laboratory hazards, mitigating risks, and sustaining a safe laboratory culture (6). Another fun and confidence-building activity that enforces safety is fire extinguisher training that can be implemented as part of the program orientation. All students complete general and workplace-specific safety training before beginning research work. Of course, the most important conveyer of safe practices is the research mentor, who sets the tone of safety as a priority (7). We have found the personal, hands-on training in the laboratory to be more effective than lectures or online resources. Any additional graduate student or postdoctoral mentors must model safe practices. Good practice includes discussion of safety 35

at initial meetings, setting expectations, writing out experimental procedures, and safety discussion during regular group meetings.

Technical Training Providing students with necessary technical training is crucial for their success in research projects. Beyond the immediate benefit, students who have gained additional technical skills may transfer these skills in later opportunities, e.g. internships or industrial positions. Learning new techniques or instrumental skills increases student sense of confidence and belonging in the scientific community (8). Highly specialized training particular to a single research project may best be provided on a one-on-one basis by a research mentor. However, some skills required of many or all participants may be taught efficiently in a group setting. For example, training in NMR may be scheduled for students through early summer workshop(s). The group setting may inspire questions that lead to a deeper understanding of the techniques and shared ideas about experiments. Instruments in other shared facilities, like XRD or mass spectrometry, may also be ideal for group training. Computational projects may require training in LINUX and/or particular software packages. Some programs choose to include technical workshops such as instrument instruction as a weekly event ongoing throughout the summer. Programs that are centered around a particular theme often include lectures or workshops to provide background information in that area, particularly if the topic is not typically included in the undergraduate curriculum. Programs that particularly focus on younger, less experienced students sometimes include formal mini-courses.

Ethics Yet another important aspect of research culture is the responsible conduct of research. Because novice scientists may be unaware of the ethical conventions of research, it is important that professional development include explicit instruction in these conventions. Indeed, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act requires that each institution that applies for financial assistance from the NSF for science and education research and training provided appropriate training in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to students and postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed project (9). At one time the NSF offered supplementary funding for developing ethics training, so in many established programs, ethics instruction is an ongoing theme with weekly scheduled activities. At our program, we accomplished basic ethics training through Responsible Conduct of Research online training through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) course (10). Our institution has a subscription for this course, and it is available for free for our trainees. The comprehensive training includes authorship, collaboration, conflicts of interest, data management, financial responsibility, mentoring, peer review, plagiarism, and research misconduct. This course is made available to students before their arrival on 36

campus, since it is most effective if completed in multiple sittings. We supplement the online training with case study discussions. Example case studies are available from several sources. On Being a Scientist, which is produced by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, is available in paperback, ebook, or pdf (11). This publication includes a discussion guide with suggestions for topics to raise during the discussion of case studies. Another useful resource is The Ethical Chemist, also a good source for cases involving ethical problems faced by students and practicing chemists (12). The Online Ethics Center is an NSF-funded project that has compiled information, references, and science and engineering relevant case studies (13). Finally, another good resource for students is The Chemical Professional’s Code of Conduct, last revised in August 2016 (14).

Communication Among the most prized professional skills are oral and written communication, which are consistently rated as highly desirable by employers in a variety of fields, including science (15). The National Association of Colleges and Employers, through a task force of college career services and HR/staffing professionals, has identified oral/written communication skills as one of seven core competencies associated with career readiness (16). Specifically, career ready college graduates are able to articulate ideas effectively in oral and written forms to persons inside and outside their organization. Communication, writing, and organizational skills are commonly requested in job advertisements in nearly all job categories and skill levels, and are the top three requested soft skills overall (17). Furthermore, the ACS presidential report Advancing Graduate Education in the Chemical Sciences encourages departments to offer activities to enhance students’ ability to communicate complex topics to both technical and nontechnical audiences (18). The ACS Committee on Professional training recognizes that excellent undergraduate chemistry programs should include critically evaluated writing and speaking opportunities. In our professional development series, we include two hour-long, faculty-led discussions on scientific communication: one focuses on scientific writing and publishing, and one focuses on oral communication. The discussion facilitator varies from year to year, but is often not only a scientific author and reviewer, but also an associate journal editor who can give deeper insight into the publication process. Topics include appropriate content, format of scientific articles, writing conventions, and audience consideration. Example scientific writing may be dissected, and free resources on scientific publishing are available from ACS on Campus to supplement discussions (19). Of course, none of the discussion is useful until put into practice, and in our program, all of our REU participants do so with an end-of-summer paper in the format of a journal article. The students receive feedback from their mentors and revise their papers accordingly. Of course, the aim is that these papers will ultimately appear as published work in peer-reviewed journals. Some REU programs emphasize developing writing 37

skills throughout the summer, with separate discussions on each aspect of a technical paper, and intermediate deadlines throughout the summer. The discussion on oral presentations includes a conversation on the difference in purpose and approach in poster sessions versus oral seminars. A discussion of appropriate visuals, as well as critiques of examples are an important aspect of the discussion. Practical advice on backgrounds, font size, time management, rehearsal, etc. is relayed. Again, students put this knowledge to practice at a university-wide poster session and a departmental oral symposium at the end of the summer. The training in different fora as well as different audiences is good experience for fledging scientists who will need to communicate in these different venues. The REU students prepare for these presentations by practicing in research group meetings and for each other. The students are asked to display their posters in their home institutions, and many repeat their oral presentation to their department. Most of our students attend the spring ACS meeting, giving either poster or oral presentations. The components of a good laboratory notebook are discussed in the opening orientation. Students are asked early in the program (week 2) to explain their research goals briefly in an informal setting (without slides), both to reduce anxiety and gain practice in this important communication skill. Another aspect of scientific communication that we discuss is abstracts, particularly the difference in manuscript abstracts compared to conference abstracts. Students peer review each other’s abstracts that are submitted for the final university symposium. These abstracts are often sufficient for submission to attend an ACS national meeting.

Library and Literature Searching An important extension of developing communication skills is becoming adept at finding and understanding the scientific literature. Within the first week of the program, our students participate in a library workshop led by our chemistry librarian in which they gain hands-on experience with important library tools. Students learn to search the primary literature with the databases Web of Science and SciFinder. They practice finding reactions and property data with Reaxys and online handbooks such as the Merck Index and Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry. Though we do not highlight patent searching in our program, that topic would valuable for programs that emphasized entrepreneurship or commercialization. Our institution has a license for EndNote, bibliographic software useful for managing and citing references (20). Our students are encouraged to download the software and use it for organizing the literature relevant to their projects. As part of our emphasis on encouraging students to consider themselves as members of the research community, all students register for an ORCID, a digital identifier that uniquely identifies researchers (21). This identifier encourages linkages between the researchers and their professional activities, and can be used throughout their career. An additional benefit from having students register for this ORCID is that it may facilitate long-term tracking of REU participants.

38

Social Media Social media are an emerging aspect of communication that are increasingly important for scientists (22). Our professional development activities have included a discussion on new media platforms that are aimed at professionals, including LinkedIn, ResearchGate, and Mendeley, as well as more general platforms for broader audiences like twitter, Facebook, Instagram. Students are encouraged to do a google search of their names to discover the (sometimes unexpected) nature of their online presence. We discuss the importance of curating what is publicly viewable through establishment of profiles on LinkedIn or Google Scholar, particularly for students who will soon be transitioning from undergraduates to job-searchers or applicants for graduate or professional school. (See for example, the case on Harvard rescinding admission offers to applicants because of offensive social media posts (23).) Beyond presenting a profile to potential employers or admission officers, social media can be an important venue for scientists to communicate with each other. We point students to curated lists, such as the list of chemistry journals curated by Nature Chemistry and lists of chemists on twitter (24). We discuss the use of hashtags to participate in discussions; for example, American Chemical Society meetings often publicize hashtags (e.g. #ACSSanFran) to extend the discussions outside of meeting rooms. Hashtags on twitter like #WomenInSTEM can be used to network into larger communities. The Royal Society of Chemistry hosts twitter poster sessions in which scientists can post posters with the hashtag #RSCPoster. This annual event is held entirely online and allows the scientific research community together to share their research, network and engage in scientific debate (25). Another aspect of social media that students consider is as a tool for outreach. Scientists can communicate their research with a broad audience through #RealTimeChem (26, 27). @realscientists is an account run by a different scientist every week, who post information and answer questions. Reddit’s “Ask Me Anything” is a platform used so that the public can ask questions of scientists (28). New platforms are extending avenues for peer review and publication, and our social media discussion connects to our library workshop, with discussion of the new preprint server for chemists, ChemRXiv (29). We also discuss new avenues for post publication comments in blogs and pubpeer.com (30). Students learn about the move toward open access articles and shared data and tools like slideshare (31). One challenge in discussing these issues is the continual evolution of the platforms that are available, as well as evolving norms about their use. In many cases, students will be more adept at the technology than the discussion facilitators.

Outreach Traditional outreach is another important aspect of immersion in research culture. In our program, our Chemistry Road Show director teaches our REU participants hands-on chemical demonstrations. The students practice 39

experiments like “Genie in a Bottle (32),” “Elephant Toothpaste (33),” and “Rainbow Magic (34).” The students learn the science behind each of the demonstrations, as well as how to engage young children with banter. They are given a list of equipment and materials and encouraged to engage in outreach back at their home institutions. Our colleagues in the Department of Physics have sent their REU students out to engage with the public during First Fridays –a family friendly outdoor celebration of arts, performance, and culture held the first Friday of every month in downtown Bryan, TX – engaging in fun demonstrations and activities they call “Street Physics.” Other programs may be able to invite student groups for tours or visits on campus. Acting as a mentor to aspiring scientists allows REU participants to “give back” and gives them a sense of belonging to the larger scientific community (35).

Graduate School Application, Admissions, and Life Since one of our program goals is to encourage students to consider graduate school in the chemical sciences, much of our professional development is aimed at demystifying application and admission to graduate school. Moreover, we aim to answer any questions and clarify misconceptions students have about life during graduate school. REU participants witness first-hand many aspects of graduate school life as members of traditional research groups and through close interaction with designated graduate student mentors. REU students participate regularly in ongoing events, like weekly journal club and research group meetings. REU students may also contribute to practice sessions for preliminary exams and witness final defenses (and the celebrations afterwards.). However, since the REU program occupies only a small sliver of the year, our participants cannot experience first-hand aspects of graduate school like graduate coursework, teaching assistant duties, and research group selection. To clarify these aspects of graduate school, we host a graduate student panel, in which several graduate students at various stages of their careers answer any remaining questions the REU students may have. We strive to invite panelists from research groups that are not hosting an REU student that summer to increase the networking opportunities and broaden the points of view that are shared with our students. Seasoned graduate students are poised to speak about the job search process, while newer graduate students have fresh memories of graduate school application and selection as well as courses and research group selection. To address directly questions about graduate school application and admission, our graduate admission coordinator outlines the process for our REU students. Components of the graduate school application are reviewed, including GRE, transcripts, personal statement, and letters of recommendation. Our coordinator discloses average GREs and GPAs of matriculating graduate students in our program, but emphasizes that no single factor will guarantee admission (or denial). Students are told what kind of information is useful in letters of recommendation, and emphasizes that references should be requested from people who can testify to potential for success in research, rather than character references. Resources on writing a personal statement are distributed (36). Some 40

programs have students prepare a draft personal statement and provide feedback or facilitate peer review for those statements. The timeline for application, admission offers, and visits is discussed. We emphasize that students should not have to decide on an offer before April 15. We discuss how to compare offer letters, which may look very different even for offers that are ultimately similar. We discuss tuition, fees, stipends, health insurance, and fellowship opportunities. We encourage students to apply for external fellowships, and indeed, some programs facilitate the preparation of these applications such that students leave the summer programs with fellowship applications ready (or nearly ready) to submit.

Careers for Ph.D. Chemists Another of our goals as a program is to make students aware of career options for Ph.D. chemists. Career Day, a day set aside for our students to interact with several Ph.D. alumni, is a personal method of illustrating different career paths. Other sites may choose to have an ongoing series with guest speakers from different employment sectors visiting on a weekly (or other interval) basis, rather than setting aside an entire day for career discussions. For our event, three to four alumni return to campus for the day and each presents a scientific autobiography, in which they discuss their career evolutions. These presentations often begin with the speaker testifying that his or her interest in science was affirmed by undergraduate research, and the REU students appreciate how life-changing the undergraduate research experience can be. With their stories, speakers illustrate how one opportunity can lead to another, but not always in a predictable, linear path. We choose a diverse array of speakers, men and women of different races and ethnicities who have been successful in different employment sectors. We have had speakers from various chemical industries (e.g. Dow, Halliburton, Intel, Merck, Proctor & Gamble); different types of educational institutions (e.g. Prairie View A&M University, Trinity University, University of North Texas); government laboratories (e.g. Environmental Protection Agency, NASA); and pursuing other “non-traditional” careers (e.g. Patent Law; Patent Judge, Science Journalist). The speakers form a panel and field questions from the students. Example topics of discussion include the decision to pursue industry versus academia, the importance of a postdoctoral appointment, and work/life balance. Students are most enthusiastic about the networking lunch, in which students are able to informally network with speakers. The speakers swap tables during dessert to maximize the number of students they meet. Some of these connections have developed into long-term relationships; one of our visiting speakers became the Ph.D. advisor for an REU student who first become aware of her work during Career Day. Visiting practicing chemists at their work site is another option of illustrating career options. The types of sites available for a day trip will vary according to the location and focus of each site. Programs have visited national laboratories, chemical plants, and research & development laboratories. These tours allow students to see how chemistry is put into practice in “real life,” outside of academia, 41

perhaps for the first time, and exposes them to different job settings. Our own program includes tours of research facilities on campus that are unique, such as our cyclotron, the low-speed wind tunnel, the materials characterization facility, and the immersive visualization center.

Conclusion It is notoriously difficult to assess the impact of undergraduate research programs altogether, much less the role that different components of the program play in student learning gains (37). However, Locks and Gregerman highlight skill building workshops as one of the most important parts of the University Research Opportunity Program at the University of Michigan, which has been running for more than 25 years (38). We have found that the more personalized and interactive the activity, the more the students benefit. Professional development programming should be tailored to program participants, the focus area of the program, the physical facilities, as well as the geographic location. Most programs will include some topics in safety, ethics, technical skills, and communication. The overall aim of the professional development should be that the REU student participants become instilled with the values and norms of the research community and consider themselves as full members of that community.

Acknowledgments The author wishes to extend special thanks to James Batteas, and to all the students, faculty, staff, and alumni of Texas A&M University who have contributed to the professional development program for our REU program. I am grateful the student participants, graduate student mentors, and faculty advisors, as well as the staff and administration at Texas A&M University for the long-term support of the Department of Chemistry REU program. The author would also like to thank the National Science Foundation (CHE-1359175; CHE-1062840; and CHE-0755207) and Texas A&M University (Department of Chemistry, College of Science, Office of Graduate and Professional Programs, and Office for the Vice President for Research) for financially supporting the program.

References 1.

2.

National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites and Supplements Program Solicitation, Arlington, VA, 2013. https://www.nsf.gov/publications/ pub_summ.jsp?WT.z_pims_id=5517&ods_key=nsf13542 (accessed January 2018). Thiry, H.; Laursen, S. L.; Hunter, A.-B. What experiences help students become scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates. J. Higher Educ. 2011, 82 (4), 357–388. 42

3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. 20. 21.

Runquist, O.; Kerr, S. Are we serious about preparing chemists for the 21st century workplace or are we just teaching chemistry? J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (2), 231. Benderly, B. L. Cautious optimism as society names lab safety a core value Science, 2017. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/10/cautiousoptimism-society-names-lab-safety-core-value (accessed January 2018). American Chemical Society Chemical & Laboratory Safety. https:// www.acs.org/content/acs/en/chemical-safety.html (accessed January 2018). The Dow Chemical Company Dow Lab Safety Academy. https:// www.dow.com/en-us/science-and-sustainability/safety (accessed January 2018). Kemsley, J. Chemistry professors promote lab safety. Chem. Eng. News 2014, 30–31June 9, 2014. Hunter, A.-B.; Laursen, S. L.; Seymour, E. Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education 2007, 91 (1), 36–74. National Science Foundation Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp (accessed March 2018). CITI Program RCR Basic. https://about.citiprogram.org/en/course/ responsible-conduct-of-research-basic/ (accessed January 2018). National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering; Institute of Medicine. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, 3rd ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2009. Kovac, J. The Ethical Chemist; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003. The National Academy of Engineering The Online Ethics Center. http:// www.onlineethics.org/ (accessed January 2018). American Chemical Society The Chemical Professional’s Code of Conduct. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/careers/career-services/ethics/thechemical-professionals-code-of-conduct.html (accessed January 2018). Gray, F. E.; Emerson, L.; MacKay, B. Meeting the demands of the workplace: science students and written skills. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2005, 14 (4), 425–435. National Association of Colleges and Employers Career Readiness Defined. http://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readinessdefined/ (accessed January 2018). Burning Glass Technologies. The Human Factor: The Hard Time Employers Have Finding Soft Skills, 2015. http://www.burning-glass.com/wp-content/ uploads/Human_Factor_Baseline_Skills_FINAL.pdf (accessed January 2018). ACS Presidential Commission on Graduate Education in the Chemical Sciences. Advancing Graduate Education in the Chemical Sciences; American Chemical Society, 2012. American Chemical Society ACS on Campus. https://acsoncampus.acs.org/ resources/publish-my-research/ (accessed January 2018). Clarivate Analytics EndNote. http://endnote.com/ (accessed March 2018). ORCID. https://orcid.org/ (accessed March 2018). 43

22. Kenkel, B. Social media as a scientist: a very quick guide, 2017. NatureJobs Blog. http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2017/08/23/social-media-as-ascientist-a-very-quick-guide/ (accessed January 2018). 23. Natanson, H. Harvard rescinds acceptances for at least ten students for obscene memes. The Crimson, June 5, 2017. 24. Reese, D. 25 Chemists you should follow on Twitter Chem. Eng. News, 2017. https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/11/25-Chemists-shouldfollow-Twitter.html. 25. Muehlberg, M. RSC Twitter Poster Conference 2018. http://blogs.rsc.org/ rscpublishing/2017/12/14/rsc-twitter-poster-conference-2018/ (accessed March 2018). 26. About #RealTimeChem. https://doctorgalacticandthelabcoatcowboy.com/ realtimechem-about/ (accessed February 19, 2018). 27. Drahl, C. Real-time community. Chem. Eng. News 2013, 91 (8), 30–31. 28. ACS Science Tuesdays on Reddit. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/events/ reddit-science.html (accessed March 2018). 29. Clinton, A. ChemRxiv is open for business: What you need to know ACS Axial. http://axial.acs.org/2017/08/17/chemrxiv-open-business-need-know/ (accessed March 2018). 30. Couzin-Frankel, J. The web’s faceless judges. Science 2013, 341 (6146), 606–608. 31. SlideShare. https://www.slideshare.net/ (accessed March 2018). 32. Shakhashiri, B. Z. Preparation and properties of oxygen. In Chemical Demonstrations: A Handbook for Teachers of Chemistry; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, 1985; Vol. 2, pp 137−141. 33. Conklin, A. R.; Kessinger, A. Demonstration of the catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73 (9), 838. 34. Shakhashiri, B. Z. Rainbow colors with mixed acid-base indicators. In Chemical Demonstrations: A Handbook for Teachers of Chemistry; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, 1989; Vol. 3, pp 41−46. 35. Wilson, Z. S.; Holmes, L.; deGravelles, K.; Sylvain, M. R.; Batiste, L.; Johnson, M.; McGuire, S. Y.; Pang, S. S.; Warner, I. M. Hierarchical mentoring: A transformative strategy for improving diversity and retention in undergraduate STEM disciplines. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2012, 21 (1), 148–156. 36. Gaede, H. C. Personal statement pointers. In Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013; pp 10−11. 37. Linn, M. C.; Palmer, E.; Baranger, A.; Gerard, E.; Stone, E. Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science 2015, 347 (6222), 1261757. 38. Locks, A. M.; Gregerman, S. R. Undergraduate research as an institutional retention strategy: The University of Michigan model. In Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science: The Transformation from Student to Scientist; Taraban, R.; Blanton, R. L., Eds.; Teachers College Press: New York, 2208; pp 11−32.

44

Chapter 4

Summer REU Program Integrating Deaf and Hearing Participants in Chemistry Research Gina MacDonald, Kevin L. Caran,* Christine A. Hughey, and Judy Johnson Bradley Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, James Madison University, 901 Carrier Drive, MSC 4501, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

James Madison University’s (JMU) Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry NSF REU site provides research opportunities for regional, and Deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/HH) students, as well as undergraduate American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting students. The decades-long REU program is an integral part of our scientific community that fosters year-round research. The program recruits students and visiting faculty from institutions with a focus on D/HH students, as well as those from regional institutions with limited research infrastructure. The program provides chemistry research opportunities for D/HH participants, including the resources required for full access (e.g., professional interpreters, disability support). Participation of ASL interpreting students not only broadens the skills of these students, but also expands the pool of professionals with science-interpreting experience, thus lowering barriers for D/HH students to pursue careers in science. Hearing students and faculty benefit from interactions with D/HH students and faculty, and gain an appreciation for the challenges and opportunities associated with the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Development of the Chemistry REU Site at

© 2018 American Chemical Society

James Madison University For many years the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department at James Madison University (JMU) has benefited from generous support from the National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (NSF REU) program. The REU program has helped maintain a year-long research-active environment and has increased diversity in the department and important training opportunities. The REU has allowed us to strengthen our program while helping other institutions enhance faculty research. Origins of the Program at JMU Initially, the original P.I., Dr. Dan Downey, recognized that although small liberal arts colleges contribute significantly to the national supply of chemists, many of the schools in the region had limited research infrastructure and opportunities. Dr. Downey recognized that many schools did not have a critical mass of faculty and/or the equipment necessary to easily initiate research and a research culture at their home institution. Thus, the mission of the first two REU grants (Daniel M. Downey and John A. Mosbo, 1990-1995) at JMU was to serve as a place where outside students and faculty could perform research in a community of scholars and use these experiences to initiate and/or enhance research at their home institutions. To this end, the original REU supported JMU students and faculty and outside students and faculty pairs. Thus, from its very inception the JMU REU was aimed at increasing undergraduate research opportunities at JMU and in the broader undergraduate community. During these initial years, the REU solidified a year-long research culture and helped propel JMU’s efforts to provide undergraduate research experiences that were deemed the paramount method of teaching undergraduates. These initial grants were especially important as the department moved to embrace the teacher-scholar model and better integrate research and education at JMU. The initial success of the outside faculty participants and students led to their inclusion throughout the extended history of the JMU REU (1). Incorporation of Outreach to Deaf and Hard of Hearing Participants Later REU programs included outreach to Deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) students and faculty. Originally, Dr. MacDonald included D/HH students using support from her NSF PECASE award (1998). Observing a school bus from the Virginia School for the Deaf and Blind (VSDB) led her to thoughts about why she had never had a Deaf student in any course throughout her entire education and career. This sighting led her to use NSF funds to initiate these efforts to include D/HH students and teachers (2). Initial calls to Dr. Brenda Seal (from JMU’s Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, CSD) and to the principal of VSDB led to the first Deaf researchers. Initially, D/HH teachers, high school students and Gallaudet University undergraduates participated in biophysics research in Dr. MacDonald’s lab. Researchers and interpreters taught Dr. MacDonald about making research accessible in a hearing environment 46

and allowed her to initiate a program that was later incorporated into the REU program with Dr. Downey. The original expansion of the program resulted from Chemistry REU funding and allowed the program to include an interpreting mentor (Dr. Seal) and undergraduate interpreting students who worked together to aide communication between D/HH and hearing participants (3). The interpreting students also performed research associated with sign language interpreting and learned from the professional interpreters working in the laboratories. Students had access to professional sign language interpreters who were willing to learn about scientific terms such that they were better able to use American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate concepts to their consumers. This part of the REU has continued to evolve through multiple REU grants. Oftentimes the most culturally important lessons and enhanced communication were learned during informal social events. Social events, such as dinners and canoe trips, included student interpreters. The professional and student interpreters were critical to learning and inclusion for both hearing and D/HH participants. The initial, ten-year collaboration with Dr. Seal allowed us to provide distinctive experiences for student interpreters. Dr. Seal developed and implemented methods to best serve these students and their D/HH consumers. During the initial years, a dedicated professional interpreter (Chris Colbert) also helped get the program off the ground. Chris and Brenda’s ability to communicate culture, educational practices and unique needs of the students were integral in educating Dr. MacDonald, Dr. Downey and the department faculty as we moved to become more inclusive. After Chris’s departure the program faced some challenges. The shortage of interpreters made it difficult to find enough interpreters to cover daily needs and especially challenging for symposium and special event needs. Multiple interpreters were used in the intervening 3-4 years, resulting in less consistency and support. Significant time and effort was dedicated to coordinating interpreters. In addition, inclusion of multiple interpreters reduced the consistency of interpreting in the laboratory. These intervening years seemed to solidify the needs to include undergraduate interpreting students and hope these efforts would help provide future science interpreters. Evolution of the Program Dr. Seal’s retirement from JMU led to searching for another mentor for the interpreting students. Dr. Seal’s legacy has lived on in our REU programs. The role of the ASL student interpreter mentor was subsequently taken on by Judy Johnson Bradley, a professional interpreter. Judy has successfully implemented research and mentoring methods to provide important experiences for student interpreters and their consumers. In addition, Judy’s involvement has provided the more consistent support for our D/HH students. Experience has shown that having a devoted interpreter and mentor alleviates stresses and provides the consistent, familiar environment for the students. Over the years we have had professors from Gallaudet University (a school focused on the education of D/HH students) participate in summer research thus linking the multiple missions of the REU. In fact, one of the original undergraduate 47

students in the program participated years later as a Gallaudet professor. Other former REU students have later participated as teachers and brought students from the Model Secondary School for the Deaf (MSSD). The program continues to evolve and to incorporate many unique and some past participants. The JMU REU program has allowed our faculty and students to have inclusive experiences that are not found in many other REU programs. In addition, multiple JMU faculty members now have experience working with interpreters and Deaf students. This program has become a central component of our REU program and culture. Many faculty members now understand the basics in communication such as slowing down speech, not demonstrating a laboratory technique while talking and feeling comfortable looking for an interpreter when necessary. Current faculty and students who have previously participated in our REU better understand the needs of the Deaf and hard of hearing students and how to facilitate day-to-day interactions that result in productive student research experiences and an inclusive social and research environment. Thus, the generous funding from the NSF has allowed hundreds of REU students to experience a more inclusive research environment. Hopefully, the faculty and students experiences at JMU will result in more diverse scientific environments in the future.

Configuration and Organization of the Program REU Program Provides Foundation for Summer Research A major driving force behind JMU’s program continues to be our aim to train undergraduate students in the philosophy and methodology of modern chemistry research, throughout the summer and academic year. Our REU program provides the organizational foundation for our department’s vibrant summer research community. A typical summer includes 40+ research students, (about a quarter of whom are funded by the REU) and ~20 faculty and staff members. The non REU-funded students are supported by other sources including individual faculty grants, student awards, and departmental or college funds. All students, faculty and staff participating in summer research are invited to the organized professional and social events throughout the summer, regardless of funding source. This helps foster connections between members of this larger community, and demonstrates how the organization provided by the REU site affects a significantly larger number of people than the participants who are directly funded by the NSF. Leadership Team The multifaceted scope of our site (chemistry research, ASL interpreting, etc.) is supported by having a two-person leadership team. The PI and co-PI work together to recruit participants, organize events and to serve as the primary points of contact for the program. Other responsibilities are the main focus of the PI (paperwork, finances, etc.) or the co-PI (managing efforts associated with inclusion of the D/HH participants), though this division of labor is fluid and changes regularly as needed. 48

Student and Faculty Participants Each summer, approximately ten students are funded by the REU to perform research full time for 10 weeks, under the direct leadership of faculty members. These 10 students generally include 5-7 students from external institutions, approximately 3 of whom are D/HH. Students are recruited primarily from regional institutions with limited access to research opportunities and from programs with a focus on D/HH students such as Gallaudet University and the National Institute for the Deaf (NTID) at Rochester Institute of Technology. Two additional students serve as ASL interpreters for the D/HH participants. In addition, we also host 1-2 chemistry faculty members each summer, typically including one faculty member who is D/HH. Faculty participants are largely recruited from the same institutions as the students, and sometimes come as a faculty/student pair. We have found that this approach can lead to the subsequent development or expansion of research programs at the institutions from which these participants come, further broadening the impact of the program. The ASL mentor and professional ASL interpreters serve as interpreters for the D/HH participants and guides for the ASL interpreting students, as detailed in ASL Interpreting section below. The ASL mentor also aids in recruiting ASL interpreting students. Student Research All students are directly mentored by and collaborate with faculty, and spend the majority of the ten week program developing and implementing their research. Students are placed in groups based on their research interests. Each student is considered as an individual who must develop at her/his own rate. Novice researchers require clear expectations and orientation to their research project, while experienced students, who are afforded more independence, need guidance on the professional practice of science (4). Regardless of experience, the direct interaction that occurs between faculty member and undergraduate has been shown to increase student confidence and self-efficacy, broaden the student’s perception of career and educational opportunities and bolster their identity as scientists (4, 5). Direct mentorship from a faculty member (vs. a post-doc or graduate student) may be even more beneficial for women and underrepresented minorities (6). Furthermore, D/HH students are more successful when paired with a D/HH mentor or a mentor familiar with the Deaf community (7). A growing number of our faculty members have experience mentoring D/HH students as a result of this program. In addition, we regularly recruit D/HH faculty members for at least one of our external faculty positions. Student Presentations and Papers Students present their research both formally and informally throughout the summer. At the end of the first week of the program, students present a two-minute, two-slide research plan to the community of students and faculty. We have found that this is a great way to jump start research by encouraging students to quickly 49

learn the basics of their project, under the tutelage of a faculty member. In recent years, we have experimented with a number of events aimed at giving students more experience and confidence discussing and presenting their research. These include having a pot-luck picnic where students bring a one-page visual aid to spur discussion at the picnic tables, and having an interdisciplinary REU RoundRobin Research (R4) event. In the R4 event, students describe their research projects to students and faculty in other disciplines (e.g., computer science, biology and math) with the aid of a one-page visual that highlights an interesting aspect of their research. Students explain their visual in two minutes to a small group (typically 5-6 people), followed by a 2-minute Q&A and then rotate (think, speed dating). Students felt that they particularly benefitted from the round-robin, so we are planning to expand on this as we move forward. At the end of the 10-week program, we hold a formal symposium (a joint event with other JMU departments) that is fashioned after a scientific conference and gives students experience with organizing and delivering research results in the form of a talk or poster. The keynote speaker is typically a former REU student who now holds a Ph.D. Each student also submits a research paper at the end of the summer program. Assessment We assess our program with student surveys at the beginning and end of the program. Historically, we have gained insight on the effectiveness of our program by using David Lopatto’s surveys (8–11) to estimate student skill level, experience, motivation, interest and dedication to success. Recently, we have moved to the US-MORE survey (Undergraduate Scientists: Measuring the Outcomes of Research Experiences from Multiple Perspectives), which has allowed us to include additional survey questions specific to the broader impacts of our program will be used (12, 13). The proficiency and improvement of ASL student interpreters are assessed by the ASL mentor, and by Virginia Quality Assurance Screening (VQAS), which includes a written exam and a performance exam.

American Sign Language (ASL) Interpreting Interpreting Mentor, Interpreting Students, and Professional Interpreters The ASL mentor and the professional ASL interpreters are available to provide the program participants – D/HH and hearing students and faculty – communication access within the research environment. In addition to providing interpreting services, the mentor and the professional interpreters model appropriate interpreting behavior. The interpreting students are able to assist with communication access in social situations although they are not required to interpret in their leisure hours, their skills often allow the D/HH and hearing students to interact in groups in an informal setting. The interpreting students also lead interested faculty and students in weekly informal ASL “sign lunch” classes (Figure 1). The opportunity for hearing participants to learn some basic ASL and interact with D/HH participants is a unique, culturally broadening experience. 50

Hearing students and faculty benefit from interactions with D/HH students and faculty, and gain an appreciation for the challenges and opportunities associated with the inclusion of persons with disabilities. As a result of these interactions, our program aims to lower barriers for collaboration between these groups in the future.

Figure 1. ASL interpreting students lead weekly “sign lunch” classes. Photos courtesy of Kevin Caran. Challenges and Opportunities of Interpreting in Research Environment Interpreters’ lack of knowledge or comfort with scientific terminology (Figure 2) in ASL continues to be a barrier for D/HH students of all ages to choose careers in science. The interpreting students are able to observe interpreting in the chemistry research environment, as well as in scientific presentations (Figure 3). This allows the students to incorporate new signs into their lexicon; an ongoing objective for the project is that this exposure will lead to more competence, and greater comfort in a scientific environment, when they matriculate and become professional interpreters. The REU interpreting students are often able to team interpret with the mentor or a professional interpreter and receive feedback, which is valuable for skill development, particularly in a specialized field. 51

Figure 2. ASL interpreting can be particularly challenging in a scientific environment where discipline-specific jargon and chemical names are used. Photo courtesy of Brenda Seal.

Figure 3. ASL interpreting at a poster session (top) and during an oral presentation (bottom) at the research symposium. Photos courtesy of Kevin Caran. 52

ASL Student Interpreter Research Projects The ASL interpreting students have historically conducted research projects and given presentations related to linguistic features of American Sign Language, under the guidance of the ASL mentor. There are challenges for interpreting within a laboratory environment related to safety, line of sight, and optimal interpreter placement. Most recently, the students undertook a project to find some alternative ways to interpret in the lab that allowed the students and instructor to communicate without an interpreter blocking the line of sight to a fume hood (Figure 4). One lab installed video monitors to allow a slightly more remote placement of the interpreter, giving all participants line of sight access to the experiment as well as to the interpreter. Another lab used a mirror in the back of the hood to allow the interpreter to stand behind the chemistry students and instructor, so that the interpreter was out of the way of the experiment space, yet still within line of sight. Participants gave anecdotal feedback regarding both systems. Deaf students gave positive reviews of both systems, with neither being clearly superior. Evaluation and adjustment of the systems will continue during subsequent REU sessions. The interpreting students will continue to research topics in ASL linguistics in order to further their understanding of the language and of the interpretation process.

Figure 4. Students, faculty and ASL interpreters experimenting with technology to facilitate communication in fume hoods using camera/monitor pairs (top) or large mirrors at the rear of the hood (bottom). Photos courtesy of Judy Johnson Bradley. 53

The student and faculty participants, both D/HH and hearing, have expressed their appreciation for the positive community that has developed as a result of the accessible communication environment of the program, both inside the laboratory, and outside the lab in more informal, social activities.

Moving Forward The next JMU REU cycle will continue to involve D/HH participants, ASL interpreters and outside faculty and students from institutions with limited research infrastructure. That said, there will be some significant changes and additions moving forward. These changes include a formalized PI/co-PI rotation schedule, the involvement of ASL-observing students and a programmatic theme centered on effective science communication. We will also continue to improve the means of assessing the effectiveness of the program. Involvement of ASL-Observing Students An important new addition to our program will be the inclusion of approximately eight additional ASL-interpreting students per summer who will observe the professional ASL-interpreters for one week. The incorporation of these students (which will be in addition to the two 10-week interpreting students) will expand the impact of our program by exposing a larger number of interpreting students to the challenges and opportunities involved in Deaf communication in chemistry laboratories. In addition, the observing hours may count toward the degree requirements of some ASL-interpreting programs. The student observers will be invited to campus in groups of two to three students/week during several specified weeks of the program. They will stay in the dorms with the other participants and be paid a per diem to cover expenses. We expect that they will also participate in scheduled events and help serve as interpreters in the dormitory. In the 2017 post-REU survey, D/HH students felt like they had the interpreting support they needed during “business hours” but less so in the dorm. Observing students may help address this need. Effective Science Communication As previously discussed, communication between hearing and D/HH students through professional and student interpreters has been a focus of the JMU REU program for almost two decades. In the next funding cycle, we will formalize the practice of effective science communication by making this a programmatic theme. We have learned through the years that many of the techniques necessary for effective exchange of ideas between D/HH and hearing participants are consistent with the skills required for effective communication within chemistry, across science disciplines and to the public. For example, it is important for students to speak slowly during oral and poster presentations so that the interpreters can keep up, but also so the hearing audience can digest the new content. In 2017, we piloted a seminar dedicated to effective science 54

communication and plan to organize a mini-seminar series on the topic in upcoming REU programs. Round table discussions will also be held to discuss assigned readings related to science communication. Students will then practice their oral communication with chemistry colleagues during group meetings and weekly sign lunches. Students will also continue to have the opportunity to present their work in the two-minute, two-slide plans, during the REU Round Robin Research events (which will be held approximately every two weeks) and at the end of semester symposium, as described above. Targeted Assessment We will continue to employ the US-MORE survey (Undergraduate Scientists: Measuring the Outcomes of Research Experiences from Multiple Perspectives) to assess our program (12, 13). Additional questions specific to the D/HH participants are added to evaluate the program’s impact on these participants. All participants complete a pre- and post-REU survey so that changes in students’ motivation and interest in science can be measured. Data is also collected on the extent of prior research experience and career goals. Faculty also assess improvements/changes in laboratory skills and communication, both oral and written. The program is deemed effective if students have an overall positive experience, continue to acquire new knowledge, obtain better course grades in subsequent semesters, enter graduate school, industry or teaching in STEM fields and have a better perspective of career options. Quality research performance is manifested in conference attendance, publication in peer reviewed journals and honors theses. Long term tracking of participants is challenging, but it is possible with email, social media and LinkedIn.

Conclusions Building a new program can be challenging and is most likely filled with many small (and some large) learning opportunities. It can take years to fully gain the experience, the reputation and the trust that is necessary to continue to recruit students, faculty and teachers. It is important to build trust, learn what the students need, transmit this information to other faculty and to have the patience, passion and perseverance necessary to continue to expand and move the program forward. There is no substitute for dedication, enthusiastic and knowledgeable collaborators and the ability to bounce back from setbacks when building any new program. We have been fortunate enough to work with an outstanding group of student and faculty collaborators throughout the history of our program, from whom we continue to learn.

Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the REU awards and supplements that have provided funding for our program (CHE-9000748, CHE-9300261, CHE-9731912, CHE-0097448, CHE55

0353807, CHE-0754521, CHE- 1062629, CHE-1461175). We also thank the JMU Department of Chemistry, the JMU College of Science and Mathematics and the administration of JMU for ongoing generous support. We thank the leaders who laid the foundation for this program including Dr. Daniel M. Downey, Dr. John A. Mosbo, Dr. Brenda C. Seal and Chris Colbert. Most importantly, we thank all of the students, faculty, staff and ASL interpreters who are the heart of our program.

References 1.

Brakke, D. F.; Downey, D. M.; MacDonald, G.; Hughes, W. C.; Van Wyk, L. A.; Wubah, D. A. Building a summer research community. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly 2003, 14–17. 2. Seal, B. C.; Wynne, D.; MacDonald, G. Deaf students, teachers, and interpreters in the chemistry lab. J. Chem. Ed. 2002, 79 (2), 239–243. 3. Seal, B. C; MacDonald, G.; Downey, D. M. Equalizing Sign and Spoken Language in the Chemistry Laboratory. Proceedings of LWD-07, First International Conference on Technology Based Learning with Disability, Session 6: Learning with Communication Disabilities; Wright State University, Dayton, OH, 2007; pp 229−233. 4. Thiry, H.; Laursen, S. L. The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2011, 20 (6), 771–784. 5. Aikens, M. L.; Sadselia, S.; Watkins, K.; Evans, M.; Eby, L. T.; Dolan, E. L. A social capital perspective on the mentoring of undergraduate life science researchers: an empirical study of undergraduate–postgraduate–faculty triads. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2016, 15 (2), 1–15. 6. Aikens, M. L.; Robertson, M. M.; Sadselia, S.; Watkins, K.; Evans, M.; Runyon, C. R.; Eby, L. T.; Dolan, E. L. Race and gender differences in undergraduate research mentoring structures and research outcomes. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2017, 16 (2), 16:ar34,1–12. 7. Braun, D. C.; Gormally, C.; Clark, M. D. The Deaf Mentoring Survey: A community cultural wealth framework for measuring mentoring effectiveness with underrepresented students. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2017, 16 (1), 1–14. 8. Lopatto, D. The essential features of undergraduate research. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly 2003, 139–142. 9. Lopatto, D. Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings. Cell Biol. Educ. 2004, 3, 270–277. 10. Lopatto, D. The SURE-III website. http://www.grinnell.edu/academics/ areas/psychology/assessnebts/sure-iii-survey (accessed February 2, 2018). 11. Lopatto, D. Science in Solution; Tucson: The Research Corporation, 2010. http://web.grinnell.edu/sureiii/Science_in_Solution_Lopatto.pdf (accessed February 2, 2018). 12. Maltese, A. V.; Harsh, J. A.; Jung, E. Evaluating undergraduate research experiences - Development of a self-report tool survey development paper. Education Science 2017, 87. 56

13. Maltese, A. V.; Harsh, J. A. Pathways of Entry into STEM across K-16. In Interest and Self-Concept of Ability in K-16; Rennigner, A., Nieswandt, M., Eds.; American Educational Research Association: Washington, DC, 2015; pp 203–224.

57

Chapter 5

The TIM Consortium: A Dispersed REU Site at Primarily Undergraduate Institutes KC Russell*,1 and Shannon M. Biros2 1Department

of Chemistry, Northern Kentucky University, Nunn Drive SC204, Highland Heights, Kentucky 41099-1905, United States 2Department of Chemistry, Grand Valley State University, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, Michigan 49401, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

The Theoretically Interesting Molecules (TIM) Consortium is a unique REU program where the “site” is decentralized rather than being at a single host school. This dispersed model was the first of its kind to be funded by the chemistry division of the NSF. The lack of a single site is compensated for by two supergroup meetings where students, faculty and an external mentor from a large research institute gather to discuss the chemistry within the consortium and attend a national meeting. The program currently unites faculty from five primarily undergraduate institutes whose research interests broadly overlap. Each faculty member accepts one internal student and hosts an external student targeted from an underrepresented group and that would normally not have access to a significant research experience. Since its inception in 2002 the consortium has directly involved more than 125 students.

© 2018 American Chemical Society

The Rationale Compared to the rest of the world, the United States is unique in the prevalence of liberal arts and other primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) as places of higher collegiate education. PUIs have long focused on establishing an intimate learning environment created by small class sizes in which students have extensive contact with the faculty individually or in small group settings. In the sciences, this focus on teaching is brought into the independent research laboratories of individual faculty. Devoid of a graduate student population, PUI science faculty construct research programs in which they work directly with their undergraduate research students in the laboratory on a daily basis. Undergraduate students at PUIs are the lead researchers on their scientific projects, requiring the faculty members to be adept at project selection, focus, and mentoring in order to navigate the pursuit of cutting edge science as the undergraduate researchers’ scientific and intellectual skills mature. Indeed, it is easily argued that highly research active PUI faculty, with track records of obtaining external research funding and publishing in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, are ideal candidates to supervise immersive and educationally stimulating REU summer programs. However, the size of most chemistry departments at primarily undergraduate institutions and the necessary diversity of disciplinary expertise means that the “well-defined common focus that enables a cohort experience” (1) is harder to develop at a single-site PUI REU program, let alone a “site” that would span multiple schools. But that is exactly what we set out to do.

Origins The inspiration for the Theoretically Intersting Molecules (TIM) Consortium came when David Reingold (Juniata College) saw a presentation from the Keck Geology Consortium at a Council of Undergraduate Research (CUR) meeting. The Keck Geology Consortium began in 1987 and since has provided research opportunities to more than 1500 undergraduate students from 140 different schools (2). Still in existence, the Keck Geology Consortium continues to provide opportunities for faculty and students from different PUIs to get together to study common geological interests (3). Of course, studying geologic problems often requires participants to travel to where the geology is. For chemists who rely on synthesis, chemical reactions work the same way in one lab as they would in any other lab. There is no inherent need to travel. The question was how to justify bringing organic chemistry students and faculty from different PUIs together, create a valuable program for all participants, and convince the NSF proposal reviewers that it was a suitable training experience. After some brainstorming with Nancy Mills (Trinity University) a framework was assembled. The initial idea was to involve five or six PUIs, connected, not geographically or institutionally, but instead by common educational goals and common research interests in “Theoretically Interesting Molecules.” The TIM Consortium was born. Each participating PUI would host two REU students, one internal and one external, at their home institute. With only one external student 60

at each school the internal student would serve as an important bridge to help integrate the external student with the host research group. In its initial form, the entire group was to get together three times during the summer for “supergroup” meetings. One of the meetings would be in concert with a national meeting, and the other two meetings would be held at different host schools. To augment the diversity of science, connect the group directly to graduate programs, and to create additional networking possibilities for both students and faculty, a faculty “mentor” from a large research (R1) university was to join the group and be an integral part of each meeting. At the first meeting each PUI faculty member would give a brief introduction to the REU student projects in their lab. The second meeting would involve informal student progress reports. The third meeting would feature a one day TIM Consortium symposium where students would make formal presentations of their summer activities. At this meeting the R1 mentor would play the role of a keynote speaker presenting on his or her own research. While the reviewers believed the idea had merit, criticisms from the first submission centered around more clear program assessment, recruiting strategies, insufficient support from host schools (offering summer housing to all external student participants), lack of social activities for the student participants, and the fact that it was not a site in the traditional sense. With the exception of the “site” all of these issues were easily addressed. The program assessment included surveys to gather student feedback. A recruiting plan was developed targeting schools with large minority populations using PUI faculty contacts. Each host school agreed to provide summer housing for the external, and sometime internal, student. The case for social activities was made by reflecting upon the nature of the faculty and PUIs involved. Each faculty member had a robust research program with multiple undergraduate researchers prior to participating in the consortium, and at the same time was part of a department with multiple social activities spanning all undergraduate research participants. Although the proposal was not able to directly address the fact that the program was not at a single site, the program was funded and in 2002 became the first “Dispersed REU Site” funded by the Chemistry Division of the NSF (4).

The TIM Consortium Our “Site” The TIM Consortium REU is unique in chemistry, as it is not located at a single site, but distributed across the country. Table 1 lists our past and current locations. Our Meetings At the heart of the current REU program are the TIM Consortium research meetings: an introductory meeting near the start of the summer and the TIM Consortium Symposium at its conclusion. These meetings provide the “glue” that 61

unifies the Consortium and enhances the personal and professional development of the REU students.

Table 1. TIM Consortium locations, past and present School

City

Years active

Juniata College

Huntingdon, PA

2002-2008

Trinity University

San Antonio, TX

2002-2014

St. Michael’s College

Colchester, VT

2002-2004

Trinity College

Hartford, CT

2002-2008

Macalester College

St. Paul, MN

2002-2014

Northern Kentucky University

Highland Heights, KY

2002-present

Colby College

Waterville, ME

2011-present

University of San Diego

San Diego, CA

2011-present

Grand Valley State University

Allendale, MI

2011-present

University of Richmond

Richmond, VA

2016-present

The Introductory Meeting As proposed, three meetings per summer were planned, and that was the case in 2002, the initial year of grant funding. The very first TIM meeting was hosted by Dave Reingold at Juniata College. At this meeting each PUI faculty member presented an overview of his or her research. For some of the participating faculty this was a rare opportunity to have deep, insightful conversations with other like-minded faculty about their research. Without exception, the faculty found this extremely beneficial. The student interactions with faculty and other students were also very positive. To help develop the student cohort, housing was arranged so that, whenever possible, students from different research groups roomed together. Unfortunately, none of the R1 mentors that had agreed to work with us were availale for the first meeting. The 2002 mid-summer meeting was held in concert with the Reaction Mechanisms Conference (RMC) at The Ohio State University. Our original plan assumed that the national meetings would have afternoons off, and we would sandwich our own meetings around the morning and evening sessions of the national meeting. Unfortunately, the RMC was scheduled solidly from morning to night. Thus, we arranged to come a day early and have our meeting before the official events began. We found this approach worked well in that our students were finished with TIM business when the conference started and they could concentrate on the conference without have their own presentations looming over them. Our students enjoyed the conference very much, and were a 62

well noticed presence: since several of us brought extra students with us, there were a total of 24 people there from the TIM Consortium; we represented more than 10% of the entire conference. The presence of the Consortium at national meetings over the years has had a significant impact that will be discussed later. Scientifically and socially this meeting was a bit of a challenge for the undergraduate participants. While the students generally enjoyed the meeting there were few other undergraduate students in attendance other than our own group. Also, the level of the presentations was often beyond the students’ knowledge base. In the second year of the funding cycle it was decided to go from three meetings per summer to two. The major reason for this was the national meeting we had selected was the National Organic Symposium (NOS). In 2003 the NOS was held in early June instead of its normal time in late June. We saw little profit in meeting the first week of June for our “first” meeting, followed by a “middle” meeting a week later. Accordingly, we decided to combine the two, and use the NOS as a site for both the introductory talks and progress reports. This schedule had both advantages and disadvantages. The overall TIM meeting was longer because both faculty introductions and progress reports were included. On the other hand, the combined first and second meeting caused considerably less disruption of the research in the lab, and arguably more progress was made on the actual projects. The success of the two-meeting schedule in the second year made it the faculty preference for every year since. In year three, this also aligned well with the meeting that we decided to attend, the Sixth International Symposium on Functional Pi Systems (Fπ6), which was again in early June. This summer also marked the first time that our R1 mentor was able to join us at both the introductory and end-of-summer meetings. In more recent years, our established pattern is to hold this first TIM Consortium meeting in conjunction with a national conference (typically the NOS or RMC) and with our R1 mentor in attendance. It is the first opportunity for the Consortium members and R1 mentor to meet, learn about the projects of other Consortium members, and have an opportunity to discuss initial research problems. The structure of this initial meeting has been adapted significantly since the inception of the program to make it highly interactive between students from different institutions. In addition to icebreaker activities to begin the meeting, we have adopted a breakout-session format where students brainstorm answers to chemistry questions related to each TIM faculty members’ research projects prior to each presentation. The students work in small groups with each member from a different school. The faculty, including the R1 mentor, move between groups interacting with the students and helping guide their discussions when necessary. The TIM Consortium faculty then present short overviews of their research programs, focusing on the chemistry that will be undertaken by their REU students. The presentations are specifically targeted to the undergraduate audience, and provide all the REU participants with background to have informed conversations about the various student research projects. There is then the opportunity for the collective faculty, including the R1 mentor, to offer advice regarding troubleshooting and new avenues for exploration, and this allows 63

students to observe peer-to-peer scientific discourse at the faculty level. The meeting concludes with an interactive presentation by the R1 mentor on an professional develoment topic of her/his choice, such as admissions into graduate school, the differences between undergraduate and graduate research, scientific ethics, etc. We have found that this meeting structure serves as an excellent platform for our students to participate in an active science setting. It also prepares them for the national conference, which immediately follows and is attended by all REU program participants.

The End-of-Summer TIM Symposium The second TIM Consortium meeting is organized as a stand-alone research symposium at the end of the summer research season, combining research presentations by all students with a keynote lecture by the R1 mentor. This meeting is focused on student professional development through the preparation and execution of their oral research presentations, and ultimately is a time to reflect upon and recognize each student’s progress and summer maturation. Student preparation for this meeting is significant: each student spends substantial time crafting and practicing their presentation while being guided by their research mentor. For most of the REU participants, this is their first experience giving an oral science presentation. Each faculty mentor uses the presentations as a teaching tool to hone students’ understanding of the underlying science, while also building their public speaking skills. Finally, the last pieces of assessment data are collected at this meeting through both on-line surveys and interviews by an external evaluator. With the excpetion of integrating an ethics component into the meeting (see below), it has changed little from its original format. Scientific Ethics Training Beginning in 2016, the TIM Consortium began integrating an ethics curriculum into its program structure to expand upon and reinforce the online NSF Ethics Training Modules for Responsible Conduct of Research. Ideally, three separate components were envisioned to be included and reinforced throughout the summer. The first component would be at the first summer meeting, introducing students to carefully selected case studies. The second component would be at each home institute over the summer and the third component would take place at the end of summer meeting. Our effort to include ethics at the first meeting of 2016 was not successful. We found we did not have time needed to address this in an already full schedule. While we did have a modified ethics discussion at the end of summer meeting, we made significant modification for the summer of 2017 cohort. During the summer of 2017, each TIM faculty member used a common set of case studies to have an ethics discussion with their research group at some point over the summer. At the end-of-summer TIM Consortium meeting the students revisited the case studies in a round table discussion. Groups of two or three students from different schools discussed one of the case studies and presented 64

their analysis to the group. After expressing their opinions on the case study, discussion was opened up to everyone. Students and faculty alike find this a very effective approach and the Consortium will continue to use this model in the future. Our Mentors One of the key features of our program is the role played by the R1 faculty mentors. With the exception of the early meetings in the first two years of the Consortium, the R1 mentor has joined the group at every introductory and end of summer meeting. Table 2 shows a list of our R1 mentors and their affiliation. In choosing our mentors we look for leaders in applications based chemistry with a strong synthetic component. We obtain letters of participation from our mentors prior to submission of the proposal with a general understanding of the summer that they would be expected to participate. This is naturally one to three years ahead of when a particular mentor would actually be involved with the group. Because of commitments that cannot be anticipated, on occasion we do have to find replacement mentors. Although this is an inconvenice in planning we have always been able to find outstanding individuals to fill in. At the conclusion of their participation with the Consortium we ask for a letter of reflection on their experience to be used both as feedback and as support in future grant submissions.

Table 2. TIM Consortium R1 Mentors Year

Mentor

Affiliation

2002

Mike Haley

University of Oregon

2003

Larry Scott

Boston College

2004

Jay Seigel

University of Zurich

2006

John Baldwin

Syracuse University

2007

Rik Tykwinski

University of Alberta

2008

Tim Swager

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2012

Cassandra Fraser

University of Virginia

2013

Darren Johnson

University of Oregon

2014

Eric Anslyn

University of Texas, Austin

2016

Robert Bergman

University of California, Berkeley

2017

Craig Hawker

University of California, Santa Barbara

Logistics Program Coordinator The dispersed nature of the consortium requires that the program financially be run through of one of the PUI schools with the faculty participant at that school 65

serving as Program Coordinator. It is the responsibility of the Program Coordinator to organize the groups’ participation at a national meeting, take care of consortium finances, make arrangements with the R1 mentor and report to the NSF. Finances Currently the program is run through Northern Kentucky University. Since stipends and supply support are consistent over the three years of an award, those are easly handled by subcontracts. The four other PUIs originally receive a subcontract for two students and supplies. Because the current award includes a total of eleven students, five internal and six external, NKU starts with three students. This allows only one subcontract to be altered based on which school takes two external students. The school that takes the extra student is by mutual agreement among consortium faculty. With the exception of student stipends the most significant expenses for the consortium are those related to travel and registration at the national meeting. Since the amount each school would need to cover travel costs can change drastically from year to year, based on fluctuating transit costs and locations of meetings, it is not possible to include a well defined amount as part of a subcontract. Therefore, the entire travel budget for the consortium and conference registration is part of the NKU budget. As much as possible, travel costs are covered by reimbursement, while conference costs are taken care of by direct payment through the Program Director. The TIM Meeting at National Conferences One of the biggest challenges of running this consortium is arranging our TIM meetings in concert with national meetings. Unlike the end-of-summer meeting, the national meetings are not held on the campus of one of the participating PUI schools. Thus, there is no on-site coordinator for our group. In general we have been very lucky that most meeting organizers are very helpful and well-organized. Our TIM meeting is held either one day before the start of the national meeting (when they have early first day conference opening) or on the same day as the start of the national meeting (when there is an evening conference opening). This requires most, if not all, of our group to arrive the evening before our meeting. On occasion it has been possible to work directly with conference housing to get early access to the dormitories. However, contracts for dormitory space associated with the conferences often are signed six months or more in advance of the meeting, before meeting registration is even open. It can be very difficult to modify those contracts, even when working months ahead of the meeting. In cases where we are not able to get into the dormitories early we necessarily must book a hotel. That creates additional problems, not only because of the cost, but because we would like to stay as a group and need to secure transportation from the hotel to the site where we will have our TIM meeting. Since most of the TIM meetings are held on a university campus, the local arrangements contact is usually able to secure a room with appropriate audio-visual equipment for our group. 66

In addition to having our own meeting we also attend the national meeting. That means that our entire group, which can be close to 25 people, needs to register. Since it is our goal to attend as a group we try to stay together. This requires coordination of housing and registration. As mentioned previously, we pair up undergraduates as much as possible so that no two students from the same school room together. We also do our best to pair the students who are REU participants before mixing in the additional non-TIM students who may come with their PUI faculty. TIM faculty also partner up as best as possible. Since the R1 mentor does not receive an honorarium, we give that individual the option of staying with the rest of the group or in a hotel. While most do choose a hotel, all have been very willing to have the consortium only reimburse an amount equal to the cost of standard conference housing. In many cases we have been able to handle registration and housing by working directy with conference services rather than filling out individual applications on line. We are often able to provide a single application for the entire group in spreadsheet form with room assignments included.

The Results Benefits to Students While educational studies continue to emphasize the importance of undergraduate research for the intellectual growth and persistence of young scientists, quantitative and impartial evaluation of these research experiences is an ongoing challenge. With the establishment of the TIM Consortium REU program, it became critical to measure the success of the model against other summer research opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In 2003, Lopatto initiated the HHMI-funded Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) in an attempt to quantitatively assess both NSF-funded and other summer research programs (5). The SURE survey continues to be used as a key tool for evaluating the effectiveness of undergraduate summer research: “[The SURE survey] provides a quantitative index of learning gains, documents the intent of the student to continue with a science education, and exposes the different experiences of students who are enthusiastic about further work in science compared to students who are discouraged (6).”

Learning Gains The TIM Consortium has incorporated the SURE survey into our REU program for the 2007-2008, 2012-2014, 2016 and 2017 cohorts. As shown in the aggregated data in Figure 1, TIM Consortium students report significantly higher levels of satisfaction and achievement as compared to alternative summer research opportunities. TIM Consortium students report higher gains on nearly every survey question: topics that measure personal maturation, intellectual/scientific development, presentation skills, and persistence in a scientific field/higher 67

education. The consistency of these data demonstrate that the TIM Consortium dispersed REU site, created through a community of research-active PUI faculty, is a powerful learning environment that produces measurably better outcomes than other summer research programs (both REU and non-REU).

Figure 1. Selected data from the Lopatto survey, 2007-2014.

Career Outcomes Career outcomes for students from each granting periods 2002 to 2014 are shown in Table 3. One student went on to attend graduate school at the University of Zurich and worked with Jay Siegel, a second student attended Erlangen to work with Rik Tykwinski, and one TIM REU student went on to conduct undergraduate research with Tim Swager before attending graduate school. In all three cases, the TIM Consortium created the initial relationship between student and mentor. Several of our external minority students have had noteworthy outcomes. Darien Harper, an African American student from Armstrong State University, leveraged his REU experience into a research position at a local chemical company (SNF Chemtall). Gerardo Sorriano, a Latino (former community college) student and TIM Consortium alumnus in 2012, has since transferred to San Diego State University (SDSU). At SDSU he received NIH-sponsored Minorities Access to Research Careers (MARC) funding, a highly prestigious award. Gerardo conducted research with Professor Steven Craig (Duke University) over the summer of 2013, after meeting him at the Reaction Mechanisms Conference in 2012 while participating in the TIM Consortium. Gerardo is author on one paper from Peter Iovine’s group and one paper from Steven Craig’s group. Finally, Gerardo won the “President’s Award” at SDSU for his ongoing research efforts 68

and represented his institution at the CSU Student Research competition in 2015. Matt Miles was a non-traditional internal student at NKU and a military veteran. The Consortium was his first research experience, and this was formative in leading him to establish his own start-up company, Verdant Applied Sciences. His company was awarded first place in the ACS 2015 Green Chemistry and Engineering Business Plan Competition.

Table 3. Career Outcomes for TIM Consortium Participants REU Years

Grad School

Med/Dental/ Law/Pharmacy

Industry/ Teaching

2002-04

20

4

2

2006-08

18

7

4

2012-14a

9

5

4

a

Does not include nine students who were still undergraduates when this data was compiled.

Broader Impacts One unique outcome of the TIM Consortium has been related to our participation at national meetings. During the first years of the Consortium our faculty noticed that there was a discrepancy between the level of the talks at the national meetings and the undergraduate students’ ability to understand the material. This is not surprising since, in general, relatively few undergraduate students attended these meetings. Furthermore, it was unlikely that undergraduates would feel comfortable asking questions of the seminar speaker from the floor of a national conference. This led the group to initiate Undergraduate Context Sessions (Figure 2) (7). At the context sessions, TIM faculty collect questions from the undergraduate students in the audience and then guide the group in answering the questions. TIM faculty first look for topics that have a common thread so that those ideas can be associated through a series of questions. Importantly, the first opportunity to answer questions is given to the undergraduate students in the audience. Next, the opportunity goes to graduate students, then post-doctoral fellows and finally any faculty members present. This intentional guidance of the session makes the undergraduates a central part of the scientific discourse. The contexts sessions are generally well attended, often with 50 or more individuals present. On ocassion keynote speakers from the conference and Noble Laureates have dropped by to participate in the discussion. The Context Sessions have also become a popular place for networking among faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions for looking to recruit new hires. The NOS has made Undergraduate Context Sessions an official part of their program since 2011 and the RMC since 2012. We have been fortunate that since our first formal context session in 2004 at the Fπ6 conference, meeting organizers or sponsors have supported this activity by providing pizza and drinks. Our faculty remain 69

so dedicated to these events that even in years where the Consortium was not funded, TIM faculty have held context sessions at both the NOS and RMC. The consistent presence of the TIM Consortium at the NOS and RMC has also had an impact on the tenor of these meetings. First off, we have seen the number of undergraduate students at these meetings increase over the years. Secondly, conference speakers have also taken note of the undergraduate presence in the audience, often including additional background information in their presentations to specifically address these students. Outside of the world of organic chemistry, the idea of undergraduate context sessions is also gaining traction. The Conference Experience for Undergraduates (CEU) for the Division of Nuclear Physics of the American Physical Society (APS) is exploring the possibility of implementing similar context sessions into their meeting program.

Figure 2. Undergraduate Context Session at the 36th Reaction Mechanisms Conference, St. Louis University, 2016. Photo courtesy of KC Russell.

The Future of the Consortium We are optimistic about the future of the TIM Consortium as we prepare to apply for another cycle of funding. Based on the feeback from our students and our external evaluator, we believe that the general format of the Consortium is strong: two meetings per summer (one in concert with a national meeting), a highly interactive R1 faculty mentor, strong research and ethics components and high quality student research presentations. However, one need that we had not considered until recently is possibility of having a larger pool of TIM faculty members. Given the expense of travel, we 70

are currently limited to five active faculty members per summer. However, over the past 14 years we’ve experienced situations where one our faculty members was only able to participate in a limited capacity, or not at all, for one particular summer of the grant cycle. As with our R1 mentors, we have always been able to work around these issues without detriment to the Consortium. Moving forward we will explore the possibility of increasing the number of TIM faculty by one or two members. These additional faculty would allow faculty participants to cycle out each summer. While the final details are still being developed, this model would ease the three year commitment of current faculty participants and offer additional opportunities for early career PUI faculty to get involved in our program.

Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the National Science Foundation for their generous funding of the TIM Consortium though the following awards: CHE-0138640, 2002-2004; CHE-0552292, 2006-2008; CHE 1062944, 2011-2014; and CHE-1559886, 2016-2018. We are also indebted to the following faculty who have in the past been, or are currently, involved with the program: John Bender, Ron Brisbois, Pete Iovine, Jeff Katz, Nancy Mills, Tom Mitzel, Kathleen Mondanaro, David Reingold, Joan Schellinger and Ellen Yezierski. In addition, we wish to recognize the many significant contributions made by our R1 mentors, Eric Anslyn, John Baldwin, Robert Bergman, Cassandra Fraser, Mike Haley, Craig Hawker, Darren Johnson, Larry Scott, Jay Seigel, Tim Swager and Rik Tykwinski. Finally, we would like to express our deep appreciation to all of the individuals who have assisted in the implementation of this award, particularly with respect to helping arrage our participation at national and TIM Symposium meetings.

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU), Program Solicitation, NSF13-542, 2013. Manduca, C. A.; Woodard, H. H. Research groups for undergraduate students and faculty in the Keck Geology Consortium. J. Geo. Educ. 1995, 4, 400–403. Keck Geology Consortium. https://keckgeology.org/ (accessed March 17, 2018). Reingold, I. D. The dispersed REU site: A new model for interactions among undergraduate chemistry faculty. CUR Quarterly 2003, 24, 10–13. Lopatto, D. Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings. Cell Biology Education 2004, 3, 270–277. Lopatto, D. Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research: The SURE survey. In Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science; Taraban, R., Blanton, R. L., Eds.; Teacher’s College Press: New York, 2008; pp 112−132. Reingold, I. D.; Russell, K. C.; Brisbois, R.; Mills, N.; Mitzel, T.; Mondanaro, K.; Katz, J. Undergraduate context sessions: How to help undergraduates get more out of professional meetings. CUR Quarterly 2008, 29, 39–41.

71

Chapter 6

Chemistry REU Leadership Group: Support for the Chemistry Undergraduate Research Community Linette M. Watkins*,1 and Jeffrey D. Evanseck2 1Chemistry and Biochemistry, James Madison University, 901 Carrier Dr., MSC 4501, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, United States 2Chemistry and Biochemistry, Duquesne University, 600 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15282-0001, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

The Division of Chemistry of the National Science Foundation (NSF) assembled a small external committee of faculty members with proven records of undergraduate research in 2002 to assist the NSF Chemistry Special Programs Officer with the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program. The committee was named the Leadership Group (LG) with the purpose to support, inspire, and communicate with the principal investigators (PIs) within the funded portfolio of REU chemistry sites of more than 600 undergraduate researchers per year. The LG is a committee of ten members, each with a three-year term and elected chairperson. Every effort is made to maintain membership with broader participation from underrepresented groups and diverse institutions across all geographical regions. The major efforts of the LG are to advertise and promote the REU program, create and distribute tools and programmatic materials to PIs, provide travel support for student participants, increase interactions among sites, facilitate communication between the Program Officer and PIs, and assess impact of the REU program. Over its history, more than fifty PIs have served as volunteer members of the LG and have organized or participated in four Chemistry REU PI workshops, two Pan-REU meetings, and dozens of symposia, workshops and meetings. The LG has been successful and

© 2018 American Chemical Society

continues to support the REU program in preparing a diverse, globally engaged STEM workforce.

LG Mission The Chemistry Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Leadership Group (LG) is composed of a subset of REU principal investigators (PIs) and its activities have been supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) since 2002. Its mission is to support and improve the REU program through workshops, travel grants, symposia, and other innovative activities and provide guidance to current and prospective REU Site PIs. The LG serves as an important advocacy group representing the chemistry undergraduate research community nationwide (1).

LG History In March of 2001, the “Workshop for Chemistry REU Site Directors” (modeled after a workshop that had taken place 11 years earlier) was held at NSF (NSF Grant No. 0109932). The effort, organized by Heinz Koch (PI) with the assistance of Daniel Akins, Lon Knight, Nancy Levinger and Barbara Schowen was held at the NSF headquarter and involved all of the chemistry REU PIs. The participants, divided into groups discussed recruiting, participant demographics, institutional impact, student research experience, assessment, communications and resources. Panels were held on five topics including the Research Experiences of Teachers (RET) program, outreach and recruitment, international REU sites, program activities, and outcomes. To maintain the momentum from the March 2001 workshop, and to address its recommendations, John Stevens, then the director of Special Programs in NSF Chemistry, solicited individuals to form the NSF Chemistry REU Leadership Group (LG). Working as a team, the LG crafted a plan and obtained funding for a number of initiatives in support of the chemistry REU community. The first Chemistry REU LG grant, led by Nancy Levinger (PI) and Mary Boyd (co-PI), was entitled “Developing an Active and Diverse Undergraduate Chemistry Research Program” (NSF Grant No. 0231564). Regular meetings of the leadership group were supported to enable implementation of the recommendations that came out of the 2001 Chemistry REU PI Workshop including program evaluation and increasing cooperation between different programs. The activities of the first LG were to hold a workshop for selected REU and LS-AMP (Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation) Program Directors to explore ways to work together to better serve the students in both programs. Travel grants were also provided to support directly student travel to spring National ACS (American Chemical Society) meetings, with a goal of directly supporting 50 students a year and facilitating attendance of 100-150 students at each year’s meetings (2). The second Chemistry REU LG grant, led by Randy Duran (PI) and Mary Boyd (co-PI), was entitled “Chemistry REU Leadership Group: Developing an 74

Active and Diverse Undergraduate Chemistry Research Program” (NSF Grant No. 0415774). In addition to supporting regular meetings of the LG to discuss program evaluations and cooperation, this grant supported student travel to professional meetings and increased communication between REU Sites and between the REU community and prospective student participants. The LG group created and maintained the “Celebration of Undergraduate Research” web site, which was active between 2004 and 2006. The site offered students a location to upload information about their REU research experience in a convenient format. The site content was searchable by student name, institution, host institution, geographic location, discipline, congressional district, etc. The Chemistry REU leadership group also organized the first multidisciplinary REU (Pan-REU, where Pan means “All”) site director’s meeting in the spring of 2005. The Pan-REU meeting was jointly sponsored by the Directorates of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Education and Human Resources, Computer and Information Science and Engineering, Engineering, Geosciences, and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. More information about the Pan-REU meetings will be provided later in this chapter. The third Chemistry REU LG grant, led by Gloria Thomas (PI) and Graham Peaslee (co-PI), was entitled “The Chemistry REU Leadership Group: Improving, Expanding and Diversifying the REU Experience” (NSF Grant No. 0739442) The Chemistry REU program had grown and the LG sought to increase communication among REU directors and with the NSF, increase the diversity of the students in the REU program, increase the number of REU opportunities, and improve evaluation and assessment of the Chemistry REU program. Activities included hosting an LS-AMP/REU meeting for Chemistry REU site directors and LS-AMP representatives, and hosting an LS-AMP/REU joint workshop for faculty. This funding cycle did not include travel awards for students. However, a separate NSF-funded Chemistry REU travel award program administered by David Haines (PI) provided support for over 75 students and their mentors to attend the Spring 2008 ACS National meeting in New Orleans (NSF Grant No . An awards reception was attended over 160 REU students, their mentors, NSF program officers and members of the ACS Younger Chemist Committee (2). The most recent Chemistry REU LG grant, led by Jeff Evanseck (PI), is entitled “Chemistry REU Leadership Group” (NSF Grant No. 1258759). This most recent effort had the goals to enhance communications within the Chemistry REU community and with the NSF program director, to broaden participation of underserved students in the Chemistry REU program, to nurture the genesis, development and evaluations of new ideas for the Chemistry REU community, and to promote and reinforce the quality and efficiency of the Chemistry REU sites. The LG held regular meetings to plan and carry out activities, revised and created content for a revised website, created a webinar, held annual symposia at national meetings, and promoted the Chemistry REU through booths at national and regional ACS meetings and at national meetings of sister societies. The LG also worked with the program officers for the Chemistry REU program and the LS-AMP program to bring together stakeholders in an effort to create synergistic partnerships with minority serving programs and organizations that pursue the common goal of enhancing undergraduate education. 75

LG Membership The leadership group is composed of ten Chemistry REU PIs representing the range of REU sites in the program. Over the sixteen years of the program, over fifty individuals have served on the LG. The typical time of service on the LG is three years, but can be longer as individuals serve in leadership roles, such as chair of the LG or as the PI of one of the grants supporting the activities of the LG. Individuals interested in serving on the leadership group should contact the current chair of the LG. The name of the current chair can be found on the LG website (www.chemnsfreu.com). The LG seeks volunteers who are passionate about the REU program and who represent the diversity of the REU sites with respect to several factors including geography, type of REU, and years of involvement in the REU program. The chair of the chemistry REU LG is selected from within the membership of the LG and typically serves a one-year term as chair. The LG members that have served as the chair of the leadership group are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Past Chairs of the Leadership Group (1, 2) Year

Name

Affilation at the time

2002

Scott Nickolaisen

California State, Los Angeles

2003

Nancy Levinger

Colorado State University

2004

Mary Boyd

Georgia Southern University

2005

Randy Duran

University of Florida

2006

Graham Peaslee

Hope College

2007

Gloria Thomas

Xavier University

2008

Jennifer Brodbelt

University of Texas, Austin

2009

Tim Hanks

Furman University

2010

Jeff Evanseck

Duquesne University

2011

Sarah Larsen

University of Iowa

2012

Holly Gaede

Texas A&M University

2013-15

Justin Fermann

University of Mass, Amherst

2016

Karen Buchmueller

Furman University

2017

Linette Watkins

James Madison University

2018

Valeria Kleiman

University of Florida

The LG and the LG chair do not represent the NSF, but rather work with the NSF Chemistry REU Program Officer to enhance communication from the Chemistry REU community to the NSF and to provide a continuity of information as program officers move to new positions within Chemistry, the Math and 76

Physical Science Directorate or within NSF. The Program officers that have served during the time of the LG are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. NSF Chemistry REU Program Officers Name

Dates

John Stevens

2001-2002

Robert Kuzcowski

2002-2004

Richard Foust

2005-2007

Ron Christensen

2007-2008

Kathy Covert

2008

Wilfredo (Freddie) Colon

2008-2009

Charles Pibel

2009-2011

Ty Mitchell

2011-2015

Michelle Bushey

2015-current

While the specific activities of the LG have evolved over the course of the past 16 years, there are common goals that have been constant throughout the years. These are communication, broadening participation, and improving the quality, prestige and efficiency of the Chemistry REU program. The LG meets semiannually to discuss and plan action on issues related to the NSF Chemistry REU program as a result of feedback provided by the REU sites. The PI workshop has been the major mechanism by which the LG can enhance communication within the CHE REU community, and learn ways in which the LG can work to provide support for the CHE REU community. In years when a PI workshop is not being held, REU sites communicate with the LG via email or via direct communication at regional, national or sister society meetings.

PI Workshops All current Chemistry REU PIs and a limited number of prospective REU PIs (in 2015 and 2018) are invited to participate in the Chemistry REU workshops via pre-meeting surveys and attendance at the meetings. While some portions of the PI workshop schedule are determined prior to submission of the proposal for funding, there has always been a portion of the workshop that is devoted to topics from the REU Site Directors as determined by the pre-meeting surveys. PI workshops include keynotes on community wide issues (e.g. broadening participation and assessment), small group discussions and idea sharing, and breakout groups on topics of interest to smaller groups within the REU community. The goals of all of the Chemistry REU PI workshops are to bring in outside experts on timely topics of interest to REU community, receive and provide feedback to NSF through 77

interaction with program officer, and provide a venue for sharing information, feedback, and resources between sites. The original Chemistry REU PI workshops were held at NSF in 1990 and 2001 and the 2001 workshop led to the formation of the leadership group in 2002. The leadership group began seeking funding for and organizing regular Chemistry REU PI workshops to be held at three-year intervals beginning in 2009. The 2009 workshop “Enhancing REU Programs through a Meeting of Chemistry PIs” was led by Cynthia Larive (PI) and Tim Hanks (co-PI) (NSF Grant No. 0927382). The three-day workshop focused on four major themes including assessment of Chemistry REU LG, evaluation of the Chemistry REU program, assessment of efforts to increase participation by underrepresented students, and sharing highly effective practices within the Chemistry REU community. The 2012 Chemistry REU PI workshop “A Chemistry REU PI Workshop: The Next 25 Years” led by Sarah Larsen (PI), brought together Chemistry REU PIs to celebrate the first 25 years of the Chemistry REU programs and to look forward to improving the program over the next 25 years (NSF Grant No. 1160037). In addition to keynote talks and breakout groups on broadening participation and program assessment, this workshop also included discussions on research ethics, a topic that had gained prominence in research training at the time. REU Site Directors were provided formal and informal opportunities to share best practices, and provide feedback to the LG regarding future direction of LG activities. The most recent Chemistry REU PI workshop “Chemistry REU Principal Investigators’ Workshop” was led by Hongtao Yu (PI) and Justin Fermann (organizer) in the summer of 2015 (NSF Grant No. 1464639). In addition to the usual topics of a PI workshop, a new focus of this workshop was to help develop Chemistry REU Site Directors as more effective leaders and advocates for undergraduate research at their home institutions. Discussions were held on managing the logistics of an REU Site, the importance of recruiting a diverse cohort, means by which REU sites can increase success of community college and non-traditional students, and building professional networks for PIs and student participants. The next Chemistry REU PI workshop will be held in July of 2018.

Communication There has always been a need to increase communication both within and outside the CHE REU community. As communication means have changed, the LG has also adapted and worked to keep the community informed of the changes occurring. The LG maintains a list of all current and past REU site directors (obtained via FastLane searches) and shares information periodically throughout the year via email, webinars, and the Chemistry REU LG website.

LG Websites The REU community present at the 2012 PI workshop was adamant that there was a need for improved communication. There was a general perception that improvements in communication would deliver immediate results in enabling 78

Site Directors to acquire new knowledge to impact the quality of each site. The overall purpose of improving communication is to reduce the “re-inventing of the wheel” that occurs at each independent REU site, and to help disseminate the “best practices” from each REU site to the larger community (3). Three different Chemistry REU leadership group websites have been developed over the last 16 years. There have always been challenges in maintaining and updated the information on the site. The most current iteration of the website (www.chemnsfreu.com) takes the most important features of earlier websites and creates an updated, interactive site that advertises, promotes, and acts as a resource, especially for newly established sites. The framework for the site was established using the earlier templates. However, there are a number of improvements in the new site: (1) it is more interactive, (2) it contains practical documents for PIs to start up a new REU site or to implement a new aspect at an existing site, (3) it contains student resources on applying for REU programs and tools to support their activities and transition to graduate school (in progress), and (4) the software allows for new material to be easily added on the website. The new updated website went live in 2017. The resources available for students on the website include (1) • • • •

Student Eligibility information REU Application Information Link to the most up-to-date Chemistry REU site list Interactive map of the current REU sites

The resources for current and prospective PIs include articles on different aspects of planning and carrying out an REU program. The number of articles continues to increase and the LG would welcome suggestions from the community on other topics of interest. The articles currently available on the REU site include the following (1) • • • • • • • •

Helpful Hints Leveraging Resources Mentor Training Paying Participants Volunteer Online Application Tips Tracking REU Students Timeline for Starting a Program

LG Presence at Meetings As part of our work toward communication and broadening participation, the LG has piloted a program to advertise current Chemistry REU Sites at the National ACS meetings, Regional ACS meetings, and at minority-serving science society meetings (e.g. NOBCChE, AISES, SACNAS). One to two LG members attend 79

these meetings and if no LG member is available then the REU community is asked for volunteers to staff the booth. At these booths, interaction with students is promoted by personalized communication, providing explanations about the REU to students and home-institution mentors; clarifying, for example, that this is a paid and prestigious opportunity. This effort has been supported by the development of strategic recruiting materials that have ensured that students effectively reach the LG presentation booths. Materials that have been developed include tablets and binders that include advertising flyers provided to the LG by the individual Chemistry REU Sites via email and a DropBox folder. All students and faculty that visit the booths are given business cards, shown the interactive websites, and encouraged to promote the website and REU application to students and peers. Minority-serving science meetings offer a tremendous opportunity for targeted recruitment of highly qualified underrepresented chemistry students. At each meeting, a graduate recruiting or career fair is held that provides direct interaction with a large number of undergraduates that are looking for professional development activities such as the Chemistry REU. At these meetings, LG members or members of the Chemistry REU community interact with faculty (primarily from local colleges and universities) as they accompany groups of undergraduates. Over the last two years, the LG initiated a program to establish a recruiting presence at the following minority-serving science meetings: • • • •

National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE) Society for the Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS)

Regional ACS meetings also provide an opportunity to interact with larger numbers of undergraduate students from underserved communities. Over the last two years, the LG has expanded recruiting activities to include up to four ACS regional Meetings a year. The ten ACS regions, which hold meetings annually or biennially are: • • • • • • • • • •

Central (CERM) Great Lakes (GLRM) Middle Atlantic (MARM) Midwest (MWRM) Northwest (NORM) Northeast (NERM) Rocky Mountain (RMRM) Southeastern (SERMACS) Southwest (SWRM) Western (WRM)

80

Symposia at ACS National Neetings The LG has worked to disseminate information about REU Sites through several mechanisms, including booth and symposia at National ACS meeting, regional ACS meetings and National Meetings of sister societies. Over the last several years, the LG has organized and hosted annual symposia at the Spring ACS National meetings. These symposia, including “Proposing and Administering a Successful REU Program”, “Successful REU Programs”, and “REU Chemistry in Action: Student Perspectives” were first directed at informing, attracting and preparing future PI site applicants of the REU program. The idea is to promote the exchange of information with current REU PIs, to educate the chemistry community about important elements of REU proposals and programs, and to better prepare applicant PIs of the REU program. However, by far the most popular of the symposia have been the ones that have featured students as speakers. The students presented both on the research that was carried out during the summer REU experience and the impact that the REU experience had on their career trajectory.

Webinar In an effort to provide resources for PI Site Directors interested in broadening participation, the LG wrote, produced and disseminated its first webinar in 2016. This first webinar in a proposed series of webinars, is entitled “Advice on Broadening Participation in REU Programs” and can be found at on the LG website (4). The narrated 10-minute slide show describes the NSF commitment to broadening participation, defines broadening participation, provides guidelines on how to develop authentic partnerships to reach underserved populations, and discusses inclusive practices in recruitment, selection and mentoring of participants.

Liaison among REU Communities The first Pan-REU workshop was held in 2005 and included experienced site directors from all seven directorates of the NSF in a three-day discussion of best practices and emerging issues. The kick-off poster session was hosted at the US Congress House Science Subcommittee room and included six congressmen and more than 40 congressional staff members. A workshop followed at the NSF headquarters and included keynote speakers and panel discussions on the impact of the REU on the national level, the impact of the REU experience on students, and strategies and models for running and assessing the REU program. A list of recommendations for all REU sites was created after each discussion (5). The most recent Pan-REU PI workshop “Leveraging Excellence Through Collaboration Across REU Programs” was held in 2016. Two members of the Chemistry REU community helped plan the workshop and an additional seven Chemistry REU PIs were included in the workshop. The goals of the workshop were to build community across the NSF REU disciplinary PIs, identify areas of collaboration that could increase access and diversity across NSF REU 81

programs, and plan for collaborative initiatives by identifying leaders and forming working teams. The meeting included a poster session, networking dinner, NSF program officer panel, best practice breakout sessions, common assessment and evaluation tool presentation, and action planning working group discussions. The meeting demonstrated that there is a clear need to open lines of communication amongst different REU disciplines. The Chemistry REU LG strives to improve communication with the other LGs and to promote the sharing of best practices at the leadership group level and will continue to work on interdisciplinary efforts in this area (6).

Future Directions of the LG The future direction of the LG is determined by needs of the Chemistry REU community and the availability of funding to carry out activities to support the community. There is always a need to inform and educate new PIs and Site Directors. While a handful of REU sites have been in existence for more than twenty years, it is much more common for REU sites to turnover and move to different locations across the country (Figure 1). The turnover of REU PIs will always require some information sharing amongst the new sites and the more experienced sites. This increases efficiency by not reinventing the wheel at every site while allowing for new ideas to enter the community. In addition, ideas of broadening participation, student tracking, assessment metrics, and a common application have been discussed for as long as there has been an LG. These conversations have evolved and will continue to evolve over time. For instance, the conversation on broadening participation has evolved from recruitment and selection of diverse student populations to participate in the REU sites, to changing the culture of REU sites to be more inclusive for student from diverse backgrounds and experiences. With regard to the student tracking and the common application, the America Competes Act requires the NSF to better track long-term student outcomes from the REU program. As a result, the conversation for the LG has moved from one of developing and implementing tracking mechanisms to one of serving as a liaison with Mathematica, the vendor that is working with the NSF to comply with the congressional mandate. Just as the Chemistry REU program has evolved and improved to better serve the needs of the nation and the Chemistry community, the Chemistry REU Leadership Group will continue to reach out to the REU Sites and provide activities and support so that Chemistry REU sites can continue to “offer an opportunity to tap the nation’s diverse student talent pool and broaden participation in science and engineering” efficiently and effectively (7).

82

Figure 1. Distribution of CHE REU grants awarded to 186 unique CHEM REU Sites funded between 1987 and 2017. Some sites received both domestic and international REU awards that ran concurrently. (Data obtained from NSF abstract search of CHE awards from 1987 to 2017).

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge all of the Chemistry REU Sites, LG members, student members, and NSF program officers that have supported this effort over the last 16 years. The activities of the LG have been supported by the NSF Chemistry division under NSF Grant Nos. 0109932, 0231564, 0415774, 0739442, 0927382, 1160037, 1258759, and 1464639.

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

NSF Chemistry REU Leadership Group. https://chemnsfreu.com/ (accessed Feb. 7, 2018). Research Experiences for Undergraduates-Leadership Group. https:// reulg.chem.ufl.edu/ (accessed Feb. 7, 2018). Larsen, S. 2012 PI Workshop Report for the NSF, August 2012. Advice on Broadening Participation in REU Programs. https://chemnsfreu.com/ webinars/broadening-reu-participation (accessed Feb. 7, 2018). Duran, R.; Boyd, M.; Cohen, A.; Affatigato, M.; Dixon, P.; Becker, C.; Hannigan, R.; Sutherland, K.; Vetelino, J. A Celebration of Undergraduate Research; PAN REU Report for the NSF; Arlington, VA, August 2006. Branchaw, J.; Buchmueller, K. 2016 PAN REU Workshop; Final Report for the NSF; Arlington, VA, April 2016. https://cpaess.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/ meetings/2016/documents/2016PanREUPIWorkshopReport_Final.pdf. NSF 13542 Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU). https:// www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm (accessed Feb. 7, 2018.

83

Chapter 7

The Chemistry REU Program at West Virginia University Brian V. Popp* and Michelle Richards-Babb* C. Eugene Bennett Department of Chemistry, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, United States *E-mails: [email protected] (B.V. Popp); [email protected] (M. Richards-Babb).

As one of the foundational STEM programs at the flagship land-grant institution of West Virginia, the Department of Chemistry at West Virginia University has a longstanding commitment to providing undergraduate chemistry and biochemistry majors with significant research training opportunities. Building upon best practices identified while administering a highly successful interdisciplinary Nanomaterials-focused REU Site to nearly 100 participants over 9 years, Richards-Babb and Popp initiated an REU Site in 2016 focused on providing societally relevant research experiences centered on the themes of the chemistry of health and catalysis. The localized undergraduate research efforts in the Bennett Department of Chemistry that began in 2007 have grown and now comprise efforts throughout and across the institution, efforts that cut across disciplines, that include STEM and non-STEM majors and that are poised to expand to our regional campuses across the state of West Virginia.

© 2018 American Chemical Society

Introduction The National Science Foundation (NSF) recognizes the importance of undergraduate education to ensure that the United States of America continues to lead the world in science and engineering research and innovation (1). Research Experiences for Undergraduate (REU) programs funded by the NSF offer an important supplement to standard STEM coursework and laboratory curricula of typical STEM undergraduates. Engaging undergraduates in authentic research tends to “clarify their interests in STEM careers” and improve their desire, preparation, understanding and attendance to graduate programs (2–4). Undergraduate research also tends to improve their collegiate achievement and advancement in terms of grade point average (GPA) and enrollment in advanced STEM coursework (5, 6). The guiding belief of STEM faculty at West Virginia University (WVU) is that undergraduates are more likely to be attracted to the STEM discipline, retained within it, and establish a professional career in STEM beyond the undergraduate degree if given the opportunity to participate in authentic research (7–9). Numerous undergraduate research experiences are offered at WVU that are intellectually stimulating, have societal relevance which tend to attract women (10–13), and improve participants’ research self-efficacy. Brief Description of West Virginia University West Virginia University is the flagship public land-grant institution in the state of West Virginia. WVU was established in Morgantown, approximately an hour south of Pittsburgh and three hours west of Washington D.C., on the scenic banks of the Monongahela River in 1867. The WVU system now has operations throughout the state including the smaller colleges of Potomac State College at Keyser and WVU Institute of Technology at Beckley. The total system enrollment at the beginning of the 2017-18 academic year was 31,442 with 28,409 enrolled at the Morgantown Campus. The student body at the Morgantown Campus comes from 107 nations and all 50 states including the District of Columbia. Residents of West Virginia’s 55 counties compose 54% of the Morgantown Campus’ student body (14). WVU offers more than 340 academic majors that span 14 colleges and schools. Many of these programs also offer post-baccalaureate and professional degrees. WVU is classified as R1: Doctoral Universities – highest research activity as described by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (15). The University is also a member state of EPSCoR. The C. Eugene Bennett Department of Chemistry in the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at WVU was established in 1896 and the first doctoral degree was awarded in 1932. Today, the department has approximately 150 undergraduate majors and 73 graduate students in its academic programs. The department has 19 tenured or tenure-track research-focused faculty, 9 teaching-focused faculty, and adjunct faculty from various other WVU programs (e.g., Forensic and Investigative Science, Pharmaceutical Sciences, and Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering). Departmental research activities have increased in recent years with the last five-year external funding level exceeding 10 million dollars. 86

Undergraduate Research at West Virginia University WVU has a rich tradition of academic excellence. Numerous prestigious scholarships have been awarded to WVU students with a number of Chemistry majors named as Goldwater and Fulbright Scholars in recent years. The ASPIRE office was established in 2006 to assist students with applying for scholarships and post-baccalaureate degree programs (16). Many STEM departments at WVU, including Chemistry, offer the only PhD program in the state for their field of study. Chemistry faculty take pride in this distinction by also offering substantive mentored undergraduate research opportunities. Further enhancing the university’s commitment to research was the recent creation in 2015 of the Office of Undergraduate Research (UGR) (17). Richards-Babb was named as its first director with current support from a full-time assistant director and a full-time program specialist. In addition to the undergraduate research activities offered during the academic year, Chemistry faculty participate in a variety of summer enrichment programs. Some programs target middle school and high school students to promote STEM skills such as the West Virginia Governor’s STEM Institute (18), Governor’s Honors Academy (19), and Engineering Challenge Camp. Other programs are geared toward college students interested in health-related careers such as the Health Careers Opportunities Program (20). A number of externally funded undergraduate research opportunities have been offered in past years, including: WV state-funded WVU Honors College Summer Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE), WVU provost-funded STEM SURE, NSF LSAMP-funded SURE, NSA-funded Math REU, NSF-funded Multifunctional Nanomaterials REU and RII-funded Nano SURE, and NIH/NIGMS CoBRE funded Center for Neuroscience Summer Undergraduate Internship (SURI). Richards-Babb administered SURE Sites (2009-present) and NSF WVNano REU (2007-2015) programs for many years. The significant administrative experience gained running these programs positioned her and Popp to initiate a chemistry specific program in the Bennett Department of Chemistry. An NSF REU site was awarded in 2016. The following sections describe the NSF REU Chemistry Site and present our thoughts on best practices after a combined 15 years of REU program experience.

REU Program Overview The WVU Chemistry REU program offers participants an integrated experience where research and education are concurrent priorities. Approximately 12-15 faculty participate in the program annually with research topics focused on the societally important areas of Chemistry of Health and Catalysis. The program has been modeled from the best practices identified while administering and participating as a research mentor in the WVU campus-wide Multifunctional Nanomaterials REU that has been continuously funded since 2007. A representative timeline for administrative and programmatic activities performed for the Summer 2017 Chemistry REU program is shown in Table 1. The yearly REU program can be described in four phases: 1) applicant recruitment during 87

the fall prior to program year, 2) applicant selection during the winter, 3) Site activities from May–July, and 4) Site evaluation during fall after program. The program is designed to allow participants to better appreciate the interdisciplinary nature of the science research enterprise while moving them toward research and intellectual independence. Career building, communication, and teamwork skills are also emphasized. The specific objectives of the program are to: 1) provide authentic research opportunities for students majoring in chemistry and biochemistry and attending institutions where research opportunities are limited, 2) target underrepresented populations, 3) involve participants in research projects that benefit society, either directly or indirectly, 4) improve participant understanding of the research enterprise (from project inception, attainment of funding, to research completion, and dissemination of results), and 5) retain participants within the chemistry or biochemistry major and encourage them to continue to post-baccalaureate opportunities. The REU Site Administrative Team is comprised of Richards-Babb (Primary Investigator of the Chemistry REU award) and Popp (Co-Investigator) who act as Site and Scientific Directors, respectively. The Site Director is tasked with the overall management of the Site, including program advertisement/assessment/evaluation, filing of reports to the funding agency, and assuring the Site meets the program’s specific objectives described above. The Site Director administers the 2.5-day intensive training and works with the WVU Office of Undergraduate Research (UGR) to arrange the educational activities throughout the 10-week program (e.g., workshops, guest speakers, scientific tours, culminating poster symposium). The involvement of WVU UGR is advantageous because it enables the educational activities to be offered to other WVU summer research program coordinators and consequently benefits larger groups of STEM undergraduates. The Scientific Director is responsible for coordinating research activities of the participants, which include arranging cohort training on instrumentation and critical evaluation of participants’ presentations (oral and poster). Joint activities include review of applications, selection of participants, chaperoning of scientific tours, and attendance at weekly meetings and workshops. A graduate student is funded by the program to act as the primary contact for Site participants with specific duties including: 1) tour guide for the initial training, 2) coordinator of weekend team building activities, 3) on-site emergency and day-to-day contact person, and 4) assistant to the Site Director in program administrative duties.

88

Table 1. Timeline of 2017 REU administrative and programmatic activities Date

Activities

Oct–Nov 2016

Update website and online application, advertise the REU site.

Dec 2016

Collection/collation of applicant materials. Rolling review of application materials begin. Select REU offers made and long list begins.

Jan 2017

Applicants informed of missing materials. Select REU offers continue.

Feb 2017 (week 1)

Full application review completed. Long list applications shared with faculty advisors. REU offers continue.

Mar 2017

Ten acceptances received. Participants sent information packet (travel, housing, research).

April 2017

Participants complete required online trainings in 1) Hazard Communication and Laboratory Safety and Hazardous Waste and 2) Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) via the CITI Program (21).

May 22

10-week program begins

May 22-25

Incoming questionnaires, 2.5-day intensive training, team building activities, research mentor selection and research begins

Throughout

Institution-wide workshops, networking events, speakers and panel presentations.

June 5

Mentor-assigned literature background oral presentation

June 27

Mid-summer research progress oral presentation and intermediate questionnaires

July 7

Scientific field trip

July 21

Research poster rough draft discussion

July 27

Summer Undergraduate Research Poster Symposium and outgoing questionnaires

July 28

10-week program ends

Sep-Oct 2017

Participant questionnaire data analyzed. Program director and co-director plan for upcoming year’s program.

Post-REU

Continued mentoring and tracking of past REU participants.

89

Applicant Recruitment Our target population is undergraduate students majoring in chemistry (or biochemistry) and attending institutions where opportunities to engage in research are limited within the Appalachian region. Specifically, institutions such as Winston-Salem State U., Fairmont State U., WV Wesleyan C., Morehouse C., Coppin State U., Waynesburg, Wheeling Jesuit C., Bethany C., West Liberty C., Shepherd U., and West Virginia State C. are targeted in an effort to recruit REU participants who currently have limited research opportunities. Women, underrepresented students, students with disabilities, and veterans of the U.S. Armed Services are especially encouraged to apply. Applications from rising freshmen through rising seniors are accepted. All of the participants are from institutions other than WVU. In order to reach a broad talent pool across the Appalachian region, recruitment begins in early October and continues through January or until all participants have been selected. A website that advertises the REU Site, informs potential applicants of all pertinent information (dates, application materials, research projects), and links to the online application is updated yearly (22). In addition, a one-page color flier that includes photos of past-REU participants in action and pertinent program details (e.g., website address/application deadline) is distributed broadly. REU program recruitment information is emailed to chairs and faculty of chemistry and biochemistry departments at institutions throughout Appalachia. Richards-Babb has compiled an extensive list of email contacts and has used email advertisement to good effect (e.g., 250+ applicants for the 2018 REU Site). The REU Site is also advertised at free online sites, such as, “Pathways to Science” (Inst. for Broadening Participation) (23), “WebGURU” (Web Guide for Undergraduate Research) (24), “Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science” (SACNAS), and within the Appalachian College Association newsletters. Richards-Babb works with institutional NSF LSAMP (KY-WV Mid-Level Alliance) and McNair Scholars Program Directors to recruit REU participants from the LSAMP and McNair networks. The entire Chemistry faculty advertises the REU Site at discipline specific regional and national. Past-REU participants are also asked to advertise the program at their home institutions. We have built an extensive email contact list of faculty at minority-serving institutions, CCs, and PUIs, who previously recommended a student to the REU Site. These faculty are contacted each year to ask that they recommend their students to the program. This process has proven effective in attracting a diverse pool of undergraduate student applicants. In addition, WVU faculty and staff with ties to minority serving institutions aid us in recruiting applicants from these institutions. Many of our faculty, including Popp, travel to regional PUIs each year to give invited research seminars, offering an opportunity to both recruit for our graduate program and REU program.

90

Applicant Selection REU participants must be enrolled in chemistry (or biochemistry) undergraduate degree programs and be a rising sophomore to senior. A qualified applicant will have a grade point average 2.8 or above in their STEM undergraduate coursework. The STEM grade point average of 2.8 has been selected in an effort to attract only those students who are truly interested in the program, while also maximizing the ability to recruit underrepresented minorities and rising sophomores (25). Each applicant is required to submit an online application that includes personal, academic (institution, major, level, coursework), and voluntary demographic information, future plans, and any information required by the NSF’s electronic project-reporting system. An essay on the applicant’s motivation for wanting to participate in the REU is also required. The applicant must also arrange for an official/unofficial verifiable undergraduate transcript(s) and a letter of recommendation from a science faculty member familiar with the applicant’s abilities/motivation to be uploaded on their behalf. The soft deadline for receipt of all application materials is the first week of February though we do implement an early review of completed applications prior to the end of December in order to commit to students from targeted populations. However, applications are received on a rolling basis until all ten REU positions are filled. We expect our participants to have career goals aligned with our own department’s undergraduate training goals. We have found it useful to provide applicants with guidance on how to best prepare their personal statement and these suggestions are given on the program’s website. A competitive applicant will normally submit a personal statement that expresses their desire to enter a post-baccalaureate program in chemistry (e.g., PhD or MS) or a closely aligned field (e.g., forensics, biochemistry, biomedical sciences). Generally, applicants expressing interest in professional programs or who are currently enrolled in pre-professional programs do not rise to the level of exceptional or worthy. Applicants enrolled in engineering programs are generally only considered competitive if they are rising sophomores. Due attention is given to applicants from “targeted” populations. The overall goal is to have a broad and diverse pool of talented students participate in the program. Beginning during the second week of December and continuing every 2-3 weeks afterward, Richards-Babb and Popp separately and then jointly review completed applicant files. Faculty advisors are also encouraged to participate in the selection process. Exceptional applicants identified from rolling application reviews are offered a position in the program prior to the soft deadline while other worthy applicants are added to a long list. After the soft deadline passes, the long list is used to make offers until all available participant slots have been filled. REU applicants are informed of their selection and given approximately a week to either accept or reject the REU offer. A courtesy email is sent to all remaining applicants once all REU slots have been filled.

91

REU Site Activities Intensive Training Program Prior to arriving on campus, all participants are required to complete online safety and ethics training modules (21). Upon arriving and before beginning their research, REU participants attend 2.5 days of training. Tours of campus and scientific facilities are performed by the Site’s graduate student assistant. This activity has been found to build rapport and trust quickly between the participants and the assistant. General topics of chemical safety and, if needed, animal compliance in research are presented by the relevant certified chemical hygiene officer and animal compliance and training officer, respectively. Training is provided in scientific ethics through facilitated discussions of ethical case studies (e.g., plagiarism, laboratory notebook keeping, falsification of data) using online case studies resources (26–29), videos prepared by the WVU Office of Research Integrity and Compliance (30), and “The Lab” an interactive movie on avoiding research misconduct (31). Participants also receive training specific to the chemistry/biochemistry discipline and research enterprise. Oral presentation skills and a discussion of the format of and expectation for program presentations are reviewed. Theoretic and basic operational information is presented for instrument techniques common to multiple site research projects (e.g., NMR spectroscopy, X-ray crystallography, surface imaging techniques, and mass spectrometry). Participants are also given opportunities to work through online training modules developed by faculty experts involved in the NSF-funded IGERT Site at WVU (e.g., electron microscopy, computational methods, protein expression and cell culture). Information sessions on common research tools such as ChemDraw, SciFinder Scholar, Web of Science, as well as proper laboratory notebook keeping strategies are discussed by chemistry faculty and the WVU Science Librarian. An information/question session with current graduate students is also held allowing participants to seek advice on choosing research projects and discuss graduate school and career options. This session also allows for current graduate students to provide realistic views of the life of a graduate student at different stages as we include representatives from the first through fourth years of the graduate experience. Finally, participants select their research project as described in the next section.

Research Project Selection One of the novel aspects of our REU Site is that we do not match participants with research advisors prior to their arrival on campus rather matching occurs at the end of the intensive training program. This practice has been performed through all prior REU programs administered by Richards-Babb and anecdotal evidence indicates that it maximizes participants’ satisfaction with the research experience. This may not seem surprising given that the same practice is often adopted by 92

U.S.-based chemistry graduate programs to match graduate students with research advisors and their respective research groups. Initially, faculty research advisors provide a one-page description of their research project(s), including the societal significance, research questions to be addressed, instrumentation, procedures, and techniques to be learned, how the REU participant will contribute, and pertinent references (with direct links). These one-page descriptions are posted on the REU webpage and applicants are referred to these materials upon receipt of their initial application and updated one-page descriptions are emailed to participants after their acceptance of an REU offer. Participants are strongly encouraged to read through the one-page research project descriptions, including the references, and ranking their top 4-5 projects of those available prior to arriving on campus. Upon arrival and after touring faculty research laboratories, meeting laboratory personnel (graduate students, postdocs, and advisor) and listening to and asking questions during 15-minute presentations of the available research projects, REU participants rank their top five choices of research projects. From these rankings, and with input from faculty advisors, the administrative team assigns the research projects. This process allows REU participants to make informed decisions about their research project choices by allowing ample time for participant-faculty advisor interactions prior to project assignment. The diversity of projects in different chemistry sub-disciplines paired with more available research projects than REU participants further facilitates this process.

Mentoring Support “Increased and more effective faculty guidance” improves REU participants’ satisfaction with their research and overall experience (32, 33). Thus, provisions are made for the training of research advisors and mentors each year. A handout that highlights common mentoring mistakes and that gives advice on how best to mentor undergraduates toward research independence is distributed to all mentors. Richards-Babb has developed this handout from a variety of source materials including Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists (34–36). This handout is sent to research advisors and secondary mentors (graduate students and postdocs) well before the start of the REU participant’s research. In addition, at least one member of the administrative team is available daily for the duration of the 10-week summer REU program to address administrative questions, mentoring setbacks (e.g., My REU participant is habitually late. What should I do?), or program alterations (e.g., Can I take my REU participant to a national lab for research?). The administrative team keeps faculty informed of the REU program’s expectations of participants (e.g., typical working hours/days) and dates/deadlines for educational components (e.g., oral/poster presentations, abstract for symposium). Periodically, the Site Director requests advisor feedback on REU participant research engagement and progress. Moving forward, REU participants will be required to submit online biweekly reports of their research efforts. These reports will require REU participants to input the number of hours researched each day, provide a short list of research 93

tasks accomplished, and inform us of successes and challenges for the previous two-week period. Upon submission, biweekly reports will be forwarded to each participant’s faculty research advisor for review, verification and confirmation. Biweekly reports were used for our state-funded SURE program during summer 2017. These reports, not only allowed us to identify challenges encountered, by participants or faculty research advisors, early enough to intervene, but also allowed us to learn of research successes. This type of hands-on, multiple mentors approach has worked well in Richards-Babb’s REU Sites to keep participants and research advisors focused on moving the REU participant from research dependence to a relatively independent status over the course of the 10-week program. In fact, the support and guidance provided by multiple mentors may best meet the needs of undergraduate researchers, especially women and under-represented minorities (37, 38). To sustain the mentoring relationship post-REU, participants and advisors are encouraged to submit and present their REU research at national/regional ACS or discipline-specific conferences. Preparation for and interaction at the conference reinforces the mentoring bond between the REU participant and advisor. Funding to offset the costs of REU participants to attend and present at conferences is included in the REU budget. As needed, other mentoring resources (e.g., individual development plan) (39, 40) are incorporated into the Site to improve the experience for all involved. In the future, we plan to use several Entering Research workshop activities (e.g., establishing goals and expectations with your mentor via a mentor-mentee agreement, mentor biography) as ice breakers to establish strong mentoring relationships between REU participants and their faculty research advisors (41).

Research Project Development Popp also participates as one of the research advisors for the Chemistry REU site. Over multiple years of mentoring WVU undergraduate researchers and summer REU participants, he has developed a process by which he identifies a project and a set of project goals for the REU researcher that allows significant research independence to be achieved by the end of the 10-week program. The approach is based upon strategic approaches to choosing scientific research problems (42), and relies upon reflection and assessment of the feasibility to perform and stakeholders’ interest in a scientific problem. Research problems are binned into four categories of large/small knowledge gain and hard/easy experimental approach. In order to instill a level of research independence in a participant, the 10-week experience should be spent on tasks with parallel increasing experimental difficulty and increasing importance to the knowledge gained in the larger research project (Figure 1). This means that an REU participant will have a research project in which knowledge gained is important enough to warrant publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

94

Figure 1. REU research project planning approach. The research project is generally identified based on the available senior graduate students that already have experience mentoring undergraduates and have a current research project that is moving towards imminent publication. A typical REU participant will have had little to no authentic laboratory research experience so identifying an initial task within the graduate student’s project that has an easy experimental approach and feasibility is generally essential. The Popp group focuses on organometallic and synthetic organic chemistry, which means that the REU participant is usually tasked with making an organic substrate that will be tested in a graduate student’s more complex synthetic methodology project. The substrate is chosen based on: 1) the anticipated ability to prepare it in one or two relatively straightforward organic/organometallic steps (i.e., Task I) and 2) the expectation that when the substrate is tested using the new synthetic methodology that a reasonable yield will be achieved (i.e., Task II). A great deal of general synthetic training is involved in Task I. For example, the participant is trained by Popp or the graduate student mentor on TLC reaction monitoring and flash column chromatography purification techniques as well as spectroscopic characterization techniques. Following the preparation of the requisite organic molecule(s), the graduate student mentor works directly with the participant to teach the participant the specifics of the reaction method that the participant has developed. It is anticipated that Task I will involve well-known experimental techniques that will be easy to master whereas Task II will involve comparatively hard cutting-edge synthetic techniques that may be quite challenging to master (e.g., inert-atmosphere glovebox and Schlenk techniques). The first two tasks should take approximately the first half of the summer experience so that the participant has meaningful data to present at the mid-program oral research presentation. Once a participant becomes comfortable with the experimental techniques, the participant is given significant freedom to begin synthetic method optimization for the specific substrate (Task III). This allows the participant to better appreciate that independent laboratory work is challenging and often does not yield the expected 95

or optimal outcome. It also necessitates the participant to develop a clear set of testable hypotheses, and through this testing, the participant for the first time begins providing high knowledge gains to the project. The participant remains focused during this time by attending weekly one-on-one meetings with Popp as well as weekly meetings with the rest of the research group. Finally, the participant is provided with 2-3 ideas that will extend the research into an area that has been explored minimally (Task IV). The participant is also encouraged to suggest ideas for exploration. After planning discussions with Popp and the graduate mentor, the participant uses the remaining laboratory time, about 2-3 weeks, to experiment in at least one of these exploratory areas. Popp has identified this final step in a participant’s research experience as contributing the most to the sense of project ownership and feeling of research independence.

Educational Opportunities and Career Development The Chemistry REU Site has predefined mandatory meetings for the participants that occur approximately biweekly and that include graduate student mentors and faculty advisors. These meetings are meant to develop the oral presentation and communications skills of the participants as well as prepare/inform students about graduate school in chemistry. REU participants meet with the WVU Chemistry Department’s Graduate Studies Committee for an informal Q&A session about graduate school (Week 3). They attend the institution-wide “Creating an Effective Research Poster” workshop (Week 7) provided by the Office of Undergraduate Research. REU participants give three short oral presentations during the 10-weeks: background literature review (Week 2), mid-program review of research-to-date (Week 5), and research poster rough draft review (Week 9). The latter presentation is meant to be a first practice-run for their judged research poster that is presented during the WVU campus-wide culminating poster symposium (Summer Undergraduate Research Symposium) in late July (Week 10). These research meetings are often followed by informal social hours that enhance REU participant-faculty mentor relationships, as strong relationships are important for intellectual growth of REU participants (31). The culminating poster symposium provides REU participants with an experience akin to that of a scientific conference. The 9th annual 2017 symposium had 108 undergraduate poster presenters and more than 250 attendees from the ranks of WVU administration, faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, as well as presenters’ families. Participants prepare a professional quality scientific poster and use it to explain their research to members of the general public, faculty members, and judges. Similar to a scientific conference, poster presenters submit an abstract, design and print a poster, and prepare a short (5 min or less) oral narrative complemented by poster visuals. Prior to the public portion of the poster symposium, participants are judged on their poster and their ability to explain and answer questions about their research to a judge from a scientifically related field and during an individually scheduled 10-minute time slot. Afterward, REU participants display posters at their home institutions to advertise the value of the REU experience, specifically, and research, in general. 96

The Chemistry REU Site also takes advantage of educational and career development activities (e.g., scientific tours, workshops, career mentoring speakers and panels) organized by the WVU Office of Undergraduate Research and offered as programming to undergraduate research programs and individual researchers and students across the WVU campus. The participants tour a scientific facility in close driving proximity to WVU. In 2015 and 2016, the REU participants toured multiple units at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) campus in Gaithersburg, MD and had lunchtime conversations with current WVU undergraduates who were participating in the NIST SURF program. The participants join in career mentoring discussions facilitated by campus speakers working in STEM in both the public and private sector. Past speakers have addressed the importance of hard work and the ability to work with others, the need to diversify and brand yourself, and consideration that you are always on a job interview, along with, the path to and daily duties and responsibilities of current position, work-life balance, and work in the private versus public sectors. Finally, REU participants are required to attend some and invited to attend all of the workshops and networking events offered by the Office of Undergraduate Research that are designed to improve their communication, collaboration, and technical presentation skills as well as provide networking opportunities with other undergraduate researchers. Some of the workshops offered in previous years include: Career Building (resumes, interviewing, elevator speech), STEM Outreach and Science Communication (includes two hours of volunteering with hands-on science activities during a local Kids’ Day Event), Prestigious Scholarships, NSF GRF applications, Creating an Effective Research Poster, Your Beautiful Question (devising research questions), The Art of Research Writing and Speaking Science: Translating Your Work to Impact the World. Networking events have included an ice cream social with graduate school recruiters, communicating your research: speed networking (akin to speed dating, but participants communicating their research to each other), graduate student panel, and The PhD Movie.

Team-Building Activities Recreational team building activities facilitate formation of the REU participants into a tight knit community of undergraduate researchers. Institutional resources support these activities through monetary investment in the Chemistry REU program. The state of West Virginia and the Laurel Highlands area of Western Pennsylvania offer a multitude of outdoor recreational activities (e.g., caving, hiking, rafting, zip lining) within one-hour drive of WVU. Team building activities are scheduled biweekly on weekends, with input from REU participants to guide scheduling of these activities. These activities are also coordinated with other WVU summer research programs (e.g., the Multifunctional Nanomaterials REU Site) to aid participants in making connections and to reinforce the interdisciplinary nature of science and research. Informal evening and weekend activities are also arranged by the REU graduate student program assistant during the 10-week program. These activities 97

often include other interested graduate students enlisted by the program assistant. The WVU recreation center, provided as a benefit to REU participants, as well as the numerous outdoor spaces near residential housing facilitate less structured interactions between graduate students and REU participant. These interactions are important for the development of good mentoring relationships as well as building strong bonds among researchers within the department.

Post-Program Activities Mentoring of participants continues after completion of the REU summer experience. Faculty research advisors are encouraged to enhance the REU experience with professional development opportunities during the subsequent academic year. A Facebook group site has been established to facilitate these interactions as well as to aide in acquiring post-program tracking information. The administrative team provides periodic updates about opportunities of interest to the REU participants (e.g., ACS meetings, Council of Undergraduate Research (CUR) REU conference and national conference (NCUR), CUR Posters on the Hill in Washington, D.C., NSF IGERT Fellowship opportunities). The Site has funds designated specifically to help off-set the costs of participating in such activities. These activities help to solidify the participants’ interest in post-baccalaureate research-intensive education opportunities by providing substantive, broad, and sustained mentoring support. REU Site Evaluation Richards-Babb has extensive experience in project evaluation and reporting from her previously funded REU Sites. She has devised the qualitative and quantitative project evaluation plan for the currently funded REU Site. The effectiveness of the recruitment strategy is assessed by maintaining summary information – number of applicants, demographic make-up of the applicant pool, and their home institutions. Summary information on participants (demographic make-up and home institutions), as well as, participants’ academic and professional progress beyond graduation, to assess the lasting influence of the research experience on each participant’s career path, are collected. Our success in providing REU participants with a valuable educational experience (e.g., meaningful research experience, perspectives on the research enterprise, high-quality participant-faculty advisor mentoring, and improved communication skills) is assessed three times throughout the program using anonymous incoming, intermediate, and outgoing questionnaires. Improvements to the REU Site are informed by REU participants’ responses to the questionnaires and from faculty research advisor suggestions. At a minimum, incoming questionnaires include pre-experience and perceived knowledge level surveys. Pre-experience questionnaires include demographic questions as well as questions on research self-efficacy and future plans. Perceived knowledge level surveys ask the participants to rank activities related to research, graduate school, and scientific careers (e.g., understanding scientific 98

papers, conducting a research project, presenting information, what graduate school is like, career options in the sciences) on a scale from 1 to 6 with 1 being very low level of skill/level of knowledge and 6 being a very high level. These surveys consist of a subset of questions from Lopatto’s SURE survey (43). Intermediate questionnaires are given at the end of the fifth week and include questions on the overall quality of the REU experience, satisfaction with program components, research resources, and suggestions for program improvements. Outgoing questionnaires include post-experience and perceived knowledge level surveys. Post-experience questionnaires include questions on overall quality of the REU experience, program components, quality of research mentorship, and program administration, as well as open-ended questions for improving the program. Perceived knowledge level gain averages are calculated by subtracting pre-numerical rankings from post-numerical rankings and averaging over all students. These averages provide a quantitative measure of the program’s success in improving REU participants’ research self-efficacy and perceived competence. Six months after the end of the REU program, all former REU participants are contacted for tracking purposes to assess the lasting influence of participation in the REU Site on participants’ career paths. Updated information on the following are obtained: 1) GRE exam taking, 2) expected graduation date, 3) application to graduate school (field of study, institutions to which applied), 4) future plans, and 5) additional comments on how the REU program helped the participant achieve her/his goals. In addition, REU participants and faculty advisors are encouraged to maintain permanent connections - with each other and with the administrative team - via the LinkedIn professional network. These connections aid in gathering updated information (current occupation/graduate institution) on previous participants for several years beyond their initial REU experience. A separate tracking questionnaire is sent to faculty advisors to collect information on major research findings, publications, and presentations involving a former REU participant. We continuously evaluate, both formatively and summatively, the REU Site. Detailed formative feedback (e.g., from intermediate questionnaires) allows the administrative team to identify REU Site shortcomings and provide remediation in a timely fashion. Summative feedback from outgoing and tracking questionnaires allow us to assess the overall quality of the REU Site, and the research experience and mentoring offered to its participants. The project evaluation and ongoing REU Site assessment plans as formulated over the course of 10 years and four REU sites, have proven effective.

Chemistry REU Preliminary Assessment Summary of REU Demographics Over the nine years of the Multifunctional Nanomaterials REU Site, which Richards-Babb co-administered, the number of applications increased from an initial applicant pool of 70 in 2007 to a pool of over 200 and 170 for the 2014 and 2015 programs, respectively. The increase in total number of applicants is attributed to early advertisement, use of institutional faculty 99

contacts from previous years, and a positive, growing regional reputation. The Nano REU Site met the recruitment goals of the grants through an overall REU participant population that was 47% women, 29% underrepresented persons (URP; African-American, Hispanic, and American Indian), 23% first generation college students, and 51% from Appalachia (considered a socio-economically depressed area or SEDA), despite an Appalachian regional population that has lower than average percentage of underrepresented persons relative to the U.S. national average (African-American: 9.2% vs. 12.2%; Hispanic/Latino: 4.3% vs. 16.6%) (44). In addition, all participants came from institutions other than WVU, 69 (72%) came from CCs or PUIs, and 79 (82%) came from non-Ph.D. granting institutions. For the first two years of the Chemistry REU, the Site received a total of 160 (2016) and 121 (2017) applications. As of February 2018, the Chemistry REU Site has received over 250 applications. This upward trend is attributed to better online visibility both through the NSF program page (45) as well as the WVU website and increased chemistry-focused faculty recruitment efforts at PUIs and Regional ACS meetings not just in WV and Pittsburgh (western PA) regions but also across the mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and South regions. Greater than 80% of applicants completed demographic information and thus demographic numbers represent minimum values for applicants. The male-to-female ratio varied between the two years (~1:1 vs. 1:1.6 for 2016 and 2017, respectively). While most applicant demographics remained similar between programs administered between REU 2007-2015 and REU 2016-17, two significant net demographic decreases in the current program were observed. Both the net percentage of male applicants and those with permanent addresses in Appalachia (or SEDA) decreased by 15% (Table 2). This contrast significant net changes in the participant demographic makeup. Ten participants were chosen for each of the 2016-17 programs. Female participants increased by 13%. Underrepresented persons decreased by 14% although we also observed slight decreases in the number of applications from URP. Participants from Appalachia or other SEDA and those that are 1st generation college students have both increased appreciably (17%). The Chemistry REU program has focused entirely on providing this research experience to applicants from non-PhD granting institutions and all but one participant is from a PUI or CC, which is an increase of 18% and 23% respective to participant demographics in the Nano REU program. The diversity of our applicant pool, especially due to our growing regional presence and increased faculty recruiting efforts, has allowed the program to meet or exceed its recruitment goals. Summary of REU Project Outcomes The Chemistry REU Site is entering its 3rd year of implementation. As a result, project outcomes are limited as 13 of 20 REU participants (3 year 1 and 10 year 2 participants) continue as undergraduates. For Year 1, chemistry or biochemistry degrees have been conferred to 7 of 10 participants. At least one of the remaining 3 participants is currently applying to graduate school and also applied for an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF). Four of the graduates are attending graduate school to pursue a Ph.D. in either Chemistry, Biochemistry, 100

Bioengineering, or Computational Chemistry and Physics. Other graduates are employed in the private sector or have applied to Law Schools to pursue a career in in international development and aid. Two 2016 REU participants presented their REU research at West Virginia’s Undergraduate Research Day at the Capitol in Charleston, WV while two other REU participants presented research at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Conference in 2017. Three participants presented their research at their home institutions. One student interned with a company that later led to full-time employment. At least three participants performed research that was used in federal proposal submissions while one participant was listed as a co-author on a peer-reviewed publication (46).

Table 2. Demographic comparison of the applicants and participants in REU sites involving WVU Chemistry since 2007a Applicants net change

Participants net change

Men

−15%

−13%

Women

+1%

+13%

Underrepresented Persons

−2%

−14%

−2%

+17%

−15%

+17%

Home Institutions PUI or CC

−

+23%

Non-PhD Granting

−

+18%

1st Generation College Student Appalachia (or other SEDA)

b

a A positive net change reflects a higher percentage for the 2016-17 Chemistry REU whereas

a negative net change reflects a higher percentage for the 2007-15 Nano REU. b Numbers may be underreported due to lack of participant knowledge of what constitutes Appalachia or other SEDA.

For Year 2, all participants are currently enrolled in their undergraduate program and six are expecting to graduate in May 2018. Of these six, four are expecting to begin graduate school in the fall. One participant also applied for a prestigious Fulbright Fellowship in the Fall 2018. Four participants will present research at the 2018 National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans; five of which will present research performed during the REU program. One student was selected to present her research at the meeting in an oral symposium entitled “Chemistry Students at the Nexus: REU Award Winners” that is sponsored by the Chemistry REU Leadership Group. Three students presented their research at the biennial Gamma Sigma Epsilon Chemistry Honor Society Convention at Niagara University in October 2017.

101

Concluding Remarks The Chemistry REU Site at West Virginia University is entering its final year of its first funding cycle. The program has thus far been successful in getting our targeted student participants to increase their interest in post-graduate work in STEM disciplines. Increased visibility through various advertising venues and increased targeted recruiting efforts by Chemistry faculty at regional PUI programs have been invaluable in increasing our pool of applicants and hitting program demographic targets. A comparison of current Chemistry REU program versus former Functional Nanomaterials REU program demographics suggests that a more diverse pool of applicants and thus participants can be expected when the REU program has a focused STEM theme. Many of our past participants are still pursuing their undergraduate degree, nevertheless, current project outcomes support the fact that the Chemistry-focused REU program will ultimately be successful in achieving the specific objective of encouraging participants to continue to post-baccalaureate opportunities. Moreover, the preliminary participant ratings for the program indicate that the program is fulfilling the specific objective to improve participant understanding of the research enterprise (from project inception, attainment of funding, to research completion, and dissemination of result). The administrative team looks forward to continuing to evolve the program in the coming years. Efforts to focus on improving participant mentoring by faculty and graduate students will be of primary focus. Additionally, new initiatives that allow the REU participants to interact and convey the importance of science to the community will be pursued. The WVU administration and Department of Chemistry continue to fully support these efforts and understand that this is an important program to enhance the quality and quantity of STEM professionals in the future. In addition, the WVU administration continues to invest in undergraduate research opportunities, across the institution and for students of all majors, in the form of its establishment and funding of the WVU Office of Undergraduate Research. This investment is a direct result of a recent series of six NSF-funded REU Site grants (beginning in 2007) and several West Virginia state-funded SURE grants many of which were written and administered by faculty from the Bennett Department of Chemistry. With the establishment of the WVU Office of Undergraduate Research, localized efforts to administer undergraduate research programs have been supplemented by staff in this Office. As needed, the Office of Undergraduate Research advertises institutional undergraduate research sites to the broader population, hosts and develops websites, advises faculty on writing proposals to include undergraduate researchers or for Sites, and provides information on application review, and tracking and assessment. In addition, the Office arranges pertinent workshops, networking events, and career speakers and panels during the summer months and provides these as a resource to all WVU-based undergraduate research sites and participants across the institution. Further, the Office arranges the culminating, campus-wide judged summer undergraduate research poster symposium for all sites. 102

The Office of Undergraduate Research has expanded its activities exponentially. The Office now offers a campus-wide undergraduate research spring poster symposium and a fall introduction to undergraduate research networking workshop; supports students in their applications to and participation in NCUR and CUR’s Posters on the Hill; submits institutional student applications and proposals to NIST SURF (Boulder and Gaithersburg); runs the statewide Undergraduate Research Day at the Capitol (URDC) in Charleston, WV (an event to inform WV Legislators of the value of continuing to fund research and undergraduate education); and meets with students to discuss undergraduate research (e.g., Where do I begin? How do I find a research advisor?) and internal and external research opportunities. In addition, the Office of Undergraduate Research has developed an academic year Research Apprenticeship Program (RAP), modelled after the University of Michigan’s Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) (47). RAP is specifically geared toward involving freshmen and sophomore students in research, early in their academic careers. In RAP, research is supplemented with Entering Research workshop activities during a 1-credit research class that accompanies their research. RAP participants carry out undergraduate research for credit or for Federal Work-Study funding. Thus, localized undergraduate research efforts in the Bennett Department of Chemistry that began with an NSF funded REU Site in 2007 have grown and now comprise efforts throughout and across the institution, efforts that cut across disciplines, that include STEM and non-STEM majors and that are poised to expand to our regional campuses across the state of West Virginia.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to our dedicated graduate program assistants, Rachael Pickens and Steven Knowlden, as well as the many faculty and graduate student mentors who have been instrumental to the success of this REU Site. C. Eugene and Edna P. Bennett and their extended family have generously supported undergraduate research efforts by faculty in the Department of Chemistry for nearly a quarter century. The WV Research Corporation, the WVU Office of the Provost, and WVU Eberly College of Arts and Sciences support REU participant team building activities. The REU Site was supported by the NSF Chemistry program (Award #1559654). The Multifunctional Nanomaterials REU Sites administered by Richards-Babb and held between 2007-2015 were funded by the NSF DMR program (Award #0647763, #1004431, #1262075).

References 1.

National Science Foundation Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation’s Future - Strategic Plan for 2014-2018; Report for the National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA, March 2014. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf14043 (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 103

2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

Russell, S. H.; Hancock, M. P.; McCullough, J. Benefits of Undergraduate Research Experiences. Science 2007, 316, 548–549. Villarejo, M.; Barlow, A. E. L.; Kogan, D.; Veazey, B. D.; Sweeney, J. K. Encouraging Minority Undergraduates to Choose Science Careers: Career Paths Survey Results. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2008, 7, 394–409. Sadler, T. D.; McKinney, L. Scientific Research for Undergraduate Students: A Review of the Literature. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2010, 39, 43–49. Fechheimer, M.; Webber, K.; Kleiber, P. B. How Well do Undergraduate Research Programs Promote Engagement and Success of Students? CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2011, 10, 156–163. Junge, B.; Quinones, C.; Kakietek, J.; Teodorescu, D.; Marsteller, P. Promoting Undergraduate Interest, Preparedness, and Professional Pursuit in the Sciences: An Outcomes Evaluation of the SURE Program at Emory University. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2010, 9, 119–132. Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologist; National Research Council, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2003. Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology; Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education (CSMEE), National Research Council Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1999. The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential; National Science Board; NSB 03-69: Arlington, VA, 2003. Rosser, S. V. Female-Friendly Science; Pergamon Press: New York, 1990. Seymour, E.; Hewitt, N. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences; Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997. Taasoobshirazi, G.; Carr, M. Gender Differences in Science: An Expertise Perspective. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2008, 20, 149–169. Xu, Y. J. Aspirations and Application for Graduate Education: Gender Differences in Low-Participation STEM Disciplines. Res. High. Educ. 2016, 57, 913–942. West Virginia University Information Page. https://www.wvu.edu/about-wvu (accessed Feb. 25, 2018) Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research (n.d.). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, Bloomington, IN, 2015. About Carnegie Classification. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). West Virginia University Aspire Office Information Page. https:// aspire.wvu.edu/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). West Virginia University Undergraduate Research Office Information Page. https://undergraduateresearch.wvu.edu/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). West Virginia Governor’s STEM Institute Information Page. http:// govschools.wv.gov/GSI/Pages/default.aspx (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). West Virginia Governor’s Honors Academy Information Page. http:// govschools.wv.gov/GHA/Pages/default.aspx (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 104

20. West Virginia Health Careers Opportunities Program Information Page. https://www.wvhcop.org/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 21. Responsible Conduct of Research Courses Information Page. https:/ /about.citiprogram.org/en/series/responsible-conduct-of-research-rcr/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 22. West Virginia University Chemistry REU Site Information Page. https:/ /undergraduateresearch.wvu.edu/reu-site-research-in-chemistry-at-wvu (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 23. Inst. for Broadening Participation Information Web Page. http:// www.pathwaystoscience.org/index.aspx (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 24. Web Guide for Undergraduate Research Information Page. http:// www.webguru.neu.edu/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 25. Wenzel, T. J. A Reviewer’s Perspective on the NSF REU Program. CUR Quarterly 2003, 162–164. 26. Bebeau, M. J.; Pimple, K. D.; Muskavitch, K. M. T.; Borden, S. L.; Smith, D. Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment; Indiana University: Bloomington, IN, 1995. 27. Center on Materials and Devices for Information Technology Research (CMIDTR). Responsible Conduct of Research: Interactive Tutorials for Educational Institutions. http://www.responsibleresearch.org (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 28. Center for Engineering Ethics and Society at the National Academy of Engineering Maintained and National Science Foundation Funded Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. http://www.onlineethics.org (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 29. Heely, M. E.; Grabowski, J. J.; Pecora, S. E.; Evanseck, J. D.; Kingston, H. M. The Ethics Forum: A Multi-institution, Student-centered, Program for Undergraduate Researchers. CUR Quarterly 2010, 30, 20–26. 30. West Virginia University Research Integrity & Compliance Education and Training Information Page. https://oric.research.wvu.edu/services/ responsible-conduct/education-training/case-study-videos (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 31. Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity Information Page. https://ori.hhs.gov/thelab (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). 32. Russell, S. H. Evaluation of NSF Support for Undergraduate Research Opportunities: Draft Synthesis Report. SRI International: Menlo Park, CA, 2012, p 25. http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/university/documents/ URO%20Synthesis%20for%20Web%20Jul%205%2006.pdf (accessed June 27, 2012). 33. Guterman, L. What Good is Undergraduate Research Anyway? Chron. High. Educ. 2007, 53, A12–A17. 34. Handelsman, J.; Pfund, C.; Lauffer, S. M.; Pribbenow, C. Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists; Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System: Madison, WI, 2005. 35. Bailey, B.; Budden, M.; Ghosh-Dastidar, U. Practical Tips for Managing Challenging Scenarios in Undergraduate Research. The Mathematical Association of America’s Online Column of Resources for Undergraduate 105

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41. 42. 43. 44.

45.

46.

47.

Research, Issue 3. https://www.maa.org/external_archive/columns/ Resources/CURM.pdf (accessed June 27, 2012). Whiteside, U.; Pantelone, D. W.; Hunter-Reel, D.; Eland, J.; Kleiber, B.; Latimer, M. Initial Suggestions for Supervising and Mentoring Undergraduate Research Assistants at Large Research Universities. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2007, 19, 325–330. Packard, B. W. L.; Walsh, L.; Seidenberg, S. Will that be One Mentor or Two? A Cross-Sectional Study of Women’s Mentoring During College. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 2004, 12, 71–85. Davis, D. J. The Academic Influence of Mentoring Upon African American Undergraduate Aspirants to the Professoriate. Urban Rev. 2009, 42, 143–158. National Research Mentoring Network Mentor Resources. https:// nrmnet.net/mentor-landing-page/mentor-resources/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). Mentoring Resources from the University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. https://ictr.wisc.edu/mentoring/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). Branchaw, J.; Pfund, C.; Rediske, R. Entering Research: A Facilitator’s Manual; W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, 2010. Alon, U. How to Choose a Good Scientific Problem. Molecular Cell Forum 2009, 35, 726–728 and references therein. Lopatto, D. Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings. Cell Biol. Educ. 2004, 3, 270–277. Pollard, K.; Jacobsen, L. A. The Appalachian Region: A Data Overview from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey; Prepared Under Contract #CO-16506-R5-14 by The Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington, DC., Feb. 2015. http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/ DataOverviewfrom2009-2013ACS.pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). National Science Foundation Webpage for Searching Funded Research Experiences for Undergraduates Programs. https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/ reu/reu_search.jsp (accessed Feb. 25, 2018). Butcher, T. W.; McClain, E. J.; Hamilton, T. G.; Perrone, T. M.; Kroner, K. M.; Donohoe, G. C.; Akhmedov, N. G.; Petersen, J. L.; Popp, B. V. Regioselective Copper-catalyzed Boracarboxylation of Vinyl Arenes. Org. Lett. 2016, 18, 6428–6431 (K. Kroner, 2016 REU Participant). University of Michigan Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program Website. https://lsa.umich.edu/urop (accessed Feb. 25, 2018).

106

Chapter 8

Summer International REU Program in the United Kingdom Terence A Nile1 and Anne G. Glenn*,2 1Department

of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, United States 2Department of Chemistry, Guilford College, 5800 W. Friendly Avenue, Greensboro, North Carolina 27410, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

In this chapter we discuss our international summer undergraduate research in the United Kingdom, which was supported by the National Science Foundation for seven of the nine years. We describe the program’s history and details, the importance of international research, student activities, recruiting, issues unique to an international program and its outcomes. We also offer some advice we think is important to a successful international research program.

Program History From 2010 to 2016, The University of North Carolina Greensboro (UNCG) sponsored a NSF-funded summer research program in chemistry for undergraduates in the United Kingdom. During the summers of 2010 through 2013 the University of Bristol hosted students from the schools in the central North Carolina Piedmont Education and Research Consortium (PERC) in a program funded by NSF’s International Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, IRES. PERC is a diverse group of seven colleges and universities within 30 miles of Greensboro, NC which includes both UNC-Greensboro and Guilford College. The program was continued during the summers of 2014 to 2016 as an REU site. As an REU site, the program expanded to include an additional research host, the University of Bath in the UK, and to include students from colleges and universities nationwide, focusing primarily on those students from colleges and universities in the southeast. © 2018 American Chemical Society

The international research program began as the brainchild of Dr. Nile during his research leave at the University of Bristol during 2004-2005 academic year. While in Bristol he collaborated with Professor Paul Pringle of the University of Bristol in the area of synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry. As a UK native who has worked a UNC-Greensboro for over 30 years teaching chemistry and mentoring research with undergraduates, Dr. Nile realized that he could provide chemistry students with the opportunity to do cutting edge research at a first-class university while also giving them the opportunity to study abroad. During the summers of 2009 and 2010, Dr. Nile returned to the UK and brought four self-funded students to do research at the University of Bristol. These trips provided the proof-of-concept for the successful proposal to the IRES program. After 4 years of success with a total of 21 students doing research at the University of Bristol, the program was renewed as a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) and expanded to include both the University of Bristol and the University of Bath. The REU program funded a total of 24 students over the three summers. An additional four students also participated in various years, using alternate funding sources: paying their own way, or through the Gilman Scholarship program (only open to students eligible for Pell Grants) and/or by receiving grants from various sources such as the UNCG Honors Program or the UNCG Global Undergraduate Research and Creativity Assistantship Program and the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at UNCG. One of the key factors to the success of the program was the personal relationship that Professor Nile had developed with the researchers at the universities in the UK. This ground level, faculty-to-faculty approach to developing research connections has had more success than essentially “cold calling” an international university to see if they would be willing to host research students.

Why an International Program? Increasingly important in today’s global society is international competence and global awareness. In 2003, the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad reported: “We strongly believe that the events of September 11, 2001, constituted a wake-up call—a warning that America’s ignorance of the world is now a national liability” (1), a statement that is as true today as it was in immediate post-9/11 America. A 2013 study by the US technology consulting firm Booz, Allen, Hamilton found there was real value for businesses in employees who could work effectively with individuals from different cultural backgrounds (2). Classroom experience can provide, to some extent, the theoretical underpinnings of the educational experience, but the most effective way to engage students is provide them the opportunity to work and study abroad. Studies have shown that the study abroad experience is the “defining moment of a young person’s life” (3). Of particular importance to the scientific community is the ability to work on diverse teams, and studying abroad enhances the necessary transferable skills and mindsets that enable graduates to acclimate in today’s constantly changing global workplace: interpersonal, intercultural, personal and social skills. A 2014 paper describing study abroad as a “career booster” highlighted the importance of 108

students being able to demonstrate and describe the skills gained through study abroad to their future employers (4) and the PIs and research mentors integrate developing these skills into the program. UNCG has promoted study abroad for over 20 years (5). They have had over 2,000 students go abroad on semester and yearlong exchanges and more recently have developed a collection of shorter faculty-led programs that incorporate work placements and service learning components. Many of our students are first generation college students and affordability plays an important role in designing our programs. UNCG can boast that ca. 24% of their students who study abroad are students of color. Crucial to our success was been extensive student orientation (through pre-departure preparations and reentry workshops) (6). Guilford College also has a strong study abroad program, though on much smaller scale, including a program in northern Italy ranked as one of the 50 best study abroad programs in the US (7).

Program Details All research takes place at the University of Bristol and the University of Bath in western England. The University of Bristol, established in 1876 and one of the top five universities in England, is located the urban center of Bristol. The University of Bath is located on the edge of the popular tourist attraction of Bath, a 15-minute train ride from Bristol. Established in 1966, the University of Bath historically had a focus on engineering and technical areas. Bristol and Bath are both moderately sized and safe cities with many cultural and educational attractions. The chemistry departments at both institutions are PhD granting and are housed in well-equipped modern laboratories that are more than adequate for the research projects. In addition, there are several internationally recognized centers that provide cutting edge experiences for our students, many in areas not available at their home institutions. Faculty from the centers described below supervise the summer research students: The Bristol Centre for Organometallic Catalysis builds together a cross-disciplinary grouping whose objective is to innovate in the field of homogeneous catalysis. Homogeneous catalysis is an elegant method of chemical synthesis and provides new products and processes as well as efficient and clean solutions to many problems in the petrochemical, pharmaceutical and agrochemical industries. The Centre provides a forum for new ideas by organizing workshops and invited lectures on homogeneous catalysis by world experts from academia and industry. These activities bring industrial catalysis chemists into regular contact with staff at the University and consequently foster collaboration. The major objective of the Centre is to promote synergy in catalysis research. Organometallic catalysis is a fundamental academic discipline as well as a core industrial technology and as such is pursued in university and industrial laboratories with equal vigor. The Centre for Sustainable Chemical Technologies (University of Bath) was established in 2008 and brings together academic expertise from the University of Bath with international industrial, academic and stakeholder partners to carry out research, training and outreach in 109

sustainable chemical technologies. In less than two years, the Centre attracted nearly 20 million pounds in funding for its activities and has rapidly become an important hub for sustainable chemistry in the UK. The Universities of Bristol and Bath represent two of the three universities that have formed a Strategic Alliance for Catalysis (the third being the University of Cardiff in Wales). This alliance provides leadership to the national academic catalysis community. It will develop the Centres as a “bridge” from the knowledge base of the national academic community to the national industrial capability in catalysis. The goals are to share equipment, widen the pool of research experiences available to students, encourage faculty collaboration and the preparation of joint grant applications. The program pays student airfares as well as for accommodations in the UK and a $4000 stipend. In addition, each of the research mentors in the UK receives $1000 per student for supplies. All participants take UNCG’s CHE 555 Organometallics course on-line as part of the pre-departure program and receive two credits for that course from UNCG at no cost. While in the UK, students work a 40-hour week in the research mentors’ lab for 9 weeks. They also have the option to submit a report on their work in order to receive up 6 credits from UNCG for research, once again, at no cost to the participant.

Student Activities During Program Research has shown that it is the student-faculty interaction of the research project that plays a key role in enhancing student confidence (8–11), student retention, and academic growth (12–14). To help facilitate a productive research experience, we ask the faculty mentors to communicate with the participants when they are selected in early February as part of the pre-departure program. The students begin learning about their research projects and asking questions well before the start of the program in mid-June. Dr. Nile and Dr. Glenn are available to answer any questions or concerns the mentors have prior to the program. They also meet with the research mentors as a group in Bristol and Bath at the beginning of the program, and have an online meeting with mentors after the program to get feedback on how to improve the experience for both students and mentors. The importance of the formation of community between participants within a REU cohort has yet to be objectively assessed but it has been suggested as a critical component to the success of a program. During the symposium “Successful REU Programs” at the ACS National Meeting in March 2016, Dr. Stephanie Poland, an alumna of the REU program at Texas A&M University and now a professor at Rose Hulman Institute of Technology (a PUI), spoke about the importance of what happens outside the lab in an REU program as well as in the lab. While she discussed the value of being totally immersed in a research project for an extended period, she also emphasized the value of the networking between participants that takes place during social interactions outside the lab. She cautioned against being in lab too much, encouraging students to work hard in the lab during normal working hours, but then to take time outside to get to know the other participants 110

and “learn about the place you’re in” (15). The other alumni presenters in the symposium reiterated the importance of the social interaction of the cohort during the panel discussion. We wholeheartedly agree with these observations based on our experience with the students in the IRES and REU programs. Thus, as part of our program, we developed activities to bring the entire group of students together virtually before the REU, at the beginning of the REU, at regular intervals over the summer, at the conclusion of the program and afterward. The pre-departure sessions are conducted using virtual classrooms in the course management system Canvas, which is used at both UNCG and Guilford College. Dr. Nile has used other course management systems to present several courses online to UNCG students while in the UK. In the pre-departure program, we begin to teach students how to read, understand and summarize primary research articles, use library resources and how to safely process samples. As part of this training, students engage in ethics in research discussions, focused on topics such as how authorship is determined, proper handling and disposal of chemicals and others that help students understand the ethical issues involved in the development and application of scientific knowledge. In addition, we lead sessions that address the following topics: the nature of research, formulating a research hypothesis, laboratory safety and keeping a laboratory notebook. The pre-departure training also includes material on organometallic chemistry and catalysis through the course CHE 555 in order to introduce participants to the subject of much of the research in Bristol and Bath. Other subjects discussed in the pre-departure program include general information about preparing for study abroad and specific information about life in the UK. These activities take place at least weekly beginning in mid-May, with a more intensive daily session the week prior to departure in mid-June that ensures the students are prepared to get the most out of their research time in the UK. To facilitate interactions between participants and provide opportunities for informal international contacts, students are housed together in UK university residence halls or apartments used both by visitors and British and international summer students. Transportation within and between each city is excellent. The two cities are only 10-15 minutes apart by trains that run every 10 minutes between 6 am and midnight. Bristol International Airport has non-stop service to many destinations in the rest of Europe. There is frequent train and bus service to London and all other major UK cities. The program is run as part of the UNCG Study Abroad Program (SAP). The SAP requires thorough pre- and post-departure procedures for both students and faculty leaders. UNCG’s IPC (International Programs Center) also provides extensive emergency US and UK support for students and faculty during the program (5, 6). Once students are selected, the Dr. Nile, Dr. Glenn and UNCG’s IPC work with students to obtain passports and visas. Woven into the online training period described above are activities of the official pre-departure preparation through the IPC. Following this stateside orientation to research and study abroad experiences, the students fly to the UK arriving early on a Saturday and the first two days on site are devoted to an orientation to the UK, the universities and a social to introduce the UK mentors and their research groups. Students transition into their UK mentor’s 111

laboratory and begin their projects the Monday after arrival, which ensures a full summer of research. In order to facilitate a connection between the participants at the University of Bristol and those at the University of Bath, all student participants meet together once a week, alternating between Bristol and Bath. Two of the research mentors, Dr. Paul Pringle of the University of Bristol and Dr. Ruth Webster of the University of Bath, organize the dinners and facilitate discussions, answering students’ questions and helping them navigate the cultural differences of life in UK. Students also write weekly reports that are posted online in order to facilitate discussion between students about the research they are doing and keeping the PIs updated on the participants’ research progress. These weekly updates help students prepare for the final presentations. Before returning to the US, all students give short (15-20 minute) oral presentations of their results. These presentations are held in both Bristol and Bath, and all participants and research mentors are expected to attend, and the members of the research groups are invited. Drs. Nile, Pringle and Webster attend all the presentations and evaluate the presentations in order to award students’ academic grades for research courses from UNCG. Once they have completed their research, the students participate in an online workshop entitled “How to Effectively Incorporate Your Study Abroad Experience into Your Job Search, Resume, and Job Interviews” facilitated by Megan Walters, Associate Director of Career Development at UNCG. This workshop is based on the “Unpacking Your Study Abroad Experience” seminars originally developed at Michigan State University to help students translate skills learned during study abroad into effective resumes and personal statements for work or graduate programs (16). The UK faculty mentors’ research topics are primarily focused in the area of catalysis; an area of great strength at the UK universities. The mentors have extensive experience in helping undergraduate students develop research questions, helping participants format a plan of action, and a timetable. The mentors have done very well in involving our students in every step of the research cycle from synthesizing primary literature, conceiving of and designing procedures, collecting and analyzing data, to presenting the results of their projects. Participants in the program also take advantage of the IREU’s location in the UK to not only have the opportunity to do research in two outstanding chemistry departments, but also to learn about the chemical industry, science history as well as opportunities for international study, work and collaborations. Exposure to chemical industry in the UK and internationally comes through a day-long interactive visit to Syngenta’s largest R&D site, Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre in Bracknell, approximately 2 hours from Bristol. Key activities at Jealott’s Hill include research into discovery of new active ingredients, new formulation technologies, product safety, technical support of the product range and seeds research. The site houses several “centres of scientific excellence” that support Syngenta’s worldwide R&D activities and collaborations. London is also easily accessible by bus or train, and we arrange visits to important sites related to chemistry, such as The Science Museum (part of the National Museum system) and the Royal Society of Chemistry. In addition, we take advantage of the Dr. 112

Nile’s and several of the mentors’ expertise from working in both the US and the UK to schedule seminars along with the weekly dinners to discuss topics such as: differences and similarities in the education and research environment in the US and the UK, strategies for developing international collaborations as well as work and research opportunities abroad. After returning to the US, all students give presentations at the Southeastern Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society (SERMACS). Students also give presentations at their home campus at venues that showcase undergraduate research, such as the Undergraduate Research Expo held at UNCG or the Guilford Undergraduate Symposium. These presentations give students additional experience in preparing and presenting research results. Through giving presentations students learn to: bring ideas together, draw conclusions, determine areas for future research and disseminate results. After the summer research experience, students are encouraged to use Skype and other web-based technologies to keep in touch and attend international group meetings.

Recruiting – Local and National Our main goal is to recruit a diverse group of 10 of the best possible participants for the program. We aim to have the maximum number of participants from UNCG be two and the maximum number from PERC schools (including those from UNCG) be four. We focus recruiting the national pool of students in the southeastern US. This allows us to personally recruit at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), which are primarily in the southeast. It also facilitates taking students as a group to SERMACS to present their results the fall after their research experience. We are not limited to that region - we had an outstanding participant in the 2015 cohort from California State University at Bakersfield. The pools of local students that receive particular emphasis are: Students enrolled in UNCG’s BS in Chemistry with a concentration in research: In 2006 UNCG’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry began offering a “research concentration” in the B.S. degree (funded in part by NSF CHE 0418208). The concentration was a result of several faculty members having had students volunteer to work in their research labs as freshmen and then observing that these students not only survived but flourished, often continuing their research until their graduation. During this time they became very productive independent researchers. They presented their results at meetings and were co-authors on publications. The resulting research-based concentration involves students in research beginning in their freshman year through their senior year culminating in the submission of an undergraduate thesis and presentation of a thesis seminar. The availability of summer research courses is particularly attractive to these majors as it allows the completion of as many as two of their seven required research courses per summer. Students from the Piedmont Educational Research Consortium (PERC): PERC consists of the chemistry departments of the institutions of the Greater Greensboro Consortium (GGC). The GGC is an association of diverse colleges and universities located in and around Greensboro, North Carolina. The diversity 113

of the institutions in such close physical proximity allows students and faculty members from colleges and universities with very different backgrounds to interact and collaborate. In 2006, PERC was created to increase opportunities for students, and collaborations between chemistry faculty members in the GGC. Dr. Nile and Dr. Glenn were instrumental in creating and organizing PERC and have established strong connections with faculty members from all the institutions. Of the PERC institutions, the number of full-time chemistry faculty ranges in size from as large as 15 to as small as one. PERC colleges and universities include Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), HBCUs and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs). The faculty members in smaller departments in the consortium face challenges in being research active because of significantly heavier teaching loads as well as lack of access to library and instrumentation resources, which limits research opportunities for students. The members of PERC are: The University of North Carolina Greensboro (UNCG) MSI: Co-educational public liberal arts and research university with an enrollment of 19,000 including 16,000 undergraduate students. North Carolina A&T State University (NC A&T) HBCU: Originally founded as one of two land grant colleges in North Carolina; now a comprehensive co-educational public university with an enrollment of 9,200 undergraduates, and is part of the University of North Carolina system. Bennett College for Women HBCU, PUI: Private liberal arts college for women; founded by the United Methodist Church with an enrollment of 600 undergraduates. Elon University PUI: Private liberal arts university; founded by the United Church of Christ, with an enrollment of 5,700 undergraduates. Greensboro College PUI: Private liberal arts college; founded as a women’s college by the United Methodist Church, now a co-educational institution with an enrollment of 1000 undergraduates. Guilford Technical Community College (GTCC): An institution in the state community college system with an enrollment of 11,000 students in a variety of vocational and college preparatory programs. Guilford College PUI: Private liberal arts college; founded by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) with an enrollment of 1,800 undergraduates. High Point University PUI: Private liberal arts university; founded by the United Methodist Church with an enrollment of 4,200 undergraduates. Winston-Salem State University (WSSU) HBCU, PUI: Founded in 1882, a public, master’s level co-educational university with an enrollment of 6000 undergraduates, and is part of the University of North Carolina system. National recruiting: The PIs send information advertising the program to chemistry department chairs at PUIs and HBCUs in the southeastern US that have chemistry majors. In addition, they reach out personally to colleagues at PUIs and HBCUs and encourage them to share the information about the program with their students. We created a website to advertise the program to prospective students and also publicize the program through the Chemistry REU Leadership Group (https://chemnsfreu.com/) as well as through social media such as Facebook and Twitter. The program is also publicized to organizations 114

dedicated to promoting underrepresented minorities (URM) participation in science such as National Organization of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE) and Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS). In addition, we distribute information about the program to prospective students at regional and national ACS meetings, especially SERMACS, where many of the participants have presented their research. We have found that the alumni of the program are some of the best recruiters. Two additional colleagues help Dr. Nile and Dr. Glenn recruit a large and diverse pool of applicants. Dr. Iris Wagstaff agreed to be a member of our team to help with recruitment of URM students. A former student of the Dr. Nile she is STEM Program Director, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and was also an AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow at the Department of Justice. Dr. Wagstaff is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Chemistry at UNCG and is on the Executive Committee of NOBCChE. Dr. Mary Crowe, Associate Provost of Experiential Education at Florida Southern College (FSC) also helps with recruiting, specifically from PUIs nationwide. Using her connections with the Independent Colleges Organizations (ICO) in NC and the ICO-FL she advertises the programs to her colleagues at PUIs. FSC is one of the tight knit “I-4” five PUIs, all within an hour’s drive of FSC. Dr. Crowe meets with chemistry faculty on these campuses to promote and cultivate applicants to the program. She also uses the CUR listserve to advertise the program and work with the Councilors within the Division of Chemistry to promote it. The application and selection process: We solicit student applications with a deadline in early January and make offers by the middle of February. Because this is an international program, the early deadline is necessary, as we need additional lead time to arrange for visas, housing and travel. We are committed to recruiting a diverse pool of applicants and our goal is that at least half (50%) of the participants will hail from underrepresented groups, including women and URMs. Three PERC schools are HBCUs and a UNCG is an MSI, with an undergraduate student body consisting of approximately 27% African Americans and 7% Hispanic or Latino Americans. Students are asked to supply their name, their year in school, their matriculation date, their major, GPA, gender, race, whether they are first generation college students, whether they are low-income as defined by current federal standards, their plans after graduation and whether or not they have participated in a previous mentored research experience or study abroad. They complete a personal statement about what they hope to gain by participating in the IREU research and submit a copy of their current academic transcript with their application. Two faculty recommendations are also requested. Student applications are reviewed and ranked by the PERC REU steering committee. Both intellectual merit and the broader impacts are important to the evaluation of applications. If there are more willing mentors at the UK universities than student participants, selection is driven by matching the highest priority students with the most appropriate mentors while ensuring that of at least four participants work at each UK university.

115

Challenges Unique to an International REU A major challenge with an International REU is the mismatch in the calendars of US and international institutions. The UK semester doesn’t end until late June and the US fall semester starts in mid-August. This means dorm rooms (halls of residence) are not available until late June and that research space could be limited initially. Fortunately both Bristol and Bath have undergraduate research programs and these undergraduates have finished their research, written their theses and are out of the lab by early June. To overcome the housing problems students have been accommodated in budget hotels for the first two weeks. This adds to the expense, but NSF allows a slightly higher cost per student per week for international REU programs. Most countries require visas for students. In the UK temporary student visas are issued at entry with appropriate minimal paperwork from the host university. This paperwork requires a valid passport number, so it is very important to ensure that students needing new passports start their application procedure as early as possible. This in turn necessitates an earlier that usual application deadline for an international program, in our case, in early January. If necessary, the US Passport Office does have expedited service for a fee and there are commercial expediting services available. Two issues complicating budgeting are variable exchange rates and airfares. The exchange rate fluctuated over the eight years of the program from a high of $1.80 per Pound (2014) to a low of $1.25 per Pound in 2016. Airfares have more than doubled since 2010 and since the NSF, as a government agency, requires that a US flagged carrier must ticket all air travel, these fares are often not the cheapest available. These challenges can make budgeting difficult, but building in a buffer and supplementation with home institution student travel grants and research awards allows some flexibility. Our students are covered during the program by an international health insurance plan, that is provided by UNCG to all study abroad programs, although in the UK the students are also covered by the UK’s National Health Service. Our program is located in an English speaking country, but students still encountered challenges in communication. In post-program surveys, participants reported they developed a greater tolerance for obstacles, which they had to navigate not only in their research but also through living and working in another country. Once again, past participants echoed this in their responses to a survey question about the main takeaway on working with international colleagues. Almost all responses discussed enhanced communications skills resulting from the experience. George Bernard Shaw said: “England and America are two countries divided by a common language”, and indeed, a participant said they “…learned that even though [the] USA and Britain speak the same language, there is still a huge cultural difference and language barriers.” One student said they learned “…how important communication is, especially in a lab with people from six different countries.” Another student observed: “Working with international colleagues is a great opportunity for improving self-awareness. It forces you to learn how to communicate effectively in another culture where certain language or mannerisms may be perceived differently.” One student who best summarized 116

the advantages of the international research experience wrote: “The major strength in this program is teaching rising scientists how to communicate across cultural boundaries, and giving us the opportunity to learn about science from the perspective of another culture. Not only are we learning how to collaborate with people in the United States, but now we have worked under individuals from other countries (my PI was French!). Collaboration is important, but a collaboration that extends past the ocean to accomplish shared goals is even more so.”

Keys to Our Success In an international REU program, the research experience is not occurring at the sponsoring US institution, but rather in chemistry departments overseas where the faculty have relatively little to gain professionally from their generosity in hosting and mentoring students from the US. Therefore, we feel it is imperative that a program be developed by leveraging personal relationships developed with faculty at the potential REU site through professional collaborations. In our case, the fact that Dr. Nile had spent a research leave at Bristol collborating with Professors Paul Pringle and Duncan Wass (who later became research mentors for students) was important to the program success. The positive experience Professors Pringle and Wass had hosting students from the US in their labs led to other faculty at the University of Bristol being willing to mentor US students. The success of the program in Bristol led to us being able to expand the program to the nearby University of Bath. In addition, Dr. Nile’s previous experience living in Bristol during his research leave as well as being a native of the UK gave the program the advantage of having extensive first-hand knowledge of hosting universities, cities, culture and language. Beginning the program gradually by having two self-paying students each of the first two years (organized by the UNCG Office of International Programs as part of its Study Abroad Program) was invaluable as a proof of concept exercise. Those first two years revealed many unanticipated problems to be identified and resolved. They also demonstrated that the UNCG’s Office of International Programs and Office of Undergraduate Research could provide adequate support. Our IRES proposal benefitted by involving a very diverse consortium of schools (PERC) as the proposed applicant pool.

Outcomes – Learning Gains In post-program surveys, participating students reported the largest gains in learning laboratory techniques and the ability to work independently. Past participants reiterated this in their responses to the question regarding the main takeaway on the research they conducted: “It was an incredible experience working on cutting edge research. I felt that my mentor sufficiently prepared me for the work I did, but I was also encouraged to work independently.” Another student said “I still have contact with my advisor … and keep updated on her research. I have used some of the techniques I gained in her lab in my own graduate research.” This data demonstrates that the REU program provides both 117

the opportunity and the appropriate mentoring for students to develop new lab research skills and the confidence to work on their own as researchers. And mentoring didn’t just come from the faculty supervisor; as one student said: “The main takeaway was the sense of inclusion and mentoring I received from all the international colleagues working in the lab.” In addition to providing a first class research experience for a diverse group of undergraduates, this program also allows students to gain international experience, and the participants valued that, as shown by their answers to the survey question regarding insights into international research and collaborations. As one student responded: “International research and collaboration is a lot more prevalent than I originally thought. In my lab during the experience, I worked with chemists from a large variety of countries including Iran, Austria, Italy, and Hungary. I was unaware of how much international collaboration actually occurred.” Participants also realized the value that international collaborations bring to science, writing: [International research and collaborations] “…are vital to ensure a full and rich global research community that approaches the challenges facing humanity from every angle to achieve the best results and most exciting discoveries.” Programs like this REU make it much more likely that the students participating will be part of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce in the future. Finally, this REU program provides not only a research experience but also an international experience to students, including those students who would not otherwise be able to study abroad due to the packed academic schedule of a chemistry major and/or due to financial constraints. As one of the past participants wrote: “While there are many REU programs available that give students the opportunity to conduct research at a high caliber, this REU is truly unique in that it sends the message that chemistry can take you places, literally and figuratively. Indeed, the greatest strength of this program is that it allows students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, like myself, travel abroad. Before this REU, I had never even dreamt of going as far as the UK because it was never in the realm of possibility. I feel incredibly privileged and thankful to have been given this experience. It will forever be my most cherished memory of my undergraduate career.”

Acknowledgments NSF IRES Grant 0966420; NSF REU Grant 1262847.

References 1.

2.

NAFSA: International Association of Educators. Securing America’s Future: Global Education for a Global Age November 2003. http:// www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets/ Public_Policy/securing_america_s_future.pdf (accessed August 2017). British Council, 2013. Culture at Work: The Value of Intercultural Skills in the Workplace. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/culture-atwork-report-v2.pdf (accessed August 2017) 118

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Dwyer, M. M.; Peters, C. K. The Benefits of Study Abroad: New Study Confirms Significant Gains. Transitions Abroad Magazine. 2004, 37 (5). http://www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/magazine/0403/ benefits_study_abroad.shtml (accessed August 2017). West, C. Career Booster: Education Abroad. International Educator. 2014, 23 (3), 54–57. https://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/ie_mayjun14_edabroad.pdf (accessed August 2017). UNC-Greensboro International Programs Center. https:// international.uncg.edu// (accessed August 2017). Pynes, P. Effective Pre-departure/Arrival Programs for International Students. Presented at the 64th Annual NAFSA Conference, May 2012, Houston, TX. http://www.uncg.edu/ipg/studyabroad/ nafsaorientationworkshop/orientationprograms.htm (accessed August 2017). Best College Reviews: The 50 Best Study Abroad programs. http:/ /www.bestcollegereviews.org/best-study-abroad-programs/ (accessed August 2017). Blackburn, R.; Cameron, S.; Chapman, D. “Cloning” in academia: mentorship and academic careers. Research in Higher Education 1981, 15, 315–327. Jacobi, M. Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: a literature review. Review of Educational Research 1991, 61 (4), 505–532. Malachowski, M. The mentoring role in undergraduate research projects. Council of Undergraduate Research Quarterly 1996, 17, 91–93, 104. Koch, C.; Johnson, W. Documenting the Benefits of Undergraduate Mentoring. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly 2000, 20, 172–175. Pascarella, E.; Terenzini, P. How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, 1991. Astin, A. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Josey Bass, San Francisco, CA. 30. b. Tinto, V. 1998. Colleges as communities: taking research on student persistence seriously. Review of Higher Education 1993, 21, 167–177. Shellito, C.; Shea, K.; Weissmann, G.; Mueller-Solger, A.; Davis, W. Successful mentoring of undergraduate researchers: tips for creating positive student research experiences. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 2001, 30, 460–465. Poland, S. From REU to PUI: One person’s perspective. Abstracts of Papers, 251st ACS National Meeting and Exposition, San Diego, CA, United States, March 13−17, 2016; PROF-15. Gardner, P.; Gross, L.; Steglitz, I. Unpacking Your Study Abroad Experience: Critical Reflection for Workplace Competencies. Collegiate Employment Research Institute (CERI) Research Brief 2008, 1 (1), 1–12. http://ceri.msu.edu/publications/pdf/brief1-2008final.pdf (accessed August 2017).

119

Chapter 9

Entering Mentoring: A Mentor Training Seminar for REU Mentors A. E. Greenberg* Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Mentoring plays a key role in the success of undergraduate research students. Proper mentoring is a key to building a successful Research Experience for Undergraduates Program. Many REU programs struggle with how to best train REU mentors to provide appropriate mentoring to their REU students. This chapter discusses an easy to implement mentor training seminar, Entering Mentoring, that can be integrated into any REU program. Included in the chapter are the history of Entering Mentoring, an overview of the Chemistry focused Entering Mentoring curriculum, tips for integrating Entering Mentoring into a Chemistry REU program, where to find access to free training materials, and how evaluate the impacts of Entering Mentoring.

© 2018 American Chemical Society

Introduction One of the most difficult jobs of a Research Experience for Undergraduates director is how to best prepare the direct mentors of REU students to provide effective mentoring. In many cases REU students will work directly with graduate students and/or post docs who themselves are currently being mentored. Often these graduate students and post docs are mentoring for the first time and experimenting with mentoring styles that will work best for them. First time mentors often will use mentoring techniques that were effective from their success as a researcher, but may not fit their personality style or the personality style of their REU students. Alternatively, graduate students and post docs who have had poor mentoring experiences will choose mentoring styles that are opposite to their experiences but may not be appropriate for mentoring a REU student. When a mentor chooses a mentoring style that does not fit their personality it is often apparent to the REU student and may not appear to be genuine. Because many Chemistry REU students are experiencing research for the first time through the REU program, the importance of proper mentoring is vital to the success and long-term career choices of REU students. Studies of the impact of mentorship have shown that students who receive strong mentoring during research experiences have enhanced self-efficacy toward their research experiences (1–5); greater persistence while engaged in research (6–8), increased research productivity (9, 10), overall higher career satisfaction (11, 12), and enhanced recruitment of underrepresented students (13). While there is significant evidence to the value of promoting strong mentorship for REU students there are very few mentors who receive effective mentor training and mentors often rely solely on their past experiences and observing other mentors to provide effective approaches to mentoring (14, 15). For REU programs, it is vitally important that we as REU directors provide appropriate training for our mentors so we can help our REU students be as successful as possible during the REU program and throughout their research careers.

Entering Mentoring: A Brief History The University of Wisconsin-Madison has been at the forefront of research mentor training for over a decade. The beginnings of Entering Mentoring started through conversations in 2005 at the Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching to train future biology faculty to be more effective research mentors. Graduate students, post docs, faculty and staff were included in these conversations. The outcomes of the conversations led to publication of the first edition of “Entering Mentoring”. The Entering Mentoring curriculum is based on an experiential facilitated seminar where a facilitator will lead a small group of students, 8-12, in exercises, discussions, and case studies on mentoring experiences. Evaluation of the initial “Entering Mentoring” (16) seminar found that mentors who participated in the training were more likely to discuss topics including expectations, consider issues related to diversity, and seek advice from their peers. (17). 122

Based off the success of the original Entering Mentoring seminar, the authors received an NSF CCLI grant to expand the curriculum beyond the original biology focus. From 2007 to 2010 a series of faculty and staff met weekly to work on adaptions of Entering Mentoring into discipline specific mentor trainings. Chemistry was included in the adaptions. Prof. Tehshik Yoon and I represented Chemistry for adaptation of Entering Mentoring, which led to the publication of the Chemistry specific Entering Mentoring Curricula (18). During the adaption process, we wrote case studies and activities that were related to experiences that chemistry undergraduates and graduate students would find familiar. All of the case studies developed were based on real mentoring experiences and challenges that occurred in chemistry laboratories using topics related to organic synthesis, physical chemistry laboratory and computational experiments, and situations related to biochemistry focused research. During the adaptation, all identifying information was removed from written case studies. The goal of the adaptation was to provide a curriculum that would resonate with chemistry faculty, students, and post docs and encourage them to critically think about how mentoring impacts research experiences in the chemical related sciences. The adaption team developed curricula in multiple disciplinary topics including, Astrophysics, Engineering, Math, Field Biology, Psychology, Physics, and Multidisciplinary version that includes case studies from multiply disciplines. All of the disciplinary curricula are available to download for free from the Center for Improvement in Mentored Experiences for Research (cimerproject.org). In 2014, Entering Mentoring (19) was published by W.H. Freeman as an updated multidisciplinary training for mentors of research students.

Chemistry Research Mentor Training Seminar Curriculum The Chemistry Mentor Training Seminar is an adaptation of the original Entering Mentoring curriculum that was completed as part of a NSF funded CCLI project. The adaptations were developed by Prof. Janet Branchaw, Prof. Teshik Yoon and me. The material is broken into eight one-hour sessions that highlight different aspects of building and maintaining effective mentoring relationships. On the following pages are the overall seminar objectives, a sample syllabus, key mentoring concepts, and learning objectives for each of the eight sessions. Each of the eight sessions isdesigned to be facilitated by a faculty and/or staff facilitator. The downloadable seminar materials include in-depth facilitation notes including questions to ask during each session and activity. By including detailed facilitation notes, the goal is to allow someone who has not facilitated an interactive seminar to easily implement mentor training without a great deal of training or preparation. For new facilitators a general guide to facilitation is included in the seminar materials. It is important to note that the role of the facilitator is to generate discussion and it is not expected that the facilitator be an expert in mentoring. The seminar works best when participants are engaging one another in discussion of mentoring topics and the facilitator keeps the process moving. During the process of implementation, there will be disagreements on how to approach different mentoring challenges. It is important that facilitators 123

encourage all participants to express their opinions. There will be multiple solutions to many mentoring challenges and hearing from all seminar participants will allow students to hear multiple solutions to a mentoring problem and choose the one that best fits their mentoring style. For facilitators who are ambivalent about facilitation there are train the trainer workshops for interested faculty to learn about best practices in facilitating mentor training. Workshops are offered by CIMER, the NIH supported National Research Mentoring Network, and the NSF supported EFRI-REM Mentoring Catalyst Project. The curriculum is designed to be experiential with the goal of building a learning community of mentors interested in strengthening their mentoring skills. The curriculum is built around participants having conversations and sharing solutions to mentoring experiences. To help generate lively and inclusive discussion the curriculum includes case studies that are designed to be open ended and purposely vague leading to multiple interpretations. As facilitator, you can target an aspect of the case through asking questions provided in the facilitation guide. As you become a more confident facilitator, you will be able to guide the discussion in the direction that you find to be the most valuable. Regardless of the skill of the facilitator, the conversations that are generated are rich and dynamic with participants taking a critical look at their own mentoring experiences as mentor and mentee through the lens of being a participant in the seminar. In addition to the weekly conversations and activities, there are suggested assignments and readings for each session. Assignments are listed in the sample syllabus provided on the next page. How a facilitator uses the assignments and readings will depend greatly on how the sessions are structured and implemented. Later in this chapter I will discuss different timelines for integrating a mentoring seminar into your REU program. One of the key assignments of the mentoring seminar is the development of a Mentoring Philosophy similar to a teaching philosophy. The goal of the Mentoring Philosophy is to allow participants to express their philosophy of mentoring students. Mentoring Philosophies, while not required like a teaching philosophy, are extremely valuable tools for mentoring seminar participants and their professional development. Many students use their philosophies to help with future job applications and interviews. As a facilitator I encourage my mentoring seminar participants to revisit their mentoring philosophies on a regular basis and use it like a journal to track how the seminar has helped them change their philosophy and approach to mentoring. During the last mentoring session, students will share their mentoring philosophies and see how their peers approach to mentoring differs from their own.

Mentoring Seminar Session Descriptions and Learning Objectives Chemistry Mentoring Seminar Objective: Seminar participants will work with a community of peers to develop and improve their mentoring skills. By the end of the class, participants should be able to clearly articulate a personal mentoring philosophy to anyone inside or outside their discipline, and have multiple strategies for dealing with mentoring challenges. 124

Session 1: Getting Started and Project Design

Learning Objectives Mentors will: • • • •

Explore their perceptions of the research mentoring relationship in their discipline Become oriented to the process and expectations for the seminar sessions Identify qualities of good research projects for their mentees Prepare to establish effective research mentoring relationships with their mentees

During the first session you will introduce the importance of mentoring and establish your learning community. One of the main goals of this session is to build an agreed upon group dynamic. One approach I have taken is to collectively build a list of ground rules the group will adhere to during the remainder of the sessions. This helps to set a tone of respect.

Session 2: Establishing Expectations and Maintaining Effective Communication

Expectations One critical element of an effective mentor-mentee relationship is a shared understanding of what each person expects from the relationship. Problems between mentors and mentees often arise from misunderstandings about expectations. Importantly, expectations change over time so frequent reflection and clear communication about expectations are needed on a regular basis.

Learning Objectives Mentors will have the knowledge and skill to: • • • • •

Establish expectations and clearly communicate them to the mentee Design and communicate clear goals for the mentoring relationship Listen to and consider the expectations of their mentee in the mentoring relationship Assess the mentee’s knowledge and skill level and adjust the project design accordingly Consider how differences may affect the relationship

125

Maintaining Effective Communication

Communication Good communication is a key element of any relationship and a mentoring relationship is no exception. As mentors, it is not enough to say that we know good communication when we see it. Rather, it is critical that mentors reflect upon and identify the specific characteristics of effective communication and take time to practice communication skills. to practice communication skills. Learning Objectives: Mentors will have the knowledge and skill to: • •

•

Foster open communication with the mentee Address how difference in communication styles, background, position of power, etc. can alter the intent and the perception of what is said and heard Use multiple strategies for improving communication

The second session is the most important of the sessions as expectations and communicaitons are often at the root of many mentoring issues. During this session you help seminar participants learn ways of establishing expectations early in a mentoring relationship. Through establishing expectations, both mentor and mentee can verbalize what is needed for each to have a successful research experience. Often we see REU students who arrive with expectations that are beyond the scope of a REU program. For instance, one REU student in my program had the expectation that they will be a first author on a paper submitted to Science after completion of their 10-week summer program. While we know this is an unrealistic expectation, the student did not know this. Had we not had a discussion of expectations with the student, there was a chance the student would have been disappointed with their REU experience because the outcomes did not match their expectations. By discussing the student’s expectations at the beginning of the program, we were able to help the student realize what an appropriate expectation would be for a 10-week experience. The student ultimately had a great experience because of a better understanding of what can be accomplished during a REU program. While this is an extreme case, it highlights the importance of discussing expectations with REU students. The other topic that often leads to many mentoring challenges is communication. Many mentoring issues can be tracked back to poor communication between mentor and mentee. In this session you highlight importance of maintaining effective communication and how the words we use can have positive and negative impact on a mentoring relationship.

126

Table 1. Sample Research Training Syllabus Sessions

Topics

Week 1

Getting Started and Project Design

Week 2

Assignments Due

Readings

Establishing Expectations & Maintaining Effective Communication

Draft mentoring strategy or philosophy Description of mentee’s research project

National Academy of Sciences, (1997). “What is a Mentor?”

Week 3

Assessing Understanding & Fostering Independence

A short biography of mentee Summary of the discussion about expectations or a draft mentoring contract

Week 4

Mentoring Challenges and Solutions

Bring in copies of your own case study to share with the class (or be prepared to present one verbally)

Handelsman, Pfund, Miller Lauffer, & Pribbenow, (2005). “Mentoring Learned, Not Taught.”

Week 5

Addressing Diversity

Reflection on differences and how they affect the research experience

Fine & Handelsman, (2005). “Benefits and Challenges of Diversity.” Crutcher, B.N., (2007). “Mentoring across cultures.”

Week 6

Dealing with Ethics

Look over the general ethics guidelines for your discipline Be prepared to talk about how they apply to you and your work. Bring a copy of them to class.

Week 7

The Elements of Effective Mentoring

Summary of your mentor’s response to a mentoring challenges

Week 8

Developing a Mentoring Philosophy

Revised mentoring philosophy

127

Lee, Dennis, & Campbell, (2007). “Nature’s Guide for Mentors.”

Session 3: Assessing Understanding and Fostering Independence (20)

Understanding Determining if someone understands you is not easy, yet knowing if your mentee understands you is critical to a productive mentor-mentee relationship. Developing strategies to assess understanding is an important part of becoming an effective mentor.

Learning Objectives Mentors will have the knowledge and skill to: • • • • •

Assess their mentees’ prior knowledge of the research field Assess/determine their mentees’ understanding of core concepts and procedures in the research field Consider diverse strategies for enhancing mentee understanding Explain and/or model the practice of science and research in their discipline Assess their mentee’s ability to develop and conduct a research project, analyze data and present results

Independence An important goal in any mentoring relationship is helping the mentee become independent; yet defining what an independent mentee knows and can do is not often articulated by either the mentor or the mentee. Defining what independence looks like and developing skills to foster independence are keys to becoming an effective mentor.

Learning Objectives Mentors will have the knowledge and skill to: • • • • • •

Consider the important roles they play in the academic, professional and personal development of their mentees Employ various strategies to build their mentees’ confidence Implement varied approaches to foster their mentees’ independence in scientific research Establish trust between themselves and their mentees Create an environment where mentees can achieve goals Stimulate creativity 128

In this session, you discuss how to assess what our mentees understand. For REU students, especially those from small schools with limited research capabilities, the REU program is their first opportunity to participate in authentic research. The topics students work on are often new and students are learning the science as they are conducting research for the first time. REU students may fear saying they do not understand instructions or material presented to them by their mentors. This session will help mentors learn how to encourage REU students to assess their own understanding and effectively communicate what they do not understand. One of the main goals of the REU program is to provide an authentic research experience where REU students take ownership of their research projects. In order to meet this goal of the REU program, mentors need to learn how to foster independence in their mentees. During case studies and activities, mentors will learn how to best guide their mentees toward independence as a researcher.

Session 4: Mentoring Challenges

Learning Objectives Mentors will: • •

Explore the dynamics of their relationships with their mentees Understand more about their mentees’ perspectives

You will use the middle session to take a step back and reflect on what has been learned during the first three session. As a facilitator, we ask participants to bring a mentoring challenge to discuss with the group as well as take time to think about their relationship with their mentee.

Session 5: Addressing Diversity

Diversity Diversity along a range of dimensions offers both challenges and opportunities to any mentor-mentee relationship. Learning to identify, reflect upon, and engage with diversity is critical to forming and maintaining an effective mentoring relationship.

Learning Objectives Mentors will have the knowledge and skill to: 129

• • • • •

Recognize some of the biases and prejudices they bring to the mentormentee relationship Implement concrete strategies for addressing issues of diversity Engage in conversations about diversity with their mentees Recognize how they can influence their mentees’ decisions to commit to careers in science Improve their multicultural competency

Often the diversity session can be the most difficult session to facilitate, but one of the most interesting and important sessions. During the session, you ask mentors to think about their own biases and how they affect the mentoring relationship. Participants are often hesitant to share opinions on topics related to race and ethnicity. Once the group is comfortable, many important conversations occur that will help mentors be self-reflective. One of the key take aways from this session is learning that having unconscious biases is innately human and should not be a source of embarrassment. Through the session, we encourage mentors to understand their biases and be more intentional about not letting them negatively influence their mentoring relationships.

Session 6: Ethics

Ethics Mentors play an important role in both teaching mentees about ethical behavior and modeling ethical behavior. Moreover, there are many ethical issues to consider when entering a relationship with a mentee based on the power dynamic that exists between mentors and mentees. Reflecting upon and discussing ethical behavior is an important part of becoming an effective mentor.

Learning Objectives Mentors will have the knowledge and skills to: • •

Articulate the issues of ethics they need to discuss with their mentees Clarify the roles they play, both as teachers and role models, in educating mentees about ethics

During this session, you discuss the role that mentors play in teaching REU students ethical behavior. While many mentors assume their mentees understand what is considered ethical behavior, often new researchers do not know the nuances of research ethics. This will highlight gray areas of research ethics and help mentors guide their REU students.

130

Session 7: Elements of Good Mentoring

Learning Objectives Mentors will: • •

Explore and compare different approaches to mentoring Identify specific elements of their own approach to mentoring

This session is an opportunity for mentors to self-reflect on their experiences with mentoring and mentor training. You will lead a discussion focusing on mentors thinking about their growth throughout the mentor training experience.

Session 8: Developing a Mentoring Philosophy

Learning Objective Mentors will: •

Critically and constructively, review their approaches to and experiences of mentoring relationships.

The final session asks mentors to share their mentoring philosophies with their peers. Mentors learn that mentoring is a very personal experience and how they approach mentoring may not be the same as their peers, but ultimately mentoring is ultimately grounded in a few core best practices that can integrate with individual approaches.

Integrating Entering Mentoring into a Chemistry REU Program When adapting Entering Mentoring for Chemistry mentors one of the goals of the adaptation was to build capacity for better mentoring in REU programs. While mentors will have the greatest benefit by completing all eight sessions, it is unrealistic for all REU programs to be able to implement a full mentor training for their REU mentors. All of the eight sessions can be completed independently of the others allowing for discrete implementation of a session. A REU program director can decide which topics are of the most importance to their individual programs. For instance for REU programs that have supplements for ethics it may not be necessary to include the ethics session in your mentor training sessions. With that in mind, the curriculum is designed to allow for multiple implementation timelines, as programs will differ with their ability to meet with their REU mentors. In the 131

next few pages, I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of three of the most popular implementation timelines.

Eight Weekly One-Hour Sessions As a REU program director since 2006, meeting weekly with REU mentors has been a benefit to the REU program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I typically will meet for the first session with the REU mentors the week prior to the students arriving to introduce the mentoring seminar and prepare them for arrival of their students. When scheduling weekly sessions I schedule sessions over lunch and provide pizza for the mentors. While not necessary, serving lunch helps the mentors to feel appreciated and increases their attendance to the seminar. There are both advantages and disadvantages to meeting weekly.

Advantages The eight one-hour sessions provide numerous advantages to other implementation timelines. The mentoring seminar works best when a strong learning community can be built. The goal of the leaning community is for mentors to rely on one another when solving mentoring issues, during the eight-week session group dynamics begin to change and the group discussions shift from being focused on the facilitator to being focused on the learning community. This shift leads to greatest outcomes from seminar. In other implementation timelines there may not be enough time to build a community. While the majority of learning takes place in the sessions through meaningful discussions, the seminar will have the greatest impact when participants are able to complete all of the assignments and readings. The eight-week timeline allows participants to work on weekly assignments and do weekly readings. I ask my participants to start a mentoring philosophy after our first meeting and update weekly based on the topics we have discussed. This allows mentors to track their growth and change in their approach to mentoring, other timelines may not allow for completion of some of the assignments and readings before each implementing a session. Program directors often find it hard to have time to check in with all of the mentors of our REU program. By having mentors attend weekly mentor training sessions, I am able to determine what is working well and whether there are issues. This has been very beneficial to overall success of the REU program. Additionally, I start each session with Highs and Lows where I ask mentors to share a mentoring high and a mentor low for the week. As a group, we will discuss how to handle lows and cheer the successes of the highs. Mentors see this exercise as a part of the seminar. As a program director, I see this as a way of monitoring REU mentoring and providing needed support for REU mentors.

132

Disadvantages While there are significant advantages to implementing over eight weeks there are disadvantages as well. We are asking a great deal of our mentors and adding a weekly commitment may be too much for many of our mentors. Invariably some of the mentors may not be able to attend all of the sessions, which can limit the benefit the mentor will have from the seminar. Additionally a facilitator must be available weekly, which may not be possible during a busy REU schedule.

Two Four-Hour Sessions This implementation timeline can be completed in two days where during each day four sessions are completed with REU mentors.

Advantages Many REU programs like to train their mentors prior to the start of the program. Having two four-hour sessions can accomplish this goal because this only requires two days to complete mentors can complete the entire seminar prior to the start of the REU program. Many mentors prefer only having to commit to two days rather than commit weekly to eight sessions. It makes scheduling sessions much easier.

Disadvantages The ability to build a strong learning community may not be as possible with a two-day implementation. While the contact between mentors is the same number of hours, not meeting weekly and not having time to reflect has not led to the same sense of community. With this timeline there is less time for reflection between sessions during each day. Much of the growth of mentors come from reflection of mentoring topics outside of the seminar. Having mentors reflect on one topic each week helps with growth. This timeline does not allow for weekly check in with REU mentors, which can help with program administration.

One Four-Hour Session Many REU programs are not able to commit to implementing a full eight-hour training. Because the curriculum is designed to be modular with each session being its own distinct module, it is still beneficial to implement a smaller version of the seminar.

133

Advantages One four-hour implementation requires less time for REU mentors and less prep time for a facilitator. For new facilitators it can be less daunting to do a four-hour training when first implementing mentor training. A REU program can choose the topics that are of most importance to that particular program.

Disadvantages The disadvantages for one four-hour session are similar to those for two fourhour sessions with the additional disadvantage of mentors not receiving the full seminar and missing opportunities for growth as mentors. Tips for Facilitation One of the main concerns raised by the facilitators that I train is their ability to facilitate the seminar on their own. There are detailed instructions for facilitation within the downloadable materials that suggest the time to spend on individual activities, explicit questions to ask mentors, and other general tips on how to facilitate. These are suggestions and questions and are not meant to be followed exactly. Just as mentoring is a personal experience, the same can be said for facilitation of mentor training. I encourage facilitators to personalize facilitation by adding case studies from their own program, bringing in their experiences, and spending more time on their preferred activities and less on others. This helps them feel more comfortable and confident in facilitation. The most important aspect of mentor training is to have a dialogue with mentors and not to follow a curriculum exactly as written. Additionally, many facilitators choose to co-facilitate their mentor training sessions; this allows multiple perspectives on mentoring and lessens the burden of facilitation. As they gain experience, facilitators will find that facilitating mentor training is a rich and rewarding experience and will bring great value to their program.

Evaluation of Entering Mentoring with a REU Program The effectiveness of the Entering Mentoring curriculum has been studied and shown to be effective in changing the behavior of trained mentors. In a study published in 2006, using the Entering Mentoring curriculum, researchers looked at the how behaviors of mentors who were trained versus those who were not trained differed (17). It was determined that there were statistical significant increases in trained mentors behaviors related to mentoring undergraduate research students. In particular trained mentors were more likely to discuss expectations with their mentees, orient students to the building they were working in, consider views of diversity, and discuss aspects of the mentoring relationship with their advisors (17). If you choose to implement mentor training there is no expectation that you will run a full research study including a control group to determine the impact 134

on your mentors and mentees. There are other ways to interpret the value of mentor training on your program. Questions on mentoring satisfaction of your REU students can be included in your current evaluation tool. You do not need to use many questions to see an impact on the mentoring of your students. For my program I ask questions related to the mentoring experiences of my REU students these are related to the topics covered in mentor training here is a summary of data from five of our mentoring related questions. (Table 2).

Table 2. Mentee Evaluation of the Mentored Experiencea Evaluative Statement (1 is poor to 5 is excellent)

a

Mean Score

Working relationship with my mentor

4.7

Amount of time spent with my mentor

4.6

My working relationship with research group members

4.9

The workplace atmosphere for students of my gender

4.9

The workplace atmosphere for students of my race/ethnicity

4.9

Data is from the 2015 REU Summer Program Cohort.

The mentoring seminar’s impact on knowledge and behaviors is also evaluated through a survey tool. In response to the question “How would you rate the overall quality of your mentoring thinking back to before the training and now, after the training?,” the average score was 3.67 (where 1 is low and 7 is high) before the training and 6.00 after the training. In response to the question “Have you made any, or do you plan to make any changes in your mentoring as a result of this training?,” 100% of the participants said “yes.” In response to the question “How likely are you to recommend the mentor training to a colleague?,” 2/3 of the participants said “very likely” and 1/3 of the participants said “likely.” No one was “undecided,” “unlikely,” or “very unlikely.” There are additional tools that are both valid and reliable that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the mentoring that students during their REU program. The Mentoring Effectiveness Tool (20) was developed as part of research study to evaluate the impact of mentoring on culturally diverse summer undergraduate research students. The tool is free to use with permission from the authors. If you are interested in facilitating a section of mentor training and would like assistance in developing an appropriate, please contact me and I will share evaluation resources with you.

Final Thoughts REU program directors often look at the goal of the REU program to solely be the development of REU students and often do not think about the professional development of graduate student, post doc, and faculty mentors of our students. As a program director, I think about participants of the program broadly, mentors who work with undergraduate REU students are as much participants in the REU 135

program as the undergraduate researchers. There is as significant an opportunity for growth of the mentors through the REU program as there is for mentees. Mentor training is an opportunity to provide significant professional development for mentors. The impact of that professional development can reach far beyond the REU program. Graduate students and post docs who participate in mentor training will have gained valuable skills for future careers. Those who choose faculty careers will have a toolkit of mentoring skills to help with the transition to faculty life. Additionally an unexpected outcome of the program has been the impact on current mentoring relationships of graduate students and post docs who participate. Participants have stated that their mentoring relationships with their own advisors have strengthened due to participation in mentor training. Finally faculty who participate look critically at their own mentoring and make meaningful changes to how they approach mentoring of their students, which can lead overall greater satisfaction for both the faculty member and their students.

Acknowledgments This author would like to acknowldgement the REU mentors and REU students who have participated in the mentor training. The students and mentors were supported through NSF REU Site awards: CHE-1004690, CHE-1262750, 1659223. Additionally the adaptation of the mentoring seminar for Chemistry and Engineering was supported through NSF supported EFRI-REM Mentoring Catalyst award number:1551283.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

Bland, C.; Taylor, A.; Shollen, S. Faculty Success through Mentoring: A Guide for Mentors, Mentees, and Leaders; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: Lanham, MD, 2009. Cho, C.; Ramanan, R.; Feldman, M. Defining the ideal qualities of mentorship: a qualitative analysis of the characteristics of out- standing mentors. Am. J. Med. 2011, 124 (5), 453–458. Feldman, M. D.; Arean, P. A.; Marshall, S. J.; Lovett, M.; O’Sullivan, P. Does mentoring matter: results from a survey of faculty mentees at a large health sciences university. Med. Educ. Online 2010, 23, 15. Garman, K.; Wingard, D.; Reznik, V. Development of Junior Faculty’s self-efficacy: outcomes of a National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2001, 76 (10), S74–76. Palepu, A.; Friedman, R.; Barnett, R. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional development in US medical schools. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 1998, 73 (3), 318–323. Sambunjak, D.; Straus, S. E.; Marusˇic´, A. Mentoring in academic medicine. JAMA, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2006, 296 (9), 1103–1115. Gloria, A. M.; Robinson Kurpius, S. E. Influences of self-beliefs, social support, and comfort in the university environment on the academic 136

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15. 16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

nonpersistence decisions of American Indian under- graduates. Cult. Divers. Ethn. Minor Psychol. 2001, 7 (1), 88–102. Solorzano, D. The Road to the Doctorate for California’s Chicanas and Chicanos: A Study of Ford Foundation Minority Fellows; California Policy Seminar: Berkeley, 1993. Steiner, J.; Curtis, P.; Lanphear, B. Assessing the role of influential mentors in the research development of primary care fellows. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2004, 79 (9), 865–872. Wingard, D.; Garman, K.; Reznik, V. Facilitating faculty success: outcomes and cost benefit of the UCSD National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2004, 70 (10), S9. Schapira, M. M.; Kalet, A.; Schwartz, M. D.; Gerrity, M. S. Mentorship in general internal medicine: investment in our future. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 1992, 7 (2), 248–251. Beech, B. M.; Calles-Escandon, J.; Hairston, K. G.; Langdon, S. E.; LathamSadler, B. A.; Bell, R. A. Mentoring programs for under-represented minority faculty in academic medical centers. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2013, 88 (4), 541–549. Hathaway, R. S.; Nagda, B. A.; Gregerman, S. R. The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: an empirical study. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2002, 43 (5), 614–631. Keyser, D. J.; Lakoski, J. M.; Lara-Cinisomo, S.; Schultz, D. J.; Williams, V. L.; Zellers, D. F.; Pincus, H. A. Advancing institutional efforts to support research mentorship: a conceptual framework and self-assessment tool. Acad Med. 2008, 83, 217–225. Silet, K. A.; Asquith, P.; Fleming, M. F. Survey of mentoring programs for KL2 scholars. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2010, 3, 299–304. Handelsman, J.; Pfund, C.; Miller Lauffer, S.; Pribbenow, C. M. Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, 2005. Pfund, C.; Maidl Pribbenow, C.; Branchaw, J.; Miller Lauffer, S.; Handelsman, J. Professional skills. The merits of training mentors. Science 2006, 311 (5760), 473–474. Branchaw, J.; Greenberg, A.; Yoon, T. Chemistry Research Mentor Training Seminar; 2011. www.cimerprojec.org (accessed 02/01/2018). Adapted from Handelsman, J.; Pfund, C.; Miller Lauffer, S.; Pribbenow, C. M. Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, 2005. Pfund, C.; Branchaw, J.; Handelsman, J. Entering Mentoring; W.H. Freeman & Company: New York, 2014. Byars-Winston, A.; Branchaw, J.; Pfund, C.; Leverett, P.; Newton, J. Culturally diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research mentoring relationships. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2016, 37 (15), 2533–2554.

137

Chapter 10

Coordination of the Chemistry REU Program at the University of Nebraska−Lincoln Mark A. Griep,*,1 Marilyne Stains,1 and Jonathan Velasco2 1Department

of Chemistry, University of Nebraska−Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0304, United States 2Department of Chemistry, Colorado State University−Pueblo, Pueblo, Colorado 81001-4901, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

During its first six years, the summer research program in chemical assembly at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln trained 50 students to think like researchers, to communicate science to different audiences, and choose a career path that is aligned with their personal goals. The participants are selected using a two-filter model in which applicants are first chosen for features including being from a non-research university, GPA greater than 3.0, U.S. citizenship, and class standing at the sophomore or junior level. The second filter involves gathering information from each file to find students who would benefit the most from a research experience. Factors that weigh heaviest are student intent to go to graduate school, personal statements about career plans, and no or few prior research experiences. Once at UNL, our model is to develop reciprocal relationships between each summer researcher, faculty advisor, and graduate student mentor. Although these relationship triangles share common features, they are tailored to the specific experiences of each student because over 90% of the student’s time is spent doing research. An innovative feature of our program is that each cohort of students competes in a poster contest for funds to travel to a national or regional meeting. As such, students attend workshops devoted to communicating science. They learn how to communicate with scientists by creating a poster and how to communicate with the public by creating a slideshow for science-interested high school © 2018 American Chemical Society

students. Students also take field trips to local companies to learn about career paths and opportunities. Weekly activity reports allow the program coordinator to track progress and to identify possible problems reasonably quickly. The evidence indicates that our participants become increasingly independent researchers throughout the summer. Summative evaluations coupled with self-reporting on a LinkedIn account allows the program coordinators to track outcomes. After our participants graduate, they choose to continue as scientists or researchers either by joining a graduate program, securing employment in the science and engineering sector, or by focusing on science communication.

Introduction Given that the products of science and engineering sustain the vitality of the United States economy, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Directorate on Education and Human Resources is mandated to help prepare a broad and diverse workforce in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (1). Over the past six years, the Department of Chemistry at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has developed tools to makes its contribution through its research experience for undergraduate students (REU) summer program. The overall goal of our training program is three-fold: (A) teach and nurture interest in science by engaging an average of eight undergraduate students each summer in authentic research experiences, (B) teach these students how to communicate their research to scientists and to the public, and (C) significantly impact their career decisions.

The Research Relationship Triangle When we were developing our model for research training, we initially considered the chemical metaphor of a catalyst model in which the student is transformed from a novice into an expert researcher upon being trained a faculty research advisor and graduate student mentor. Upon further reflection, we realized that a mentor as catalyst was not the right metaphor on several levels. Perhaps the most important is that a catalyst does not undergo a permanent change whereas it is our goal that the student, advisor, and mentor maintain their relationships with one another after the event. Another reason the catalyst metaphor fails is that the undergraduates are hardly a homogeneous group. Instead, their prior research experience exists along a continuum that needs to be acknowledged. Graduate mentors also gain valuable experience in teaching others to do research. The catalyst metaphor also does not account for multiple mentor inputs such as the faculty research advisor who selects and manages the project and the graduate student mentor, who is in the research advisor’s lab but who provides a great deal of the initial training and then routine oversight. These objections led us to develop a mentoring model of reciprocal relationships (Figure 1). An important 140

feature of this model is that it acknowledges the existing and distinct relationship between the Advisor and the Graduate Student. A successful mentor must negotiate his or her own research project while nurturing the summer researcher in a way that is consistent with the advisor’s directions. In essence, the link between each pair is distinct.

Figure 1. The Research Relationship Triangle. Preparing for the REU experience starts weeks before the students arrive with advisors welcoming them by email and engaging them in their assigned research project through journal articles. Shortly before the arrival of the students, the Chemistry REU Coordinator, Griep, meets with the REU advisors and mentors to discuss the REU program’s goals and schedule. Mentors are given two worksheets developed by Stains to guide their experience (request copies from corresponding author). These sheets were created as a distillation of the material in an earlier version of the University of Michigan’s booklet “How Mentor Graduate Students: A Guide for Faculty,” which was recently updated (2). The sheets were then amended to offer additional specific practical advice as well as specifics about the summer program. One sheet describes how to be an effective facilitator (and not director) of a mentee’s research. The other sheet is for use when they meet with their mentee for the first time. It prompts them to discuss expectations, daily schedule, notebook keeping, lab dynamics, and the like. Once at UNL, students spend over 90% of their time conducting research and the rest of their time participating in Chemistry’s Communicating Science program (one to two hours per week) and UNL Graduate Studies Professional Development Progam (one to two hours per week). To ensure that REU students remain productive, they are required to submit a weekly report on their activities. These are confidential reports between each participant and the coordinator. Most of the report is a checklist of menu items as described below but it ends with an open-ended query to which students can make comments. If students don’t fill in the report, don’t indicate many activities, or respond that they are experiencing a setback unrelated to the research project itself, the coordinator is able to investigate quickly to clear the air. In addition, the Exit Interview asks REU students to describe their experience with all aspects of the program and to provide suggestions for improvements.

141

Participant Selection Our selection procedure is student-centered in that it seeks to find those students who would benefit most from a summer research program and then matches them to the faculty member whose research program interests them the most. Our summer research program typically includes 8 students from our National Science Foundation REU in Chemical Assembly and between 2 to 6 students working with chemistry faculty on other projects. The other projects can be funded from other summer programs such as our faculty and student pair funded by the UNL Chemistry Department, high school students funded by ACS Project SEED, and/or by the ACS Nebraska Local Section. Although recent statistics (3) show that equity has been achieved in the numbers of white men and women earning bachelor degrees in chemistry, women are still underrepresented among doctoral recipients and in chemical research careers. The statistics are much less favorable with regard to people of color in 2016. Specifically, Hispanics comprise 18% of the US population (4) but earn only 3.9% of doctoral degrees in science and engineering (3). The Hispanic population is also the fastest-growing group (5), indicating why we need to get a better representation in research labs to keep pace with broadening their participation. African-Americans comprise 13% of the U.S. population (4) but earn only 2.7% of science and engineering doctoral degrees (3). Our initial expectation for REU students was thus for at least 60% of them to be female and/or from under-represented groups. We easily exceeded that target with 74% of the students meeting these criteria during the first round of NSF funding and 87% in the second round of NSF funding. We attribute this outcome to very high number of applicants (Figure 2) and a two-filter selection process that is described below. Funding for three students in 2011, our pilot year, was from the UNL Office of Graduate Studies (OGS). The OGS has one staff member who coordinates the federally funded summer research programs. OGS became involved about ten years ago when they found these summer programs were effective for graduate recruitment. The OGS assistance also helps reduce each unit’s cost and time for running such programs because they manage student travel, arrange room and board, and provide professional development programs (graduate school application procedures, poster session, social activities, etc.) for over 100 participants each summer. The Chemistry pilot year program was not advertised in advance but still attracted 91 applicants because the application form was on the same page as all other UNL summer programs (6). This allowed us to gather information about applicant demographics and about our pilot program’s effectiveness for use in our ultimately successful first NSF REU application. To drive students to their website, UNL OGS sends emails and flyers to over 7,000 STEM faculty at places including 106 Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU) (7), 239 Hispanic-serving institutions (8), and 37 Tribal Colleges (9). They also recruit at numerous conferences that target underrepresented groups, such as the national meetings of the Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS), the National Organization of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE), 142

and the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). The Chemistry Department sends Griep to recruit at these same national meetings where he receives approximately 40 requests for information about the chemistry REU program and 40 about the chemistry graduate program. These requests typically result in fewer than five applications to each program. In summer 2016, there were over 1200 completed applications for the combination of all UNL summer research programs. Each student supplied the following information (6): name, school, major, GPA, earned credit hours, class, graduation date, date of birth, US citizenship, gender, race or ethnicity, ranked preference among the available UNL summer research programs, and faculty advisor preferences (research projects are summarized on the website). Students also submit an official copy of their transcript and a short statement about themselves in which they also provide reasons for their interest in a summer research experience. Links are sent to the two people chosen to write support letters, who then upload their letters to the form in a way that is secure and confidential but that lets the applicant know the letters have been uploaded. The number of applicants to the UNL chemistry program increased every year from 2011 to 2015 and then began decreasing (Figure 2). However, the percentage of applicants who pass our “first filter” (described below) keeps increasing. This indicates that our recruitment efforts are becoming more effective in reaching our target applicants. In the past three years, we are receiving fewer applications from students enrolled at research universities, from students with considerable prior summer research experience, and from students whose sole intended goal is to enter medical school. To find students who would benefit the most from a chemistry program, the chemistry selection committee passes the completed application files through two selection procedures called “filters.” The committee consists of the coordinator Griep, the chemistry business manager, and the chemistry staff member in charge of recruiting and communications. It takes about 90 minutes for each person to review and rank 50 files after we convene for a discussion. The “First Filter” separates the files based upon the following criteria: chemistry program ranked at the highest preference, a GPA above 3.0, U.S. citizenship, and class standing at the sophomore and junior level plus seniors who will graduate in one year. From 2012 to 2016, the percent of completed applications that makes it through the “First Filter” has increased from 41% to 69%. As our numbers of applicants has grown, the applicants who are driven to the site by recruitment efforts are more likely to meet our criteria. A retrospective analysis indicates that, among our 2016 applicants, 161 out of 232 applicants passed the First Filter, of which 80 (50%) were female and 46 (29%) were underrepresented students (African American, Hispanic, and Multiracial). The “Second Filter” involves reading and assessing files that passed the First Filter for the following target criteria: (1) student intent to go to graduate school but including some students who are also considering a professional school so that our program can influence their decision, (2) the student’s personal statement about their future interest in a research career, (3) their prior research experiences so we can favor those with less, (4) highest chemistry course completed so we can favor students with a moderate amount of coursework to influence their future 143

performance, (5) the letters of support from two faculty members to determine whether the student works well with others and is diligent about completing tasks. These five factors are used to rank the files for how much the applicant would benefit from a summer research program in a way that broadens the experience to those who know why they want to participate but who have fewer opportunities but enough coursework to be able to do well. Next, the faculty advisors receive two of the highest ranked files from students who selected them as their top priority. Griep then sends an email offer to the faculty member’s first choice and gives the applicant one week to respond. The first choice acceptance rate has varied from year to year, covering the range from 60 to 100%.

Figure 2. Number of students who completed their application to the UNL Chemistry REU program from the 2011 pilot year to 2018, who meet the first filter, who are given offers to join the program, and who participate.

Communicating Science and Other Workshops To provide context for their research projects, students attend workshops offered by the Chemistry program and by Graduate Studies (Table 1). To help students remember where they should be, most Chemistry meetings are on Monday mornings and most Graduate Studies meetings are on Wednesday mornings. Students develop skills in communicating their research to scientists (ACS Meeting abstract, poster presentations) and the public (develop and give presentations to students involved in the Upward Bound Math Science program), learn about careers in industry (through field trips) and academia (graduate admissions workshop), and are trained on the use of state-of-the-art instruments, scientific authorship, and science ethics. Through a poster presentation competition at the end of the summer, half of the students receive a travel grant to present their research at a regional or national ACS meeting. 144

Table 1. Summer Activity Timetablea,b Mon

Week 1

SRP Orient, Chem REU Orient, Safety Training

2

SciComm1

3

SciComm2, CommSciPublic1, UpwardBnd1

4

Tue Instrum Tours

Wed

Thu

SRP Picnic SRP1

Chem Picnic

145

SRP2, UpwardBnd3

UpwardBnd4

CommSciPublic2, FieldTrip1

SRP3 (SciComm3)

Chem in the Movies

5

CommSciPublic3, FieldTrip2

SRP4

6

SciComm4, FieldTrip3

SRP5

7

CommSciPublic4 (UpwardBnd5)

SRP6

8

SciComm5

SRP7

9

FieldTrip Debriefing

SRP8

10

SciComm7

UpwardBnd2

SRP Banquet

Fri

ChemPoster, SRP Poster, Awards

SciComm6

Travel Home

a Summer Research Programs (SRP) sponsored by UNL Graduate Studies: SRP Orient is the UNL Summer Program Orientation; SRP Picnic is a Welcome Picnic; Ethics is Ethics Workshop for Physical Sciences; SRP1-8 are the weekly workshops where 1 is ethics, 2 is diversity and inclusion, 3 is poster judging, and 4-8 are related to graduate school admissions; Banquet; Chem in the Movies is Chemistry in the Movies presentation by Griep; SRP Poster is UNL-wide Summer Research Poster session. b Chemistry-specific Programs: Chem REU Orient is Orientation; Safety is Chemical Safety Training; Instrum Tours is Chemistry Instrumentation Tours; SciComm is the Scientific Communication to Scientists series; CommSciPublic is Communicating Science to the Public series; Chem Picnic is Chemistry Picnic; UpwardBnd is Upward Bound Math Science Shadowing; FieldTrips are to 3 Local R&D Companies; FieldTrip Debriefing is a lunch discussion; ChemPoster is Chemistry Poster session; and Awards is Travel Awards.

Safety Prior to their arrival, Chemistry REU participants are required to complete three online safety-training exercises created by UNL Environmental Health and Safety. On the first day of their summer program, they attend a live presentation about safety topics of special interest to chemical researchers such as identifying chemical hazards, using personal protective equipment, how to handle chemical spills, and how to dispose of chemicals. They also learn how to use a fire extinguisher. Instrumentation Tours To help the REU participants learn what instrumentation is available, they are given tours of three facilities in the UNL Chemistry Department: atomic force microscopy, NMR spectroscopy, and 3D Printing. All students must then attend at least one workshop (chosen in consultation with their advisors) on how to use an instrument, run by faculty who use these instruments in their research. Science Communication Workshops (SciComm1-7 in Table 1). Scientists communicate their results with each other through papers, posters, and presentations. The practical goal of the science communication workshops is to create a poster for a regional or national meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS). The poster is also used for the Poster Sessions sponsored by UNL Chemistry and the Summer Research program. Each SciCom Workshop is led by Griep and has a unique focus. SciComm1: Prior to their first meeting, students receive guidelines for preparing an ACS meeting abstract (300 words, etc.) with the instructions to consult with their Advisor and Mentor on their research goal(s), methodology, and the importance of their project. This exercise causes them to consider how their research project is connected to societal topics. The first meeting focuses on helping students make the societal connections. SciComm2: We review revised abstracts for 15 min, discuss how they could be improved, and then each student is given abstracts from two other students to revise yet again. During the next 45 minutes, we discuss authorship issues (10, 11) and Clement’s Authorship Matrix (12). The 2014-2017 students found the authorship discussion to be illuminating. Clement conceptually divides a scientific contributions into four elements: ideas, work, writing, and stewardship. He proposes that authorship discussions begin by assigning weights to these elements: 0.2 for ideas, 0.3 for work, 0.35 for writing, and 0.15 for stewardship, and then each author’s contributions to each element are assigned in a way that each element’s total is 1.0. We discuss how REU participants can meaningfully contribute to each of these categories such as through writing their methods and results. SRP3 (SciComm3): The highly successful workshop developed by Griep for the Chemistry REU is now used by all the REU programs at UNL as described in the SRP section. SciComm4-7: We review first drafts of students’ poster designs, receive tips from a poster-award-winning graduate student about presenting a poster at a national meeting, review second drafts 146

after they have been peer-reviewed by two other participants, and review final drafts before printing. Students are then given the opportunity to practice a 5-min oral presentation with their poster. Peer feedback is the key feature of all these meetings. SRP1−8 UNL Graduate Studies offers a series of workshops relevant to all REU summer research participants. SRP1: The Scientific Ethics workshop covers good scientific conduct within the physical sciences. Prior to the workshop, students read the core text for scientific conduct, the National Academy’s On Being a Scientist. During the workshop, students learn about publication ethics such as scientific misconduct, plagiarism, ownership of knowledge, responsible authorship, record keeping, and data ownership (13, 14). SRP2: The “Diversity and Civility: Why it Matters” presentation by Charlie Foster, UNL OASIS Program Director. SRP3 (SciComm3): During the UNL-wide workshop led by Griep, students learn about poster design principles and the criteria used by judges in poster contests. UNL Graduate Studies arranges for ten graduate mentors to give their presentations in a mini-poster session so that all summer research participants can use the criteria to judge real posters. After the scores are tabulated and the top-rated posters identified, the students examine the top three posters and discuss why they were better than the others. The 2017 UNL-wide presentation to students and graduate mentors reported that this metacognitive activity was enlightening. They learned that large figures and less text are components of good poster design. SRP4-8: These workshops cover the graduate school application process and GRE preparation. Communicating Science to the Public Workshops (CommSciPublic1-4 in Table 1). The goal of these workshops is for each student to develop a 10-minute oral presentation about her or his research that is then given to the UBMS students (see next section). This exercise also prepares REU students to give their 5-min oral presentations of their posters. It is important that budding scientists learn to communicate across an ever-broadening array of disciplines. The four Workshops were developed and taught by Dr. Marilyne Stains during the first two years of our REU program and then taught by Jonathan Velasco, one of her graduate students. CommSciPublic1: During the first meeting, students reflect on the goal of sharing research to diverse audiences, watch and reflect on examples of scientists presenting their research to the public. Students are then presented with guidelines on the structure of a talk to formatting considerations. These discussions are supported with videos of presentations given at National Meetings of the ACS (15). CommSciPublic2: Prior to the second meeting, students are asked to read a paper describing a rubric that analyzes how scientists explain their research (16) and to apply that rubric to two different TED talks delivered by scientists (17, 18). Stains adapted this pre-meeting activity from a workshop developed by her postdoctoral advisor Hannah Sevian. During our meeting, students use the active learning strategy 147

called a gallery walk (19) to unpack the constructs measured in the rubric: Pedagogical knowledge, Content knowledge, Pedagogical content knowledge. The essence of a gallery walk is that students travel in groups between stations, where they discuss the question at that station and then move to the next station. In our case, the ten students were divided into three groups, each of which was asked to consider a different construct. After a brief discussion, they wrote the characteristics that defined the best practices for that construct. Next, each group moved to the adjacent station where they amended and edited the prior group’s notes. Then, they returned to their original station to discuss their amended notes and to report out to the group. With this fresh understanding of the rubric in mind, the students used it to analyze the two TED talks again. During the final portion of the meeting, the students spent ten minutes laying out the structure of their own talk and then gave a two-minute explanation of their research talk to a peer who used the rubric to provide feedback. CommSciPublic3: Three days prior to the meeting, students send their developed slideshows to a designated peer and Stains. Stains and the peer then rate the presentation using the rubric described in CommSciPublic2. During the meeting, each student practices his or her full presentation with a peer to get further feedback. CommSciPublic4: Students give their 10-min presentations to the Upward Bound Math Science students and others in the department. Upward Bound Math Science Shadowing Project (UpwardBnd1-5 in Table 1). Each REU student participates in a four-day shadowing event during the third week of the experience. Each REU student is assigned one high school student from the Upward Bound Math Science (UBMS) summer program. The UBMS Program is funded by the Department of Education and is designed to strengthen the math and science skills of participants who have the ability and/or desire to enter a math/science field of post-secondary education. Participating students must meet the federal guidelines for low-income status, and be the first generation in their family to plan to attend college. The UBMS students learn what the REU student is doing, how they are doing it, and why they are doing it. In the evenings, the UBMS coordinator shows the UBMS students learn how to create a slideshow. The next day, they discuss it with their REU student. At the end of the fourth day, the UBMS students report what they’ve learned in a 5minute presentation. A few weeks later, the UBMS students return to hear the REU students give their final slideshow presentations in our Communicating Science to the Public sequence. We believe that this metacognitive approach benefits both the REU and UBMS students. The experience benefits the UBMS students by giving them insight into scientific research and it benefits the REU students by giving them an opportunity to communicate their research to students with interests in science but who lack coursework. Field Trips to Local Companies (FieldTrip1-3 in Table 1). Field trips provide REU students with real-world examples of how chemistry research relates to products and services. The Lincoln 148

area is rich with companies that have strong ties to UNL (Table 2) and have hired personnel who have earned a BS, MS, or PhD from the UNL Chemistry Department. Every year, we tour a different set of three companies selected from this diverse set. Prior to each field trip, students read a description from the company’s website plus a newspaper article about a recent development. Each tour begins with a presentation by the research director or other guide about the company’s business model and the nature of their most common research activities. Students learn how scientific findings translate into industrial endeavors, the chemistry involved in some of the products, and the career opportunities at the company. Next, students tour the research and development, quality control laboratory, and manufacturing plant. At the final debriefing (FieldTrip Debriefing in Table 1) students first share their thoughts about the field trips and then discuss career paths in industry and some of the differences between industry and academia.

Table 2. Field Trip Destinations Visited Most Often, 2012-2017 Company

Approximate Number of Employees

Celerion, a comprehensive early clinical research and bio-analytical services provider (global headquarters in Lincoln)

950

Teledyne ISCO, a manufacturer of instruments for separations and water analysis

420

LI-COR, a manufacturer of infrared detection instruments for agriculture, biotechnology, drug discovery, and the environment (global headquarters in Lincoln)

350

GSK (formerly Novartis), a manufacturer of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals

350

Hexagon Lincoln, a manufacturer of filament-wound fuel tanks

300

Geneseek, a division of Neogen Corp., develops and processes test kits for genotyping of animals, plants, and microbes

150

Chemistry in the Movies All UNL Summer Undergraduate Researchers are invited to attend a presentation by Dr. Griep about Chemistry in the Movies to learn how scientific findings make their way into movies (20–22). Poster Sessions and Travel Awards On the final day of the 10-week experience, there is a Chemistry Research Poster session in the morning (Chemistry Poster) and a campus-wide Summer Research Program poster session in the afternoon (SRP Poster). At the Chemistry poster session, each poster is separately judged by two chemistry faculty. Half of 149

the highest-scoring REU student posters win a $1000 travel award from the REU program to attend either a Regional or National ACS meeting during the following year. Nineteen of the 22 travel awardees (86%) have already used their funds to present their poster at a conference. Six of the 27 non-awardees (22%) found other funds to present their poster at a conference. These students are disappointed they didn’t win the travel award but they are fully aware at the small difference in poster scores between awardees and non-awardees. There do not appear to be hard feelings among those who did not win because six travel awardees and five non-awardees applied for admission to the UNL chemistry graduate program. Of these, six entered our program and five enrolled in chemistry graduate programs elsewhere. The judge’s poster scores also provide us with a way to evaluate the “Communicating Science to Scientists” workshops. Notably, there was a dramatic increase in REU student poster quality (Figure 3) because of the workshops. At these sessions, students learn how posters are judged and how poster design helps them tell their story. They also develop and practice giving their 5-minute poster oral presentation. Students learn that the judges enter scores from 1 to 10 into three categories, each with a list of attributes. Content means that the poster has sections for: Title, Names, Funding, Objectives, Significance, Methods, Results, and Interpretation. Display means the poster should attract attention and convey information without jargon or spelling errors, that the poster is well-organized and that a sufficiently large font size and images are used. Oral presentations should be less than 5 minutes, clear and concise and the student should clarify contributor work roles when necessary.

Figure 3. Average poster scores for REU participants in the UNL Chemistry REU program from the 2011 pilot year to 2014. In these four years, the posters were rated in three categories worth 10 points each. Students received workshop training in poster design in summers 2012-2014 but not in 2011. It can be seen from the average poster scores (Figure 3) that the REU students in our 2011 pilot year (without workshops) were equivalent to first-year graduate students (overall average score of 7.0) wheras those who participated in our 20122014 workshops are equivalent to those of senior-level graduate students (overall average score of 7.6). 150

In summer 2015 and 2016, the faculty coordinator of the Chemistry Poster Session sought to enhance the quality of the judging by increasing the number of scored categories and by weighting two of the categories heavier than the others. The result was actually less nuance from the judges and more confusion about awarding points. Therefore, in summer 2017, a new poster scoring system was developed. It built upon the original but added a fourth category added to account for the ability to answer deep questions about the project. In addition, the instructions were clarified as follows: 10=best, 1=worst; start your score at 7 and raise or lower depending on the evidence. Our new categories are: Content means the poster components (title, abstract, results, discussion, graphics) communicate the nature and importance of the work to a broad audience. Display means the poster should attract attention and convey information, is well-organized and simple, that the text and chemical structures are large enough to read at a distance, and that there is no distracting jargon or spelling errors. Oral describes the oral presentation, which should be clear, concise, and about 5 minutes long if not interrupted. If there are multiple investigators, the speaker should clarify the other people’s roles. Knowledge describes the degree of understanding of the project demonstrated by the presenter’s description and, in particular, by answers to questions. This system was well received by the judges and we await a second summer’s trial.

Assessment Protocols Our assessment protocols were submitted to our Institutional Review Board before the original proposal was submitted to NSF and it was certified as exempt. Formative Evaluation A weekly activity log is the primary source for real-time monitoring of the quality of program activities and allows for relative quick programmatic changes. Stains designed the “What did I do this week?” online activity log that asks students to identify all research-oriented activities that were conducted that week among a list of twenty one (Table 3), select those that they spent the most time on, and identify those that were most beneficial and explain why. One example of an important change occurred during our first year when the Communicating Science workshops were scheduled on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons. After three weeks, several students let us know that they felt our workshops were disrupting their research productivity either because they had difficulty keeping track of them or because they took place during a productive time of day. We immediately rescheduled these workshops to Monday mornings where they have since remained. Of course, students are asked for their feedback immediately after the workshops, field trips, and the shadowing experience. An example of a change from this type of feedback occurred after our third year. The shadowing experience was scheduled during the second week in our first three years until our third-year cohort indicated that while they learned from it, they felt it was too early for them to communicate the practical aspects of their projects. 151

Therefore, it was moved to the third week. The level of student engagement when they write their poster abstracts or create their poster drafts and slideshows are also useful for assessing program effectiveness.

Summative Evaluation The summative evaluation measures success in meeting the main objectives of the program (such as attitude towards chemistry and self-efficacy in chemistry) and its overall and lasting impacts (such as postgraduate training and careers). Evaluating the main objectives relies upon surveys that are administered online at the end of the summer program. The students’ attitude toward chemistry is measured with the validated short version of the Attitude toward the Subject of Chemistry Inventory (ASCI) (23). Students’ self-efficacy in chemistry is measured using the Chemistry Attitude and Experiences questionaire (CAEQ) (24). During our first few years, the validated Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) (25) was used to measure several of our goals. This survey has since been replaced by a more specific list of questions developed by Stains that includes a field for open-ended suggestions about improvements to the program. We also survey the Advisor and Graduate Student Mentor about their statisfaction with their REU student and with the program. During the first couple of years we conducted exit interviews with REU students but concluded that they did not provide new information when compared to the surveys and thus stopped conducting them. To assess the long-term impact of the program on students’ education and career plans, Griep monitors the LinkedIn.com pages that students create during their summer in the program.

Student Outcomes The program was a very productive experience for our participants. Of the 24 participants in summers 2014-2016, 11 gave first-author presentations about their work at ACS and Council for Undergraduate Research national meetings and 3 gave presentations at statewide conferences. At the ACS national meetings, one student was selected for the Sci-Mix Interdivisional Poster Session and another won the “Simply Speak” Contest. A third student won “Best Undergraduate Paper” at one of the regional meetings. Since completing their respective REU programs, 17 participants from 2014-2016 earned B.S. degrees. Of these, nine entered research graduate programs and five entered the workforce. The nine students who entered graduate studies did so in chemistry (Case Western Reserve, Indiana, Iowa State, UIUC, UNL), polymer science (Akron), food science (Penn State), genetic epidemiology (Univ. of Utah), and medicine (MD/PhD, SUNY Upstate). The five students who entered the workforce chose the following positions: 2 lab technicians, 2 quality control/quality assurance technicians, and 1 outreach coordinator.

152

Table 3. “What did I do this week” activity queriesa Type of activity

153 a

Statement

Practicing professional-level lab conduct

Write in your notebook Resolve unexpected problems Planning for the next step guided by your mentor Planning the next step by yourself Help others in the lab with their project Help other REU students with their project

Researching or working on assignments for the program

Research the literature Read research article Work on assignments (abstract, poster, lesson plan, etc.) Attend a group meeting

Conducting experiments

Doing experiments by yourself Doing experiments with your mentor’s guidance Watching your mentor as he/she explains and conducts the experiments and you are not actually doing the experiments Design experiments by yourself Design experiments with your mentor’s guidance

Discussing or presenting projects

Prepare a presentation for group meeting and present it Talk about your project with your graduate student mentor Talk about your project with your faculty advisor Talk about your project with other members of your research group Talk about your project with other REU students Talk about your project with other people than the people listed above

Every Friday, students receive an email directing them to a secure website that asks them to identify which of these activities were conducted that week, select those that they spent the most time on, and identify those that were most beneficial and explain why.

Conclusion Our NSF-funded program has been operating for six summers during which time we have trained 50 students. The students spent the majority of their time learning how to do research while the workshops gave the students a chance to network with each other about the common features of their experiences. The evidence indicates they became increasingly independent researchers by the end of the summer and that they valued the workshops on communicating science, interacting with high school students, and touring local industries. Additional evidence for the effectiveness of the workshops is that over half of our participants presented their research at a national of regional meetings and a few of them won awards for their presentations. All of these experiences have the net effect of inspiring our participants to earn science degrees and to choose science careers.

Acknowledgments We acknowledge funding from NSF grants 1156560 and 1460829, from the UNL Office of Graduate Studies, and from the UNL Department of Chemistry.

References 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

National Science Foundation. About Education and Human Resources; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC. https://www.nsf.gov/ehr/ about.jsp (accessed 03/30/2018). University of Michigan. How To Mentor Graduate Students: A Guide for Faculty; University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School: Washington, DC, 2015. http://www.rackham.umich.edu/publications/ (accessed 03/30/201). National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Degrees, by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients: 2002–12; Detailed Statistical Tables, NSF 15-321, May 2015; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15321/ (accessed 03/30/2018). U.S. Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/ quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216 (accessed 01/03/2018). U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Population Projections. Table 10. Projections of the Population by Sex, Hispanic Origin, and Race for the United States: 2015 to 2060. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2014/demo/popproj/ 2014-summary-tables.html (accessed 01/03/2018). University of Nebraska-Lincoln Summer Research Program. http:// www.unl.edu/summerprogram/ (accessed 01/03/2018). U.S. Department of Education List of HBCUs—White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/ files/2014/09/HBCU-Directory.pdf(accessed 01/03/2018). Hispanic Association of Colleges & Universities. https://www.hacu.net/assnfe/CompanyDirectory.asp? style=2&company_type=1,5&search_type=0 (accessed 01/03/2018). 154

9. 10.

11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

23. 24.

American Indian Higher Education Consortium. http://www.aihec.org/whowe-serve/TCUroster-profiles.htm (accessed 01/03/2018). Hu, X. Loads of special authorship functions: Linear growth in the percentage of “equal first authors” and corresponding authors. J. Am. Soc. Information Sci. Technol. 2014, 20, 345–361. Marusic, A.; Bosnjak, L.; Jeroncic, A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One 2011, 6, e23477. Clement, T. P. Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2009, 60, 2378–2381. Ritter, S. K. Publication ethics: Rights and wrongs. Chem. Eng. News 2001, 79 (46), 24–31. Whitbeck, C. The Responsible Collection, Retention, Sharing, and Interpretation of Data, 2006. Natl. Acad. Eng. http://www.onlineethics.org/ Resources/TeachingTools/20357/19237/moddata.aspx (accessed 01/03/ 2018). American Chemical Society, 241st ACS National Meeting & Exposition Session List. http://www.softconference.com/ACSchem/slist.asp?C=4321 (acessed 01/03/2018). Sevian, H.; Gonsalves, L. Analysing how scientists explain their research: A rubric for measuring the effectiveness of scientific explanations. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2008, 30, 1441–1467. Pike, R. The Science Behind a Climate Headline, 2009. TED Talk. https:/ /www.ted.com/talks/rachel_pike_the_science_behind_a_climate_headline (accessed 01/03/2018). Behncke, I. Evolution’s Gift of Play, From Bonobo Apes to Humans, 2011. TED Talk. https://www.ted.com/talks/ isabel_behncke_evolution_s_gift_of_play_from_bonobo_apes_to_humans (accessed 01/03/2018). Francek, M. . Gallery Walk. Pedagogy in Action: The Portal for Educators website. https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/gallerywalk/index.html (accessed 03/03/2018). Frey, C. A.; Mikasen, M. L.; Griep, M. A. Put some movie Wow! in your chemistry classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1138–1143. Griep, M. A.; Mikasen, M. L. Using movie clips to teach chemistry formally and informally. In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D. J.; Grazier, K. R.; Paglia, J.; Perkowitz, S., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1139; American Chemistry Society: Washington, DC, 2013. Griep, M. A.; Mikasen, M. L. Close encounters with creative chemical thinking: An outreach presentation using movie clips about the elemental composition of aliens and extraterrestrial minerals. Educ. Quím. 2016, 27, 154–162. Xu, X.; Lewis, J. E. Refinement of a chemistry attitude measure for college students. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 561–568. Dalgety, J.; Coll, R. K.; Jones, A. Development of Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ). J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 649–668. 155

25. Lopatto, D. Exploring the Benefits of Undergraduate Research: The SURE Survey. In Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science; Taraban, R.; Blanton, R. L., Eds.; Teacher’s College Press: New York, 2008.

156

Chapter 11

Importance of a Truly Cohesive Theme in a REU Program N. I. Hammer* and G. S. Tschumper Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Research experience for undergraduates (REU) programs usually advertise a central theme to unify the content of the program and serve as a niche to attract students to the host university and department for a summer. However, the choice of theme can be problematic for programs that include faculty from diverse research areas or faculty who are not fully committed to the common goals of the program. The Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS has established a successful track record through its commitment to core activities centered around physical chemistry. In this chapter, the integrated educational and social activities as well as the other elements of the Ole Miss program will be outlined as well as how they complement each other to create a cohesive and successful program. The best practices that have been developed for recruitment, selection, assessment, and coordination with university personnel will also be discussed in this chapter.

© 2018 American Chemical Society

Background and Origins In the summer of 2009, the Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program (which would evolve into the REU) held its first organized summer activities (photograph shown in Figure 1), but the program has its origins a few years earlier. As early as 2003 the physical chemistry faculty recognized the need to supplement training of the undergraduate and graduate research students in the area of computational chemistry during the summer months using common mini-courses and training exercises. Each summer, new graduate students joining the department as well as undergraduate students supported by grants working with physical chemistry faculty had a common need for introductory training. Such training exercises included instruction in Linux commands, scripting, and fundamentals of running computational chemistry calculations such as how to properly construct a z-matrix and how to submit jobs to the supercomputing center. These needs were common to the three physical chemistry groups at the University of Mississippi and have formed the core of the summer program for the past decade. Prior to 2009, summer training exercises were conducted in an ad hoc fashion. The key differences between 2009 and previous summers that transformed the Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program include the introduction of: (1) Organized group activities with a regular schedule and (2) Social activities that facilitated the development of a strong student cohort composed of both undergraduate and graduate students.

Figure 1. Photograph of 2009 Summer Program Participants. Photo courtesy of Nathan Hammer.

158

These two simple additions detailed above transformed a small summer program composed of computational chemistry training exercises and three research groups into one that that has been successful and self-sustaining for the past decade and that boasts a number of impressive outcomes. Figure 1 shows a photograph of the 2009 summer program participants. Professors Steven Davis, Nathan Hammer, and Gregory Tschumper can be seen centered on the front row in order from left to right. These three leaders have continued with the program through the present day. The 2009 program also included the graduate and undergraduate students that comprised each research group at the time. Many of these students went on to successful careers, including two physicians and one pharmacist. Notably, graduate student Jeffrey Veals (last row, top left) is now a Research Chemist at the US Army Research Laboratory at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, graduate student Kari Copeland (first row, bottom right) recently became a professor at Allen University in Columbia, South Carolina, and undergraduate student Aminah Gooch (second row, far right) is now an assistant professor at Lane College in Jackson, TN. Additionally, female graduate student Desiree Bates (second row, fourth from left) is now the Computational Chemistry Leader in the University of Wisconsin Department of Chemistry. Undergraduate student Dana Reinemann (second row, second from left) became a Goldwater Scholar and was the first author on two papers (1, 2), one of which was featured on the journal cover (2). Undergraduate Jacob Graham (last row, third from right) is now a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Chicago. The 2009 group of students was diverse, and most have gone on to become quite successful. Several valuable lessons were learned from the first organized summer program, and over the years many additional best practices have been developed and the remainder of this chapter details these.

Nonlinear Results from Cohesive Programming Based on feedback from both student and faculty participants, the success and longevity of the Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program has been in part attributed to its cohesive scientific and social programming. While the program was solidifying its core summer schedule in 2009, several faculty in the UM Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry began pursuing funding for an NSF REU site. The proposal that was submitted to the NSF had the broad theme of “Grand Chemical Challenges” and provided little substantive connection between the individual research projects and limited need for common components of the summer program. Although not funded, the project would likely have led to the typical linear outcomes that could be expected from any direct infusion of funds into an ad hoc program. Ten students would have come to the department for three summers and would have performed research in the labs of their faculty mentors. The students would have benefitted from ethics training and from the research experience and it is also possible that some of the work would have led or contributed to a peer reviewed publication. Without substantial faculty buy-in and commitment, the long-term success and sustainability of the program would have proven challenging. 159

By contrast, rather than being an additional obligation of limited value for senior personnel, the programming of the 2009 Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program was essential to the research mission and operation of each of the groups. During the scientific and technical programming the graduate and undergraduate students interacted with each other and formed a cohesive student cohort that significantly strengthened the physical chemistry division as a whole. Rather than just performing isolated research within their own groups, students started discussing their research amongst each other during the organized scientific activities. In addition to the scientific programming, the bonds within the student cohort were significantly strengthened during organized group social activities such as basketball. Independently, the training exercises would have resulted in greater productivity from each of the individual research groups, but the cohesiveness of the programming and its continuous reinforcement with organized social activities unexpectedly led to nonlinear outcomes including: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Strong faculty buy-in and commitment, Strong undergraduate and graduate student buy-in and initiatives, New collaborative research projects, and Interest from additional faculty members and their research groups.

Faculty members with research interests in physical chemistry who witnessed the success of the 2009 summer program became interested in participating. Professors Randy Wadkins, Keith Hollis (now at Mississippi State University), and Robert Doerksen became senior personnel in 2010, and the educational component of Dr. Hammer’s NSF Career Award (CHE-0955550) further developed the program. A successful NSF REU proposal which was based on the 2009 and 2010 programs was subsequently developed, using the already successful summer program and lessons from the previous unsuccessful REU program as guides. Rather than having to come up with a summer full of programming to propose to the NSF, the senior personnel simply proposed to continue what they were already doing. The schedule included at least three full program meetings per week where all participants, including faculty, post docs, and graduate, undergraduate, and even high school students gathered for lectures from not only Ole Miss professors, but also invited speakers who are friends of the program. Regularly-scheduled social activities such as basketball and cookouts were scheduled. The first class of NSF REU students participated in summer 2013 (CHE-1156713). Figure 2 shows a photograph of this first REU class and Figure 3 shows the entire 2013 program.

160

Figure 2. First Class of REU Students (2013). Photo courtesy of Nathan Hammer.

Figure 3. Full 2013 Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program. Photo courtesy of Nathan Hammer.

161

In its second NSF REU (CHE-1460568) grant cycle, the 2017 program (see Figure 4) had twelve senior personnel and over seventy total participants. Over the years, some faculty members have suggested that interrupting the research day with group lectures and social activities leads to decreased research productivity. This linear approach to time spent results in specific and predictable known outcomes, but may be preventing many programs from reaching their full potential. The time students spend socializing and interacting in group learning environments actually yield nonlinear results, meaning that their individual and the overall program’s successes surpasses original expectations. In fact, it is likely that the observed results could not be achieved without the added group collaboration and support from the extended student cohort. A prime example of the benefits of non-linear programming is the success of the afore-mentioned undergraduate Dana Reinemann. Dana became a doctoral graduate student at Vanderbilt University and is now finishing her dissertation. In addition to just this one example many additional collaborative publications have resulted due to the interactions fostered by the program. Many of these involve contributions from different facets of physical chemistry and include: (1) Physical organic or physical inorganic molecular design and synthesis, (2) Experimental spectroscopic characterization, and (3) Computational modeling and analysis of experimental results.

Figure 4. Full 2017 Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program. Photo courtesy of Jason Ritchie. The individual programming elements that are employed each summer in the Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program evolve and change each year and are largely guided by assessment (discussed later). Some training elements such as health and safety training, online responsible conduct of research (RCR) training, lectures discussing research ethics in science and chemistry, and literature searching using the University of Mississippi online library are common to many summer REU programs. Since many of the students in the Ole Miss program (external and UM) are undergraduates that are graduate school-bound, 162

lectures and panels such as “Everything I Wanted to Know About Graduate School” and “Thinking Outside the Box: General Problem-Solving Skills” are popular inclusions. Because the focus of the summer program at the University of Mississippi centers around physical chemistry and all of the research projects involve physical chemistry concepts to some extent the core programming elements each summer include mini-courses on the use of computers for research (including linux and scripting). Lectures from UM faculty have also included: • • • • • • • • • •

“Introduction to Computational Quantum Chemistry” “Potential Energy Surfaces, Geometry Optimizations, and Vibrational Frequencies” “Introduction to Computational Medicinal Chemistry” “An Introduction to Light Harvesting and Solar Cells” “An Introduction to Basis Sets” “Intermolecular Forces: Cohesion of Molecules in the Condensed Phases” “An Introduction to Spectroscopy” “Supramolecular Chemistry: Understanding the ‘Bottom-up Approach’ to Functional Materials” “Artificial Photosynthesis: Catalysts for Solar-to-Fuel Conversion Chemistry” and “LIGO.”

In addition to lectures from UM faculty, outside speakers are invited each year to present seminars and interact with the students. These have included: • •

• • •

• •

Professor David Magers (Mississippi College): “What is Computational Chemistry?” Dr. Samuel Brady (Assistant Member, St. Jude Faculty and Adjunct Faculty, Dept of Physics, University of Memphis): “Survey of Research in Medical Physics and Nuclear Medicine” Professor Paul Rupar (University of Alabama): “Synthesis of Inorganic Element Containing Polymers” Professor Robert Compton (University of Tennessee): “On the Origin of the Universe and Life on Earth” Professor Kit Bowen (Johns Hopkins University): “Adventures in Anion Photoelectron Spectroscopy: CO2 Activation, Water Spitting, and Rare Earth Mimics” Professor Russ Schmehl (Tulane University): “Unraveling Mechanisms of Light Induced Reactions with Transient Spectroscopy” and Professor Gary Douberly (University of Georgia): “Chemistry near absolute zero: Spectroscopy of reactive molecules in liquid helium nanodroplets.”

163

Lectures from University of Mississippi graduate students and post-doctoral scholars are also included each summer and serve two important purposes: (1) They offer graduate students and postdoctoral scholars the opportunity to practice presenting their research in front of large and friendly audiences, helping to develop their presentation and teaching skills and (2) Undergraduate REU students get a glimpse of what graduate and postgraduate school life is like and what expectations are present if they choose such as career path.

Importance of Organized Group Social Activities It is not surprising that data from studies of several programs designed to increase Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Ph.D. numbers, including the Meyerhoff Scholar Program (3–6), have emphasized the importance of undergraduate research. These studies also show that the quality of faculty mentoring (7, 8) and the social support interactions (6, 9–13) play pivotal roles in student achievement and that this is especially true of minority and underrepresented students. One of the unexpected and exciting outcomes of the Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Program over the years has been the significant positive influence that organized group social interactions have had on student achievement and perception about STEM research, and introducing future opportunities and careers. For example, one student from the 2015 summer program offered: “This summer was totally different than I expected. I thought I was going to sit in a lab for eight hours a day and record data and go back to my room at night, and while I was happy to do that, I was overwhelmed with the social opportunities that this summer has provided. I have made so many awesome friends this summer – a fact that has proven to me that a career in chemistry can be viable for an extrovert like myself. I loved this summer.” Another 2015 student wrote: “I really enjoyed the mini-courses and social activities and how the REU students were really involved in the program together. I loved the variety of things we were able to learn.” Student comments like these during the exit assessment are common each year in the summer program and help support the hypothesis that building a strong student cohort through cohesive programming leads to student and program success. Figure 5 shows students and faculty playing basketball together in 2017.

164

Students each year comment that interacting with faculty outside of the normal academic setting makes them more comfortable and willing to interact with them when in an academic setting. In addition, faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students also talk science during organized and spontaneous social activities. These informal discussions have led to many new collaborations and publications with REU student co-authors. The summer program has even adopted basketball guidelines and game rules to foster participation from everyone and from all skill levels. Emphasis is placed on teamwork, supporting each other, and learning from failures. Figures 5, 6 and 7 show photographs of organized and spontaneous social activities. These include group basketball, outings to local restaurants such as ice cream parlors, group bowling tournaments, team-building exercises at the University of Mississippi Rebel Challenge Course, group cookouts, karaoke, and nature hikes, to include a few examples. Student interactions and camaraderie are further enhanced by having external REU and summer UM student housed together on a common residence hall floor and with roommates for the summer. These non-stop interactions go a long ways in strengthening the student cohort.

Figure 5. Students and Faculty Playing Basketball in 2017. Photo courtesy of Nathan Hammer.

165

Figure 6. Social Activities Including Outings to Local Restaurants (Top Left), Bowling (Top Right), and Rebel Challenge Course (Middle and Bottom). Photos courtesy of Sarah Sutton.

166

Figure 7. Social Activities Including Group Cookouts (Top Left and Middle), Karaoke (Top Right), and Nature Hikes (Bottom). Photos courtesy of Nathan Hammer (top three) and Sarah Sutton (bottom two).

167

Importance of Assessment Assessment is an essential tool which can ensure that program learning outcomes are met, while also guiding future program direction to make sure students reach their full potential. A variety of assessment resources exist and many of these, such as the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) from the University of Colorado at Boulder 14, are freely available and widely-used. The Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program has chosen to employ their own common assessment protocol for the past eight years for continuity and so that comparisons can be made between years so that goals and student learning outcomes can be changed and new ones added to ensure that learning is improved. This protocol includes three assessment means and was developed originally with help from a National Science Foundation (NSF) Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) grant to the state of Mississippi (EPS-0903787). The three assessment means employed are: Means #1: Yearly evaluation of the overall program by all senior personnel, Means #2: Entrance and Exit surveys of participants, and Means #3: Follow-up surveys of students following their bachelors degree. The summer program leadership administers the instruments, compiles the results, determines differences pre-REU to post-REU, and contacts program graduates to determine their career activities. The following formative program goals and outcomes are evaluated annually: (1) Goal: The recruitment activities are effective. Outcome: The program will recruit highly-qualified applicants. Criterion: 30 applicants with GPAs 3.0 and above per year. Means #1 (2) Goal: The makeup of the REU cohort is diverse. Criterion: at least 40% women; at least 25% from other minority/underrepresented groups. Means #1 (3) Goal: The REU participants have adequate time to conduct their research. Criterion: Participants average 40 hours/week of lab time. Means #1 (4) Goal: The social events appropriate and well attended. Criterion: 80% attendance; 80% agree or strongly agree on appropriate; more students consider effective than ineffective. Means #1 & #2 (5) Goal: The weekly seminars are appropriate and well attended. Criterion: 90% attendance; 90% agree or strongly agree on appropriate; more students consider effective than ineffective. Means #1 & #2 (6) Goal: The management plan is being followed. Criterion: Plan being closely followed as measurable by agreemnent of leadership team. Means #1

168

Formative progress evaluation goals that are assessed annually after each summer between the program mentors include: (1) Goal: The REU students learning new research skills Criterion: 80% agree more after REU. Means #1 & #2 (2) Goal: The REU students consider a career in research, and graduate school in science in particular, and they are certain in their career path. Criterion: 40% agree more after REU. Means #2 & #3 (3) Goal: The REU students develop an understanding of research activities and confidence that they can fit into scientific society. Criterion: 50% agree more after REU. Means #2 & #3 (4) Goal: The REU students learn about the different areas of physical chemistry and the fundamental concepts in theory and experiment. Criterion: 60% agree more after REU. Means #1 & #2 The following summative evaluation goals are also assessed regarding the success of the program: (1) Goal: REU students graduating with science or technical degrees. Criterion: 80% yes. Means #3 (2) Goal: REU students are going to graduate school or starting careers involving research. Criterion: 70% yes. Means #3 The survey that is administered for participants both pre-REU and post-REU (Means #2) includes the questions shown in Table 1. An additional two questions are posed only during the exit assessment. These are: (1) What do you like best about this summer’s program? (free response) (2) What could we do better? (free response) An additional 15 questions such as #14 are posed with regards to specific minicourses, seminars, and activities at the end of each summer. Figure 8 shows the average assessment results from the 10 external REU students per year from 2017. On average, students indicate each year that the social activities, minicourses, lectures, and opportunities to present their research were informative and valuable. 2017 is highlighted here because it saw the highest scores in the five years of NSF REU support of the program on four key questions:

169

Table 1. Survey questions administered and average responses for participants both pre-REU and post-REU using the following response options: “1 = Strongly Disagree,” “2 = Disagree,” “3 = Unsure,” “4 = Agree,” and “5 = Strongly Agree”

170

Question

Survey Questions

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

1

I feel that I have a good grasp of the underlying principles involved in the different experimental and theoretical areas of physical chemistry.

3.7

4.4

3.7

4.5

4.4

2

I understand what kinds of activities occur in an academic research laboratory.

4.6

4.8

4.6

4.6

4.9

3

I possess skills valuable for conducting chemistry research.

4.2

4.6

4.5

4.7

4.7

4

I know what my career path will be.

4.0

4.1

3.8

3.5

3.9

5

My career path includes being involved in scientific research.

3.7

4.0

3.8

4.1

4.0

6

I am likely to pursue a graduate degree in the sciences.

3.8

4.4

3.4

4.0

4.8

7

I am likely to pursue an advanced degree in medicine, law or other non-science profession.

3.7

3.1

3.5

2.5

2.1

8

I feel that I could fit into the community of working scientists.

4.3

4.4

4.1

3.9

4.1

9

I am willing to inform the University of Mississippi Chemistry and Biochemistry Department when my e-mail address changes in the future.

4.1

4.7

4.1

4.5

4.6

10

The planned REU social events such as basketball and the PCHEM party were worthwhile.

4.0

4.6

4.3

4.0

4.5

11

The REU lectures and mini-courses were worthwhile.

3.2

4.2

4.1

4.3

4.6

12

I appreciate having the opportunity to present my original research project to a large number of peers.

4.0

4.7

4.4

4.9

4.4

13

I found the REU experience to be life-changing.

3.7

4.4

3.8

4.5

4.4

Question

Survey Questions

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

14

I found the LINUX scripting mini-course to be informative and valuable.

3.7

3.9

3.3

3.0

3.7

15

I found the housing to be appropriate.

3.7

4.9

4.1

4.3

4.8

16

I found the meal plan to be appropriate.

4.2

3.8

4.4

4.7

4.0

17

I found my compensation to be appropriate.

4.5

5.0

4.8

4.9

5.0

171

“I understand what kinds of activities occur in an academic research laboratory.”; “I possess skills valuable for conducting chemistry research”; “The REU lectures and mini-courses were worthwhile”; and most importantly “I am likely to pursue a graduate degree in the sciences” These results indicate that the program continues to evolve and improve to best serve students. For the last question, the average score in 2017 was 4.8/5 compared to 4.0 in 2016. The improvements each year are a direct result of modifications to program elements. Changes are guided by the assessment results from previous years. Students are also asked the same questions at the start of the summer program and every year changes between the pre- and post-assessment are assessed. For example, the average score for “I feel that I have a good grasp of the underlying principles involved in the different experimental and theoretical areas of physical chemistry” went from 3.5 to 4.4 over the course of Summer 2017. The score for “I understand what kinds of activities occur in an academic research laboratory” increased from 4.2 to 4.9 and the score for “I possess skills valuable for conducting chemistry research” went from 3.9 to 4.7. Question 7’s low value stems from the fact that it asks “I am likely to pursue an advanced degree in medicine, law, or a similar profession” and most students entering the program are already leaning towards a STEM-based career.

Figure 8. Assessment Results for the External 2017 REU Students.

The summer program also tracks students after they graduate from college (Means #3) using the following questions: (1) What was your undergraduate degree and major? (2) What are your plans for next year? (3) How, if at all, did the REU experience at the University of Mississippi shape your career direction and development? (4) Which components of the REU program were most effective for you? (5) Which components of the REU program were least effective for you? 172

A record of each REU student’s contact information and permanent email address is also maintained by the leadership and updated yearly. The importance of maintaining contact with the University of Mississippi Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry is stressed to the REU students each summer and thus far contact has been maintained with all former students. A Facebook Group for the entire PCHEM Summer Program, including the REU, has also been established with currently more than 120 members, including most of the previous REU students.

Additional Best Practices Over the past ten years, the leadership of the Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program has learned a number of best practices that continue to help ensure the program’s success. Best practices highlighted previously include: (1) Plan organized group activities with a regular schedule and centered around one common central theme, (2) Organize and emphasize group social activities that facilitate the development of a strong student cohort composed of faculty and undergraduate and graduate students, (3) Have common group housing for external REU and internal residential undergraduate students to further strengthen the cohort, (4) Implement a comprehensive assessment protocol to track students throughout the summer and beyond to adjust the program elements (mini-courses, lectures, social activities) so that they are effective in helping students reach their full potential. (5) In addition to a program website, maintain some form of social media presence (such as Facebook) to keep students engaged after leaving the summer program. Additional lessons that have been learned through experience include: (1) Collect permanent (non-university) email addresses from students at the start of the summer program. Many college and university email addresses stop working after graduation. (2) Collect cell phone numbers from students at the start of the summer program. Although you might be able to collect a permanent email address from a student, these can change and it is easy for students to miss or ignore emails when they move on to the next stage in their life. Students almost always respond to text messages and social media messages. (3) Advertise the summer program as widely as possible on specialty websites and have faculty hand out glossy flyers to students during invited lectures and at national and regional meetings. (4) Try to bring a diverse set of individuals to campus where diversity is not just in gender and ethnicity, but also in life experiences and geographic origin. 173

(5) Obtain permissions for photo use for future dissemination of work. (6) Develop relationships with campus leadership and staff to help improve and sustain the summer program. Good examples include: a. b.

c. d.

Find funding for recreational/athletic facility memberships. Such expenses are not allowed under NSF REU guidelines. Foster relationships with housing directors to ensure that participants in the program have a common home for the summer. Make contact with ID center directors so that all members of the summer program have an official university ID. Ensure that students have login access for campus wi-fi and library resources when they first arrive on campus. In today’s digital age students are reluctant to go one day without digital access.

Acknowledgments We acknowledge funding from NSF grants CHE-0955550, CHE-1156713, and CHE-1460568. We also acknowledge support from the University of Mississippi Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College, Division of Student Affairs, College of Liberal Arts, and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Reinemann, D. N.; Tschumper, G. S.; Hammer, N. I. Characterizing the B-P Stretching Vibration in Phosphorous Substituted Phosphine Boranes. ChemPhysChem 2014, 15, 1867–1871. Reinemann, D. N.; Wright, A. M.; Wolfe, J. D.; Tschumper, G. S.; Hammer, N. I. Vibrational Spectroscopy of N-Methyliminodiacetic Acid (MIDA)-Protected Boronate Ester: Examination of the B-N Dative Bond. J. Phys. Chem. A 2011, 115, 6426–6431. Maton, K. I.; Hrabowski, F. A., III; Schmitt, C. L. African American College Students Excelling in the Sciences: College and Postcollege outcomes in the Meyerhoff Scholars Program. J Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 629–654. Carter, F. D.; Mandell, M.; Maton, K. I. The Influence of On-Campus, Academic Year Undergraduate Research on STEM Ph.D. Outcomes: Evidence From the Meyerhoff Scholarship Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2009, 31, 441–462. Maton, K. I.; Pollard, S. A.; McDougall Weise, T. V.; Hrabowski, F. A. Meyerhoff Scholars Program: A Strengths-Based, Institution-Wide Approach to Increasing Diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics. Mt. Sinai J. Med. 2012, 79, 610–623. Maton, K. I.; Hrabowski III, F. A. Increasing the Number of African American PhDs in the Sciences and Engineering: A Strengths-Based Approach. Am. Psychol. 2004, 59, 547–556. 174

7.

8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

14.

Griffin, K. A.; II, D. P.; Holmes, A. P. E.; Mayo, C. E. P. Investing in the Future: The Importance of Faculty Mentoring in the Development of Students of Color in STEM. New Dir. Inst. Res. 2010, 148, 95–103. Wilson, Z. S.; Holmes, L.; deGravelles, K.; Sylvain, M. R.; Batiste, L.; Johnson, M.; McGuire, S. Y.; Pang, S. S.; Warner, I. M. Hierarchical Mentoring: A Transformative Strategy for Improving Diversity and Retention in Undergraduate STEM Disciplines. J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 2012, 21, 148–156. White, J. L.; Altschuld, J. W.; Lee, Y.-F. Cultural Dimensions in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Implications for Minority Retention Research. J. Educ. Res. Pol. Stud. 2006, 6, 41–59. Whalen, D. F.; Mack C. Shelley, I. Academic Success for STEM and NonSTEM Majors. J. STEM Educ. 2010, 11, 45–60. Malone, K. R.; Barabino, G. Narrations of Race in STEM Research Settings: Identity Formation and Its Discontents. Sci. Educ. 2009, 93, 485–510. Museus, S. D.; Liverman, D. High-Performing Institutions and Their Implications for Studying Underrepresented Minority Students in STEM. New Dir. Inst. Res. 2010, 148, 17–27. Falls, M. D. Psychological Sense of Community and Retention: Rethinking The First-Year Experience of Students in Stem, University of Central Florida, Ph.D. Dissertation, 2009. URSSA - Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment, http:// spot.colorado.edu/~laursen/accessURSSA.html (accessed 02/28/2018).

175

Chapter 12

A Distributed, Multi-Institution REU Site on Environmental and Green Chemistry James A. Rice* Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 57007, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

South Dakota State University (SDSU) and partner institutions Black Hills State University (BHSU) and Northern State University (NSU) offered a 3-year, 10-week summer REU Site program focused on environmental and green materials chemistry that provided students with multi-disciplinary research experiences in the areas of catalysis and less hazardous synthesis, energy efficiency and safer solvents, and the environmental chemistry of natural systems. Its goal was to provide cutting-edge research experiences, mentoring and research-themed professional development to increase student preparedness to pursue graduate school or environmental and green chemistry careers. Student participants learned how to apply chemical knowledge to research problems in environmental and green chemistry, developed their professional technical communication skills, and developed an understanding of research educational and career opportunities available beyond an undergraduate degree through an integrated, dynamic program of research, professional development and student activities that was facilitated by distance education tools. BHSU and NSU used this program to introduce and integrate undergraduate research into their chemistry curricula.

© 2018 American Chemical Society

Introduction South Dakota State University’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the corresponding departments at BHSU and NSU offered a summer REU program focused on environmental and green materials chemistry. Its primary goal was to provide authentic research experiences, mentoring and research-themed professional development to increase student preparedness to pursue graduate school or environmental/green chemistry careers. This REU Site program was offered for 3 years from May 2015 through August 2017. Environmental chemistry seeks to understand how natural or anthropogenic chemical compounds affect organisms and naturally occurring processes. Green chemistry (1) is thinking about how to “do” chemistry in ways that are sustainable and minimize negative environmental effects. These two chemistry sub-disciplines represent a range of processes that span the continuum from natural to industrial. This REU Site’s research projects reflect this continuum. Three of research projects are aligned under Green Chemistry Principles 3 (less hazardous chemical synthesis) and 9 (catalysis) and develop novel materials that can be used to produce energy from sustainable sources. Three projects align under Green Chemistry Principles 6 (energy efficiency) and/or 5 (safer solvents) and look at the environmental behavior of chemicals and the use of supercritical fluids. Three are focused on “Chemistry of Natural Environments,” providing opportunities to explore basic environmental chemical processes in the atmosphere and soils. Table 1 summarizes the specific research project areas.

REU Site Goals This REU Site had two overarching goals, to provide research experiences for students from the Northern Great Plains who attended institutions with limited research opportunities and to help strengthen the chemistry programs at BHSU and NSU by integrating research into their undergraduate chemistry curricula as a capstone experience. Research experiences for students at institutions with limited opportunities for undergraduate research are clearly needed. It provides a critical educational experience that supports the application of content knowledge and laboratory techniques obtained in an instructional setting to solve research problems. By connecting student STEM education to real-world research needs, this REU experience helped students put their undergraduate education into the context of the importance of STEM in today’s society. This REU site also built on NSF EPSCoR research and educational infrastructure investments in the chemistry departments at the two primarily undergraduate institution partners. BHSU and NSU are primarily undergraduate institutions with Fall 2016 total enrollments of approximately 2000 and 1500 students, respectively (2). South Dakota State University, BHSU, and NSU are separated from each other by considerable distances (Figure 1). Consequently, the program had to utilize educational communication technology and distance collaboration methods to overcome the distances involved. Since 2003, South Dakota has utilized the NSF EPSCoR program to develop considerable 178

infrastructure to support state-wide, distributed STEM research and education programs. A variety of strategies have been instituted to build the communications infrastructure needed to support these types of programs, but it was realized early in the process that they are most successful when they are built on an initial, face-to-face interaction with occasional but regular face-to-face follow-up meetings. In other words, the STEM community in the state has found that successful distributed research and education programs build, and build on, relationships between faculty, research staff, and students.

Table 1. REU Site research project areas. Faculty who served as research mentors for each project and their affiliations are identified. Projects Aligned Under Chemistry of Natural Environments • Measuring Concentrations of Chemical Species in Polar Ice Cores, Jihong Cole-Dai, SDSU • Crystal Structure Identification in Natural Organic Matter, Guangwei Ding, NSU • Role of Self-Assembly in the Persistence of Natural Organic Matter, James A. Rice, SDSU Projects Aligned Under Green Chemistry Principles 3 & 9 • Environmental Toxicity of Nanomaterials Used in Renewable Energy Generation, Daniel Asunskis, BHSU • The Development of Photoredox Catalysts Using Earth Abundant Metals, Katrina Jensen, BHSU • Enhancing Plant Drought Tolerance via Quinoa and Novel Analogs, George Nora, NSU Projects Aligned Under Green Chemistry Principles 5 & 6 • Biofuel Synthesis from Waste Hydrocarbons Using Ti-Niobate Nanosheet Catalysts, Fathi Halaweish, SDSU • ICE Concentration Linked with Extractive Stirring (ICECLES), Brian Logue, SDSU • Novel Solvent Systems for Green Separations, Doug Raynie, SDSU

This program also sought to develop collaborations between faculty at BHSU and NSU and South Dakota’s largest doctoral programs in chemistry and biochemistry located at SDSU. The BHSU chemistry department graduates several chemistry majors a year. Over the past several years it made significant investments in this program (e.g., hiring new research active faculty and acquiring new instrumentation such as high-resolution solution-state NMR) to align it with ACS certification requirements. Northern State University’s program is just beginning the process of developing the infrastructure to offer a chemistry undergraduate degree. The collaborations embodied in this REU Site sought to expand undergraduate research at both institutions as they continue to grow and develop their baccalaureate programs in chemistry with a goal of achieving American Chemical Society (ACS) certification for their chemistry majors. 179

Figure 1. Location of institutions participating in in the REU Site on Environmental and Green Chemistry. The REU Site’s targeted student population consist principally of undergraduate STEM majors in their second year of study or beyond from institutions where authentic research programs are small or non-existent. Factors driving student recruitment were Institutional Size and Resources (i.e., smaller institutions with four or fewer of research-active faculty), Expanding Participation via a targeted recruitment strategy, and a Regional Focus intended to bolster and invigorate research output at smaller schools in the Northern Great Plains region. We sought to enroll more than 60% of the participants over the three-year project from schools in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Wisconsin. Interested students applied online and submitted their name, home institution, major course of study, courses completed within the major, GPA, a personal statement that outlined why this program was of interest, a description of their career goals, and how the REU program would help them achieve these goals, two preferences for REU mentors, and the preferred institutional location (SDSU, BHSU, or NSU) of their REU experience. Two letters of reference from individuals who could address the student’s commitment to a REU experience were submitted separately. The application evaluation criteria employed, in order of importance, were: desire for STEM career; location and type of home institution; student GPA; and strength of recommendation letters.

Student Program The student research experience focused on critical elements and principles of environmental and green chemistry (Table 1). The REU Site program also provided students with a well-rounded program of supplemental professional training. The esprit de corps of tightly integrated research groups and the 180

development of REU student cohorts were accomplished with distance education technology that provided virtual, high-definition, real-time research collaboration meetings as well as the vehicle through which seminars, professional development activities, and other training were implemented for all site participants. While REU participants came together for face-to-face meetings several times per summer, an integrated program would not otherwise be possible due to the distances separating SDSU, BHSU and NSU (Figure 1). Professional Development Activities The follow activities were held each week to enhance the student’s experience, broaden their perspective of modern chemical research in environmental and green chemistry. Communication Skills development workshops sought to help REU participants develop their oral and written communication skills. It focused on effective communication via brief research reports, technical manuscripts, research poster preparation and presentation, and oral research presentations. Technical communication activities culminated with the preparation and presentation of a research poster and submission of a final technical report to the research mentor. Technical Research Seminars were given by research mentors and focused on various aspects of the research, techniques of interest, and/or best practices (e.g., integrating research and education or the research fundamentals of environmental and green chemistry). Research Tools Training was offered by research mentors to provide professional development training targeted at helping the students develop basic research tools such as “Design of Experiments and Statistics,” “The Research Notebook,” “Time Management,” “Literature Search Tools and Training,” and “Research Ethics”. Pathways After Graduation were workshops on evaluating graduate schools to align with students’ personal goals and the application process, securing funding and persisting in graduate school, and opportunities for research careers in the chemical industry. Research Group Meetings provided research theme participants with opportunities to discuss progress and research challenges they faced. To fulfill the expectation for a capstone research presentation, this REU Site took advantage of a novel opportunity organized annually by the SD EPSCoR Program Office. South Dakota public higher education enrolls approximately 35,000 students in its six institutions yet had 14 NSF REU Site programs in 2017. The “distributed nature” of these schools makes it difficult for the final research experience to be anything much more than a weekly research presentation. Recognizing this, the SD EPSCoR Program Office began in 2014 to organize an end-of the summer “SD EPSCoR Undergraduate Research Symposium” to provide an opportunity for the state’s REU Site student participants to connect and network through an authentic research meeting experience (3). In 2017, 175 students presented research posters. In addition to providing a venue for research presentations, this day and a half meeting offers REU student participants the opportunity to explore STEM career options including a meeting “exposition” of South Dakota graduate schools and employment interviews with South Dakota STEM companies, and a workshop on preparing a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) application presented by NSF GRFP program staff. 181

REU Site Program Assessment The project assessment plan focuses on student, faculty and administrator perceptions of the institutional importance of research in undergraduate STEM curricula. The plan includes both formative and summative components that address the program’s overarching goals. Formative components will provide feedback necessary to refine the REU program throughout the three years to ensure quality implementation of the training program. Success at achieving project goals were measured by the methods summarized in Table 2 and described below.

Table 2. Project Evaluation Plan Data Sources & Instruments

Guiding Evaluation Questions: In what ways do participants’ understanding, skills, and confidence grow as a result of participation in the program? Do students have a greater understanding for career options? Does participation influence changes in career trajectory?

1. Entry & exit interviews with participants & research mentors 2. SURE survey, SUSSI instrument, CAEQ

Do participants have a greater appreciation for the collaborative and collegial nature of scientific research? What aspects of the program were most effective at creating a collegial experience for participants?

1. Exit survey 2. Exit interviews 3. NSSE data

In what ways does mentorship support growth in participants’ understanding, skills, and confidence? Do participants continue to receive and/or seek mentorship beyond participation? Do mentor attitudes change as a result of participation?

1. Exit survey, SURE 2. Exit interviews with participants & research mentors 3. Post-site follow-up survey with participants and research mentors 4. FSSE data

What are the perceived strengths of increased research output from academic leadership at the various institutions? What barriers exist to sustainability of undergraduate research programming, and how will they be addressed?

1. Annual course impact survey 2. Interviews with academic leadership

Formative program assessment used a mixed method approach that focused on student participants included data gathered from entrance and exit surveys, the Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) (4), the Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ) (5), Students Understanding of Science and Science Inquiry (SUSSI) (6) as well as interviews with students and faculty/research mentors. A pre-/post- program survey was created and given to faculty research mentors to determine the extent of commitment and involvement on the part of faculty. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (7) and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) (8) were administered at all partner institutions. Their data were mined with specific attention to student engagement as a function of experiential learning. Data 182

were collected by interviews to determine the extent and meaningfulness of interactions between research participants, and between participants and mentors. A final series of assessments focused on institutional change and sustainability at the partner institutions. These included surveys of campus climate toward implementing/sustaining undergraduate research and interviews with faculty and academic leadership to determine how best to build research output and address sustainability issues. Summative evaluation data included REU student exit interviews, an exit survey, and data gathered from SURE, SUSSI and CAEQ. Information was collected from faculty and research mentors through interviews to assess their perceptions of students’ growth in knowledge, skills, and confidence.

Program Outcomes The program made significant progress towards achieving its goals during its first three years (Table 3) It exceeded its goals of 60% student participants from schools with limited research opportunities and students primarily from northern Great Plains institutions. It also conducted meaningful research resulting in numerous presentation and several publications coauthored by REU participants to date (9, 10).

Table 3. Summary of Major Program Outcomes • 33 students total in Years 1-3 o 73% from schools within targeted recruiting area ▪ SD* (16), IA* (2), IL (1), IN (1) MN* (5), NC (2), NE* (1), NY (1), OR (2), PA (2) o 79% (26 of 33) from schools with limited research opportunities • Presentations o SD EPSCoR REU Symposium: 36 o Regional ACS meetings: 10 o National meetings (e.g., ACS): 9 • Publications to date with REU student coauthors o 2 published and 1 in review • Integrating research into curricula o BHSU applied for ACS accreditation of chemistry major *

primary recruiting targets.

Students came to the REU experience with mature conceptions of science and its progress, and the REU program itself appeared not to shift their beliefs substantially. Student conceptions about research and the nature of scientific inquiry changed slightly in a positive direction (i.e., a more mature understanding of the scientific process) as a result of REU participation. Most students stated 183

that research was an arduous process that rarely followed a linear strategy, and a few expressed the idea that the length of a summer REU Site experience (10 weeks duration) wasn’t adequate for developing a complete understanding of how to approach a research project. It was observed over all three annual student cohorts that students with previous authentic research experience expected less of their mentors in terms of time spent demonstrating techniques or explaining concepts, while those with no previous formal research experience maintained higher expectations of their mentors. Comparison of student data from pre-/post-experience measures related to mentoring demonstrated that students’ needs were met. Student participants indicated that the most positive aspects of their REU participation were establishing a connection with their research mentor and the hands-on experience with sophisticated scientific instrumentation which was often not available at their home institutions. Students reported the least impactful parts of the REU experience were some of the professional development activities/seminars; two seminars mentioned specifically were those on laboratory safety and research ethics. Institutional administrators at BHSU and NSU indicated that efforts are underway to create and grow a culture of research among their faculty in order to student research and experiential learning opportunities to enrich their STEM curricula. When administrators at these primarily undergraduate institutions were asked about their individual institutions, they felt that the major barriers to incorporation of research into curricula were inconsistent funding and insufficient faculty time to devote research activities. Research mentors and administrators at these institutions indicated that while progress was made, there is still much that needs to be done with students, faculty and administrators to produce the culture change needed to achieve this goal.

Acknowledgments The efforts of campus coordinators Daniel Asunskis (BHSU) and George Nora (NSU) were instrumental to the success of this REU Site. The REU Site was supported by the NSF Environmental Chemical Sciences program (Award #1461092). The SD EPSCoR Undergraduate Research Symposium was organized and sponsored by an award from NSF’s EPSCoR program (Award #1355423).

References 1.

2.

ACS Green Chemistry Website. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/ greenchemistry/what-is-green-chemistry/principles/12-principles-of-greenchemistry.html (accessed Jan. 30, 2018). SD Board of Regents Factbook Homepage, 2017. https://www.sdbor.edu/ mediapubs/factbook/Documents/FY17Factbook.pdf (accessed Jan. 30, 2018). 184

SD EPSCoR, Undergraduate Research Symposium Homepage, 2017. http://sdepscor.org/resources/undergraduate-research-symposium accessed (accessed Jan. 30, 2018). 4. Lopatto, D. Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings. Cell Biol. Ed. 2004, 3, 270–277. 5. Dalgety, J.; Coll, R. K.; Jones, A. Development of chemistry attitudes and experiences questionnaire (CAEQ). J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 649–668. 6. Liang, L. L.; Chen, S.; Chen, X.; Osman, N. K.; Adams, A. D.; Macklin, M.; Ebenezer, J. Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry (SUSSI): revision and further validation of an assessment instrument. 2006 Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA, April 3−6, 2006. 7. Indiana University, National Survey of Student Engagement. http:// nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm. 8. Indiana University, Faculty Survey of Student Engagement. http:// fsse.indiana.edu/html/overview.cfm. 9. Maslamani, N.; Manandhar, E.; Geremia, D. K.; Logue, B. A. ICE Concentration Linked with Extractive Stirrer (ICECLES). Anal. Chim. Acta 2016, 941, 41–48. 10. Crawford, T.; Kub, A.; Peterson, K.; Cox, T.; Cole-Dai, J. Reduced perchlorate in West Antarctica snow during stratospheric ozone hole. Antarctic Sci. 2017, 29, 292–296. 3.

185

Editors’ Biographies Mark A. Griep Dr. Mark A. Griep is an Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He is a biochemist who joined UNL in 1990 and has since published over 40 peer-reviewed papers, most of them about the structure/activity relationships of bacterial DNA replication enzymes but especially about primase, the enzyme that initiates DNA synthesis. In 2017, he was awarded the ACS Helen M. Free Award for Public Outreach for raising awareness about Dr. Rachel Lloyd and for using movies to teach chemical concepts. Lloyd was the first American woman to earn a Ph.D. in Chemistry, and who then became a professor at the University of Nebraska. Griep’s movie project began as an entertaining and informational outreach activity that he now uses in his classroom. He wrote the book ReAction! Chemistry in the Movies (Oxford University Press) with his artist wife and he currently manages a Facebook page with the same title (although it lacks the exclamation point). Griep is collaborating with Nebraska Indian Community College and Little Priest Tribal College to develop a two-semester chemistry sequence that connects the chemistry laboratory experiences to tribal community topics.

Linette M. Watkins Dr. Linette M Watkins is a Professor and Department Head of Chemistry and Biochemistry at James Madison University. She came to JMU after spending seventeen years as a faculty member at Texas State University. She is actively engaged in promoting early involvement in undergraduate research, engaging twoyear college students in research opportunities, and using undergraduate research as a tool for the recruitment and retention of underrepresented students in the chemical sciences. She has mentored over 100 undergraduate students in bacterial enzyme research, including several from local two-year colleges. Dr. Watkins was a 2006 NSF Senior Discovery Corps Fellow, supporting a collaborative research community between Texas State and San Antonio College. She was named a 2014 American Chemical Society Fellow in part for her advocacy on behalf of diversity and inclusion as a former chair of the ACS Committee on Minority Affairs, the ACS Scholars, and the ACS Women Chemists of Color program.

© 2018 American Chemical Society

Indexes

Author Index Biros, S., 59 Bradley, J., 45 Caran, K., 45 Evanseck, J., 73 Gaede, H., 33 Glenn, A., 107 Greenberg, A., 121 Griep, M., 1, 139 Hammer, N., 157 Hughey, C., 45 MacDonald, G., 45

Nile, T., 107 Popp, B., 85 Rice, J., 177 Richards-Babb, M., 85 Russell, K., 59 Stains, M., 139 Tschumper, G., 157 Velasco, J., 139 Vincent, J., 17 Watkins, L., 1, 73 Woski, S., 17

191

Subject Index C Chemistry REU leadership group, 73 ACS national neetings, symposia, 81 communication, 78 LG, future directions, 82 CHE REU grants, distribution, 83f LG history, 74 third Chemistry REU LG grant, 75 LG membership, 76 leadership group, past chairs, 76t NSF Chemistry REU program officers, 77t LG mission, 74 LG websites, 78 meetings, LG presence, 79 PI workshops, 77 REU communities, liaison, 81 webinar, 81 Chemistry REU programs, 1 assessment metrics and postparticipation tracking ideas, 12 broadening participation, 8 chemistry REU leadership group, 6 chemistry REU sites, brief history, 2 chemistry REU programs, 3t chemistry REU sites, proven effectiveness, 3 choosing a program theme, 7 mentor training, 9 nuts and bolts program elements, 10 instrumentation and computer skills, training exercises, 11 recently funded chemistry REU sites, characteristics, 4 chemistry REU site funded from 2014 to 2017, 5f Chemistry REU Sites, average grant size, 5f chemistry REU sites, funding start month, 6f

D Deaf and hearing participants, summer REU program, 45 American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting, 50 ASL interpreting students, 51f

discipline-specific jargon and chemical names, ASL interpreting, 52f poster session, ASL interpreting, 52f students, faculty and ASL interpreters, 53f James Madison University, 46 moving forward, 54 program, configuration and organization, 48

E Environmental and green chemistry, 177 program outcomes, 183 major program outcomes, summary, 183t REU site goals, 178 institutions participating in in the REU Site, location, 180f REU Site research project areas, 179t REU site program assessment, 182 project evaluation plan, 182t student program, 180 professional development activities, 181

M Mentor training seminar, 121 chemistry research mentor training seminar curriculum, 123 assessing understanding and fostering independence, 128 descriptions and learning objectives, 124 learning objectives, 125 mentoring challenges, 129 sample research training syllabus, 127t chemistry REU program, integrating entering mentoring, 131 entering mentoring, 122 final thoughts, 135 REU program, evaluation of entering mentoring, 134 mentored experience, mentee evaluation, 135t

193

R

social media, 39 technical training, 36

REU program, importance of a truly cohesive theme, 157 additional best practices, 173 assessment, importance, 168 external 2017 REU students, assessment results, 172f survey questions, 170t background and origins, 158 2009 summer program participants, photograph, 158f cohesive programming, nonlinear results, 159 Full 2013 Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program, 161f Full 2017 Ole Miss Physical Chemistry Summer Research Program, 162f outside speakers, 163 REU students, first class, 161f organized group social activities, importance, 164 2017, students and faculty playing basketball, 165f social activities, group cookouts, 167f social activities, local restaurants, 166f REU programs, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Alabama, 17 REU program, design, 18 academic credentials, 19 evaluation, 25 general chronology, 21t outreach, 24 participants, mechanisms for assessment, 26 research environment, 22 REU program, management, 20 student recruitment and selection, 23 University of Alabama NSF-REU participant demographics, 27t REU programs, results, 28 participant outcomes, 30t REU students, professional development communication, 37 ethics, 36 graduate school application, admissions, and life, 40 professional development events, typical timeline, 34t library and literature searching, 38 outreach, 39 Ph.D. chemists, careers, 41 safety, 35

T TIM Consortium, 59 Consortium, 61 National Organic Symposium (NOS), 63 scientific ethics training, 64 TIM Consortium locations, past and present, 62t TIM Consortium R1 mentors, 65t Consortium, future, 70 logistics, 65 national conferences, TIM meeting, 66 origins, 60 rationale, 60 results, 67 Lopatto survey, selected data, 68f 36th Reaction Mechanisms Conference, undergraduate context session, 70f TIM consortium participants, career outcomes, 69t

U United Kingdom, summer international REU program international program, 108 international REU, challenges unique, 116 keys to our success, 117 learning gains, outcomes, 117 local and national, recruiting, 113 program details, 109 program history, 107 student activities during program, 110 University of Nebraska-Lincoln, chemistry REU program, 139 assessment protocols, 151 communicating science and other workshops, 144 communicating science to the public workshops, 147 field trip destinations, 149t REU participants, average poster scores, 150f science communication workshops, 146 summer activity timetable, 145t

194

upward bound math science shadowing project, 148 participant selection, 142 UNL Chemistry REU program, number of students who completed their application, 144f research relationship triangle, 140 relationship triangle, 141f student outcomes, 152 what did i do this week activity queries, 153t

REU program overview, 87 applicant recruitment, 90 applicants and participants, demographic comparison, 101t applicant selection, 91 chemistry REU preliminary assessment, 99 educational opportunities, 96 2017 REU administrative and programmatic activities, timeline, 89t REU project outcomes, summary, 100 REU research project planning approach, 95f REU site activities, 92 REU site evaluation, 98 team-building activities, 97

W West Virginia University, chemistry REU program, 85

195