Educational and outreach projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative 9780841232082, 0841232083, 9780841232426, 0841232423, 9780841232075, 9780841232419

Table of contents :
Content: V. 1. Undergraduate and graduate education --
v. 2. Professional development and outreach.

Citation preview

1248

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1248

WATERMAN & FEIG

Educational and Outreach Projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative Undergraduate and Graduate Education Volume 1

Undergraduate and Graduate Education Volume 1

Educational and Outreach Projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative

professor oversees program

graduate students consultants for undergrads role models for participants

undergraduate students primary, near peer mentors direct day-to-day operations learn from graduate students

high school student participants

EDITED BY

Rory Waterman and Andrew Feig

Educational and Outreach Projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative Undergraduate and Graduate Education Volume 1

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1248

Educational and Outreach Projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative Undergraduate and Graduate Education Volume 1 Rory Waterman, Editor University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont

Andrew Feig, Editor Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan

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: Waterman, Rory (Rory M.), editor. | Feig, Andrew L., editor. | American Chemical Society. Division of Chemical Education, sponsor. Title: Educational and outreach projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative / Rory Waterman, editor, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, Andrew Feig, editor, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan ; sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education. Description: Washington, DC : American Chemical Society, [2017] | Series: ACS symposium series ; 1248, 1259 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: volume 1. Undergraduate and graduate education -- volume 2. Professional development and outreach Identifiers: LCCN 2017030580 (print) | LCCN 2017035698 (ebook) | ISBN 9780841232075 (ebook, v.1) | ISBN 9780841232419 (ebook, v.2) | ISBN 9780841232082 (v.1) | ISBN 9780841232426 (v.2) Subjects: LCSH: Chemistry--Study and teaching (Secondary) | Chemistry--Study and teaching (Higher) Classification: LCC QD455.5 (ebook) | LCC QD455.5 .E38 2017 (print) | DDC 540.71/1--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017030580

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 © 2017 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 Preface .............................................................................................................................. ix 1.

Leading Change in Undergraduate STEM Education ......................................... 1 Adam K. Leibovich, Michael Hildreth, and Linda Columbus

2.

Building a Modern Chemistry Undergraduate Program at Hanoi University of Science-Vietnam National University: A Vietnam−U.S. Partnership .......... 15 Martin Gruebele, James M. Lisy, Alexander Scheeline, and Steven C. Zimmerman

3.

Throwing Away the Cookbook: Implementing Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) in Chemistry ......................... 33 Jennifer M. Heemstra, Rory Waterman, John M. Antos, Penny J. Beuning, Scott K. Bur, Linda Columbus, Andrew L. Feig, Amelia A. Fuller, Jason G. Gillmore, Aaron M. Leconte, Casey H. Londergan, William C. K. Pomerantz, Jennifer A. Prescher, and Levi M. Stanley

4.

Looking Outwards from the “Central Science”: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Graduate Education in Materials Chemistry ............................ 65 Debra A. Fowler, Raymundo Arroyave, Joseph Ross, Richard Malak, and Sarbajit Banerjee

5.

Creation (and Recreation) of a Graduate Core Course in Chemistry .............. 91 Vincent M. Rotello

6.

The Fisk-Vanderbilt Masters-to-PhD Bridge Program: Broadening Participation of Underrepresented Minorities in the Physical Sciences ........... 97 Keivan G. Stassun

7.

Using Early Introduction to Research To Increase STEM Majors: A Tale of Two Colleges, One Small Highly Selective Private and One Non-Selective Regional Public ..................................................................................................... 107 George C. Shields, Delana A. Gajdosik-Nivens, and Traci Ness

Editors’ Biographies .................................................................................................... 121

Indexes Author Index ................................................................................................................ 125 Subject Index ................................................................................................................ 127

vii

Preface The symposium was conceived as an early celebration for the then-new Transformational Research and Excellence in Education (TREE) Award from Research Corporation for Science Advancement (http://rescorp.org/cottrellscholars/career-advancement-awards/tree-award). The TREE award recognizes the exceptional work in the integration of research and education of the pool of Cottrell Scholars. Within these volumes, we are pleased to have contributions from TREE award winners Rigoberto Hernandez, Vince Rotello, and Keivan Stassun. The diversity of their efforts and the broad impact of those programs highlights how highly successful researchers can have tremendous impact in education. Presentations at the symposium were made by Cottrell Scholars who earned that recognition from Research Corporation for Science Advancement by virtue of their early career ability to integrate research and education. Many Cottrell Scholars continue to push boundaries in their education and outreach work in addition to their research. That community has organized into the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative (CSC). This self-organized collection of Cottrell Scholars work together to identify and tackle high-priority educational projects of national importance, often in collaboration with partner organizations. Examples include the CSC New Faculty Workshop, a national workshop to help departmental teams develop teaching assistant training programs, and an academic leadership training institute. Several published monographs have resulted from work of the CSC teams including Teach Better, Save Time and Have More Fun (Beuning, Snyder and Scott 2014) and the Effective Evaluation of Teaching and Learning (Miller et al. 2015). Research Corporation for Science Advancement has made a financial commitment to many of the collaborative projects through small seed grants and by hosting an annual meeting at which scholars network, share insights, and identify new opportunities where a little effort can yield a big impact on the target population. Ultimately, the projects that Cottrell Scholars and CSC members develop start on the scale of an individual or two looking to impact their community. As new faculty seek to cultivate impactful projects for future CAREER grant submissions and their local institution, it seemed useful to provide a broader audience with the scope and scale of work from Cottrell Scholars and the Collaborative. Within this first volume, there are examples of an array of programs that focus on advances in education as well as improving representation, which are presented here because efforts are often synergistic in these two areas. Whereas some of these projects are complex in both scale and execution, other examples can be implemented immediately on campuses at little or no cost. ix

A natural area in which faculty have significant control and potential impact is curriculum. While there are copious pushes and rationales for fundamental changes in science instruction, there are a myriad of possible activities from which students can benefit in the near and long term. Here, we provide examples of general changes as well as specific programs that target undergraduate and graduate students. Columbus and fellow Cottrell Scholars Hildreth and Leibovich outline lessons garnered from efforts to bring about curricular change in their respective departments, institutions, and disciplines (Chapter 1). They develop three broad themes, those of personal qualities, professional actions, and common steps across environments. On the issue of personal qualities, they highlight the requirement for perseverance and patience as is common in any process, as well as the critical need to exhibit leadership in advancing change. On the professional scale, they highlight the need to develop partnerships and networks that support objectives as well as essential considerations of new and on-going resources for any undertaking. Finally, they speak to the importance of timing and process among other common steps in affecting curricular change. Gruebele and coworkers described a now decade-old collaboration between the University of Illinois and Hanoi University to help modernize the chemistry curriculum at Hanoi University that simultaneously develops connections that bring internationally trained Vietnamese chemists back to Vietnam (Chapter 2). The curricular overhaul stemmed from Illinois faculty visits to Hanoi to teach a class and demonstrate effective instructional practices. Hanoi faculty also visited Illinois for extended periods to observe instruction and develop a transferable model implemented upon their return. Language, copyrights, and facilities were among the main challenges that the program faced. The program also included undergraduate research experiences, and Hanoi undergraduate students who had participated in the program were competitive for admission to the Illinois Ph. D. program. The partnership was judged successful on a range of measures, perhaps the most telling indicator was the high performance of Hanoi students in updated courses taken in Vietnam. Heemstra and coworkers tapped into the experience of a group of Cottrell Scholars (including the editors) in their development and implementation of Curriculum-based Undergraduate Research Experiences or CUREs (Chapter 3). The main descriptor of a CURE, as noted in the education literature, is that students engage in genuine research such that they have five critical features: scientific practices, discovery, relevance, collaboration, and iteration. The chapter describes some of the utility of CUREs in serving students in large programs as well as providing key skills or outcomes in any department. The authors provide a series of vignettes about their own CUREs, what those look like, and some of the key take-home lessons from their experiences. The result is a reference for a variety of fields, institution types, and levels. Banerjee, Fowler, and coworkers outline a revised approach to graduate education in the context of materials science (Chapter 4). Their educational plan not only centers on providing transferable skills that employers are seeking but also fosters the trappings of scientists who participate in and develop interdisciplinary collaboration. The development of the program arose from the x

authors’ careful study of the literature, dialog with employers, and interviews with prior students from the Texas A & M program. The result is a multi-year, scaffolded program that provides outcomes for masters and Ph. D. students who develop technical skills, critical thinking, and communication skills that promote the desired outcomes. The architects have focused on their learning goals for students as well as developing a scalable and sustainable model. While assessment is forthcoming on this project, this overview provides perspective on the program design, motivation, and execution. Rotello describes an effort to transform graduate education in chemistry at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Chapter 5). Consensus regarding the content for the program was a challenge despite the ease with which faculty agreed on its over-arching goals. However, Rotello and colleagues implemented a “core course” in their program that was team-taught and represented the range of disciplines within the department. The core course demonstrated success by improving students’ progress through the graduate program overall, fostering skills that made program requirements more straightforward, and providing a solid grounding for research success. Rotello notes an unintended benefit of the reforms—a greater sense of community among the graduate students and within the department. These positive outcomes are proposed to result from the soft skills that are honed through proposal writing, a short research project, and paper review embedded in the curriculum as well as the supporting workshops on writing, ethics, and leadership. These successes have fueled the core course for two decades, but the future holds continuing evolution for the core course with the forthcoming implementation of modules in outcomes-based design and better assessment of student learning. Sciences continue to struggle to be more representative of the population, despite advances made in recent decades. The scope of the problem can be demoralizing, making solutions appear out of reach. However, these examples show well that a thoughtful, systematic approach to these issues can lead to not only positive but substantial improvements for underrepresented populations in a short period of time. Stassun describes the masters-to-Ph.D. bridge program developed in a collaboration between Fisk and Vanderbilt universities (Chapter 6). The bridge program is available by application to students entering master’s programs at Fisk. The admission to the bridge program minimizes emphasis on the standardize testing that often vexes students from underrepresented groups and emphasizes personal traits consistent with successful students such as persistence. At the core of the bridge program are research experiences, advising and mentoring from both Fisk and Vanderbilt, routine assessment by the program, and performance benchmarks for participants. The program is not a pathway to Vanderbilt admission, and bridge program participants must still apply for admission at Vanderbilt. The results of the 13-year-old program are astounding. Dozens of program participants have successfully completed their doctoral degrees (>80% competition rate), dwarfing the national output of Ph. D. recipients from underrepresented groups in astronomy and astrophysics. Shields and coworkers describe testing an intriguing hypothesis (Chapter 7): Can a successful pre-matriculation undergraduate research program be exported xi

from a competitive, well-funded liberal arts college to a comprehensive public university with the same degree of success? In the early 2000s, Hamilton College developed a highly successful summer undergraduate research program that mapped well on to a highly research active faculty and campus. The result was increased success. Several years after that work, the team developed the first university-wide summer undergraduate research program at Armstrong State University with NSF STEP funding as well as a significant institutional commitment from the Dean of Armstrong’s College of Science and Technology. The result are staggering: Astronomical increases in undergraduate research overall as well as tremendous increases in retention and graduation rates among participants. While there have and continue to be significant challenges, the authors demonstrate that early, thoughtful intervention with research can have tremendous impact on students regardless of institution type. These projects represent breadth and depth across scales and domains. We hope that they provide some indication of the possible impact that one faculty member (or two!) can have on their community. Finally, mention of Research Corporation for Science Advancement in this introduction and throughout the volume is no coincidence. Research Corporation support through Cottrell Scholar awards, Cottrell Scholar Collaborative awards, and the networking that the Collaborative provides has enabled many of these projects and many more not contained in this volume. We, the authors and editors, are deeply grateful to Research Corporation for Science Advancement for its continued dedication to advancing science through education and research as well as support to our own individual efforts.

Rory Waterman Department of Chemistry University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont 05405, United States [email protected] (e-mail)

Andrew Feig Department of Chemistry Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan 48202-3489, United States [email protected] (e-mail)

xii

Chapter 1

Leading Change in Undergraduate STEM Education Adam K. Leibovich,1 Michael Hildreth,2 and Linda Columbus*,3 1Department

of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, United States 2Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, United States 3Department of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Department culture and the prevailing status quo are major barriers to curricular and programmatic change in undergraduate STEM education. Many faculty members struggle to lead needed change in the context of these barriers; however, several have strategically navigated this change within their departments and universities. This chapter highlights important considerations and guidance for faculty wanting to become agents of change within their communities.

The Role of Faculty in Curriculum and Programmatic Reform There are many barriers to sustainable change in undergraduate STEM courses and programs. One barrier is fear. What if I put all this time into changing introductory chemistry and the students don’t learn and/or hate it? What if redesigning introductory chemistry takes so much of my time that I lose my research funding? If I care too much about teaching will I lose my research identity and the respect of my colleagues? These are real and valid fears (1). Time and resources are limiting reagents (2, 3). How does a single faculty member with a research program find the time to design and teach a large course with well-studied effective teaching practices? What resources does a university put forth to help faculty develop these types of courses so that the faculty member isn’t effectively obtaining another PhD in science education and learning? The © 2017 American Chemical Society

typical first-year introductory chemistry course at a public university can have over 1000 students with a student to faculty ratio of 400:1 or more. Thus, the challenge of developing a scalable curriculum that can be taught to a mass of students is difficult (4). Sustainability is also a major barrier to curricular change (5). An effective professor teaches a specific course, but when they retire or rotate to another assignment the incoming professor inevitably makes changes. As professors, we like to have our academic freedom and teach the content we want with our own teaching approaches. Yet, changing a working course model for spurious reasons wastes resources. Finally, culture and inertia contribute significantly to the lack of change in how and what we teach in introductory chemistry (6). Chemistry departments are an interesting mixture of disciplines that often have different “scientific cultures” with corresponding tribal behaviors and wars (7). Arguments about quantitative versus descriptive or depth versus coverage can consume hours of discussion (8). The idea of “weeding” out the students for the major is prevalent (9). On top of these conflicts are the curricular wars (e.g. “Atoms first” versus traditional “topical ladder” approaches (10)). One interesting commonality is that many faculty agree that much of the introductory course content isn’t very representative of chemistry in practice as an integrated science with deep connections to biology, physics, and engineering, as an observation of the physical world or in research and development (11–13). We have faced all of these barriers and, to some extent, overcome them to introduce course and programmatic changes at our institutions. Generalizations from our experiences are included here to provide some guiding principles to those interested in leading change in undergraduate (and likely graduate) STEM courses and programs.

Timing and Institutional Readiness Timing is a very important consideration before committing resources and effort to developing STEM curricula and programs. Many institutions have evolved to assist faculty in teaching and are now responding to a realization that the focus should be on learning. Along these lines, there is a shift from a student-centered model to an institutional readiness model. Rather than assuming students lack characteristics important to succeed and focusing on teaching to these deficits, institutions implement technology, design, and pedagogy that is effective to many students rather than the average (14–16). Thus, there are many important questions to think about in terms of timing and institutional readiness. Here are a few to consider. 1.

2.

Is undergraduate STEM reform part of the university’s strategic plan? In most cases, the answer is surely yes, but be sure to have this information to frame your initiative. Is this mere lip service or are resources committed to facilitate change? Are there more pressing problems in your department or college that might be a higher priority? Consider the current demands on your colleagues and the most important concerns the faculty have. For 2

3.

4. 5.

6.

instance, if your department just hired five assistant professors, you may want to focus on mentoring, sponsoring, and supporting these faculty and delay a reform until they are tenured. However, maybe you have a large faculty and you can incorporate the new faculty as part of the reform. Take the time to think and discuss what the priorities currently are for the department. What is the timeline for the curricular or programmatic change? Do you need to address inertia and culture? Change takes time. Investing in long term sustainable change requires discussion, inclusion, engagement, faculty buy-in and revision. Think of any curricular or programmatic change as a model that the faculty could use for any other large long-term proposed changes. Are there resources, faculty, and staff that you can identify that are interested in undergraduate STEM curricular and programmatic changes? Is the project design feasible for the scale and duration required of a STEM course? For instance, if you want to take students into the field as part of a classroom undergraduate research experience, are there funds available to continue the course with the anticipated number of students for the next 5 years? Has someone else conducted a recent STEM curricular or programmatic change? How did it go? What do the participants suggest? Conduct research at your home institution and with peers elsewhere, identify resources, and research the recent past for barriers and resources.

The answers to these questions will allow you to gauge whether your institution is ready to support and cultivate STEM curricular and programmatic change. The impact your initiative can have is directly correlated to the ability of your institution to sustain and facilitate curricular and programmatic change.

Examples of the Importance of Timing and Readiness •

•

•

•

Many more institutions are stressing the importance of updating curricula. Determine if your upper administration is pushing in this direction (e.g. an Association of American Universities (AAU) institution will have an appointed representative that is very familiar with the national push for STEM education reform (17)). If so, resources are most likely available to help facilitate change. This is a perfect time to begin. Having a plan to implement large curricular or programmatic changes without having faculty buy-in is a recipe for disaster. Spend time to obtain support before jumping into the process. Sometimes, rotation of new professors into a course or set of courses can open up an opportunity for change or reform. Be watchful for the opportunity to harness fresh enthusiasm and the will to collaborate. The time to start is now. It will take time to build up to the point of implementing your first reform. Don’t wait! You can vary the pace of the reform process to suit the evolving set of opportunities. 3

Leadership Leadership is a skill that is learned, cultivated, and developed and does not imply a particular title. Anyone can lead change if they invest in the development of these skills. All STEM departments should invest in the development of faculty leadership skills (e.g. workshops and programs through your institution, professional societies, or commercial services). There are a few traits that are especially important for leading change in undergraduate STEM education. The most important is being able to work with all of the stakeholders (18). The only expectation you should have for a reform is that the course or program will be better than it currently is. If, as a leader for change, you have many predefined ideas and expectations then you may not leave room for advancement or inclusion of other peoples’ thoughts. You cannot be an expert in all things related to STEM education and your colleagues may have better ideas about content, logistics, or implementation. Therefore, you should be open to the many possibilities that could lead to reform. Invest time in the process of having department members discuss the particular reform they think is important and have them brainstorm ideas, designs, and solutions. Listen to stakeholders and respond. Undergraduates, graduate student teaching assistants, faculty, staff, and administrators all have investments in the programs and courses offered at the institution. Therefore, they will all have opinions and experiences about the need for change, the process, and the implementation of the reformed course or program. People with ideas are a dime a dozen, but people who can do the work and implement good ideas (their own or from others) are rare. To lead reform, you need to have good ideas, but more importantly, you need to recognize other people’s good ideas and act on them. Be ready to step in when others won’t do the work even if it was their great idea. Examples Demonstrating Leadership •

•

•

•

Survey faculty with a short questionnaire focused on a particular topic to gauge interest or knowledge of curricula changes. There are many free online resources for creating and analyzing surveys. Meet with faculty to discuss what data would be helpful in assessing if and what curricular and programmatic change is needed. Have them prioritize the questions. Collect the data. Organize an undergraduate studies retreat with activities designed to have the faculty learn what is currently being taught and discuss what they think is great and what needs improvement. Circulate the list and facilitate a discussion among interested faculty to form strategies that tackle the top two areas identified for improvement. Before designing the curriculum of a new course, ask faculty members through informal or formal discussions about what they think is important to be taught in the course. Then, when you design the course send the syllabus to those that you involved indicating who thought what was important and where it was included in the course. 4

•

Be the leader for the change. This does not mean you do all the work. Team building will lessen your load and give you a greater chance of success.

Data Why do you want to change the curriculum or program? What are the goals for the change? To answers these questions, you will want to obtain data to support the claim that change is needed. If you can convince your colleagues that there is a need for some pedagogical change with data, they are more likely to support your efforts. This is particularly true in STEM fields such as Chemistry, where we are more easily convinced of the importance of making changes if it is backed with data. There is a large literature focused on effective teaching practices in STEM; however, since we as STEM faculty are not usually trained for education research we are unfamiliar with these publications. Indeed, many STEM faculty are unconvinced by the results in discipline-based science research, due to the “softness” of the science (19). However, these same faculty members can be convinced by data acquired within your own institution and designed around specific questions they have with the specific cohort that they teach. Institutions have a database of course grades, race, gender, major, transfer information, and can follow a student’s trajectory through a program or major by combing all of this information for each student. They may even have experiential information based on surveys like the Student Experience in the Research University sponsored by the Center for Studies in Higher Education (20). These data can be extremely powerful in motivating change in STEM instruction. Beyond institutional data, you can acquire data yourself for a particular cohort of interest. The cohort could be the majors, students in introductory courses, or students in a specific course. The results of pre- and post-testing within a course or over a set of courses is often very convincing data for colleagues to assess what students are really learning and can motivate them to support a redesign. Use the resources at your university to help design the instruments (e.g. survey or placement test) you want to use. Be sure to obtain institutional review board approval or exemption before beginning these studies. Student informed consent is very important if collecting data and reporting outcomes as a function of many criteria you are interested in studying (e.g. demographics). Examples of Important Data • •

• •

Determine what the rate of drop, withdraw, and failure is for a given course. Is this an acceptable number? Survey students within a major about their experiences. What would you want their experience to be? Is this what students report? Are they learning what you think you are teaching? Are underrepresented groups disproportionately earning lower grades? Are they experiencing the courses and program differently? How many students conduct research and publish papers? 5

•

Pre- and post-test results compared across different course sections and instructors. There are many assessments available online (e.g. Student Assessment of Learning Gains (21) for student experiences and concept inventories in different disciplines). The NSF and professional societies’ websites provide information about these assessment tools.

Inclusion and Communication Many faculty members reform their course independently of their surroundings. The result is that, when the faculty member no longer teaches the course, the reform and knowledge that went into the change is lost and the course must be redesigned anew or it defaults to a set of lecture notes passed on from previous instructors. In addition, institutions may not reward teaching excellence and leave faculty feeling underappreciated for the work that they put into course development (22). There have been many calls to universities to change and increase incentives for research faculty to design curricula and teach effectively (3, 17). To avoid these issues, you may want to consider including several people in the design and implementation of the reform. Including administrators, faculty, staff, and students creates a sense of community and investment in the change regardless of whether they are actively involved. Additionally, if you do not communicate your ideas and implementations, then no one will know the effort and impact that you have made. Engage faculty in collaborative projects focused around teaching. Collaborations foster innovation and can lead to sustainable change. Start with small projects or specific course material and lead informal discussions (e.g. over lunch or coffee) with faculty. Seek their advice and communicate back to them how you used their advice and expertise in your course or program. Allowing faculty to have impact without consuming too much of their time will increase their awareness and ownership of the new developments. Embrace opportunities to make presentations on your educational reform. Participating in these presentations does not detract from your research identity. In fact, your research identity can be used as a credential to help other research active faculty recognize the opportunity and importance of their involvement. Your local contributions to changes in STEM education can have a much broader impact just by sharing your experiences with colleagues in professional societies and seminars. Many have demonstrated the long-term impact that strong research scientists can have on STEM education reform; this group includes Eric Mazur, Jo Handelsman, Carl Wieman, S. James Gates, Jr. and others, many of whom have been honored with the distinction of HHMI Professors or Cottrell Scholars. Examples of Inclusion and Communication • •

Present a 5-minute pitch to an administrative unit about the reform ideas you have and the impact the expected outcomes could have. Create a “design team” for your course. Just because you are the instructor doesn’t mean you have to change the course by yourself. 6

•

•

•

Identify two or three people across the institution that can help you (e.g. librarian, technology staff, education expert). Create an advisory board for your initiative. Ask administrators, staff, and faculty to participate in the board. Update them once a year and ask for feedback. Discuss with your undergraduate students the reasons for the curriculum reform, and solicit feedback both before and after making changes. Buy-in from the students is important to lasting change and some useful approaches from engaging students in these discussion are provided on the POGIL resource website (23). Take the opportunity to discuss your plans with colleagues both at your institution and elsewhere. You do not need to reinvent the wheel. Many great ideas have been tried that you can use.

Building Relationships and Faculty Buy-In Reform in STEM education likely requires a cultural change in the environment. Cultural change does not happen quickly and requires continuous attention to positive relationships and communication. Internal politics, divisions, and factions are human nature and can create a difficult environment to navigate. If you want to invest in change, then you will need to consider activities and goals that can bring the faculty together on specific achievements. Within your department, it is important to find like-minded individuals who are interested in making reforms. Teaming up with these people will build a cohort that can be used to overcome the political and disciplinary divisions in the department. A team-based approach will also spread the workload around and make more people invested in the changes. Learning what works and what does not at your university and in your department will help your initiative be successful. Find out what reforms are happening in other departments. Meet with the people involved and listen to their thoughts and ideas about what was successful and what was challenging in their projects. Determine how they know they are accomplishing their goals. Partnering with these departments and the university resources that are helping them can be productive for all involved. Involving deans and provosts in these discussions is also crucial. The upper administration will not only know what is occurring across the university, but will be happy to have joint projects since they can be relatively inexpensive.

Examples of Building Relationships •

Start a small discussion group around pedagogical issues. Pick topics that either showcase the application of various pedagogical techniques or address perceived problems. Building small communities of like-minded faculty in informal non-threatening situations is an excellent way to build support for reform. 7

•

•

Invite “well-respected” individuals from outside your university who have been successful in implementing reform to give colloquia. Often, seeing that successful reform is possible elsewhere and hearing about the strategies that produced it can provide some local impetus for change. Having a Q&A session with the speaker after the talk is an effective way to communicate the procedural details of reform and discuss some of the obstacles that may or may not have come out in a formal talk. Build relationships with reformers in other departments on campus. They will be your allies in this endeavor.

Resources If your institution is ready for curricular and/or programmatic change, then you should be able to secure resources for your implementation. Securing these resources can be divided into two categories: (i) those that exist and (ii) those for which you have to ask. Many institutions have teaching, digital/media, computing, and learning design and technology resources. These entities are often spread across a campus without a central core that places them all together at your disposal. The personnel are typically overworked and under resourced, but very willing to help. Therefore, don’t expect them to come to you, but if you find them, they may be helpful. For the resources you need to ask for, first identify whom you should ask. In many cases, this person may not be your department head, but may be a Dean of Undergraduate Studies, the Provost, or other entities. Talk to your chair and then several other administrative entities to drum up support (see section on Communicating your work) and put together a pitch for your reform. Use data and existing resources to demonstrate investment and resourcefulness. Ask for the resources you need and consider a month summer salary, teaching assistants, a teaching postdoctoral fellowship, one-time funds for equipment and materials, and other types of instructional support. Examples of Identifying and Leveraging Resources •

•

•

•

Contact staff in teaching and learning centers or similar entities at your university to identify resources and other faculty developing or changing curricula or programs. Often, funds supporting innovative educational initiatives are available from, for example, a Dean’s office. Make sure to identify these opportunities, and if possible, get support from your Department chair when applying. Rely on networks of contacts through professional societies or others who have considered and implemented similar reforms. Often, they will be willing to share course materials and experiences. This will lessen the overall workload involved in implementing changes/reforms. Assessment is absolutely needed for all courses and programs. However, the development of the tools and continuous implementation of these 8

•

instruments is time demanding. Identify resources at the university that can help reduce the time and energy required for this aspect of the project. Once again, the professional societies have many resources available for course transformation and assessment tools. Spend time looking online for such resources.

Sustainability Sustainability is perhaps the hardest part of reform. Modifying a course is not hard; whenever a person teaches a course for the first time, the course is modified. However, the model of single instructor and single course implies that lasting change is difficult. Even if there is demonstrable improvement in the outcomes of a course, if only one person is involved, the changes will disappear when a new instructor takes over. Sustainability requires tenacity and foresight. Be prepared to resist the inevitable attempts to revert to the “good old way” of teaching the course because “it was fine” or “I have my notes from 10 years ago.” Based on your experience with your colleagues, try to anticipate what resources you can provide that will heighten their willingness to try out the reforms. A complete set of lecture notes and/or PowerPoint slides might be sufficient. Extra assistance preparing lecture demonstrations or class assignments could sweeten the deal. Be prepared to offer incentives to those that contribute time and energy, and make sure you can offer the resources necessary to get everyone new on board with the program. If you make the reform substantially easier to execute than the status quo, then the path of least resistance will be the most desired path leading to more support of the reform. To obtain lasting change, many people need to feel connected in the reform. Spreading the buy-in and investment will enhance sustainability. This can be done by creating teams and communicating the positive results to the department and to the dean. Team teaching a course with reforms can also help spread the changes and creates a cadre of supporters who can advocate for sustaining them. The more people who touch the reform, the better the chances are that it will stick. If the students believe in the innovation, they will also be useful allies in pushing for lasting change. Remember that the first attempt may not be successful. It is important to circle back to the beginning of the reform process, with surveys, discussions, and modifications. Data is important for continuous support and a way to build trust. It may take many iterations before the results are to the point where you are satisfied. Continuous improvement is the key to any reform. Examples Proposed To Sustain Change •

Create a digital archive of course materials where each faculty member can store a record of what they have developed for each course they teach. Assuming a culture of sharing exists, over time the archive will grow into a resource for all future faculty who can look back to see what materials 9

•

•

were used in past versions of each course. This is one way to preserve continuity for newly-developed course materials, since it dramatically lowers the adoption barrier. If a complete set of materials exists for a given course, a new instructor is much more likely to just use them as a starting point rather than to create new materials. Appoint reliable course management for reformed courses. If major reforms are to be enacted and sustained, appropriate course leadership is required to shepherd new faculty through the adoption and initiation process and to prevent “backsliding”. The course manager thus needs to be someone with sufficient stature and persuasiveness to influence senior members of the faculty if they are assigned to teach in the reformed curriculum. Ideally, the course manager should be in place for several semesters in order to insure uniformity and continuity. Without this type of support, the understanding of the logic behind the reforms and the details of their implementation can be quickly lost or diluted. Many departments have rotating chairs. These transitions can interfere with sustainable programs. Involving the faculty in various ways along the process will ensure that these transitions have less impact on the sustainability of the developed curriculum.

Roadblocks and Perseverance Just as in scientific research, there will be highs and lows in this adventure. There will be times when you will want to give up, feel underappreciated and misunderstood, and think that you are not impacting your students’ learning. Everybody who teaches, regardless of whether they are trying to change courses and programs or not, feels these ways. However, you are more vulnerable because you are sticking your neck out and trying new things. Accept that this is the way it is. There will be roadblocks and each department and institution will have its own set of barriers. Dig under, walk the long way around, leap above, do whatever you need to do to overcome the roadblocks. Use the above tips and examples to help you navigate this ever-changing landscape. Once you have identified and navigated your institutional roadblocks work to eliminate them for others. For instance, a common roadblock is a lack of incentives and reward system for excellence in teaching. Introducing prestigious awards within the department, college, and university and adding value of these awards among the faculty through praise, financial support, and fellowships will reduce one of the roadblocks to curricular change (3, 17). Examples Proposed To Help Navigate Roadblocks • •

Identify key administrators that can serve as mentors and seek their advice in navigating roadblocks and challenges you have identified. Think outside the box. Identify the key issue and think about the different perspectives. Brainstorm multiple solutions that address the key issue. For example, many faculty members are afraid of change or something 10

•

•

•

•

different, which may lead to resistance to a reform that you propose. Investigating their specific fears and discussing different options and solutions directly with these faculty could reduce their resistance. Investigate. Some roadblocks are logistical, such as the coding of a course or a requirement for committee approval of a new program. These appear to be set in stone, but often there are exceptions and other paths to your goals of which you may be unaware. Ask several administrators and administrative assistants how you can accomplish your goal. Don’t identify the challenges and roadblocks towards your goal; just pitch what you want to accomplish and ask how it can be done. You will likely get a few different answers ranging from “it can’t be done” to “this is how you can do it”. Communicate (I). Sometimes, the only way to work through obstacles is to sit down with your colleagues one-on-one and have a discussion. Listen to and respect their concerns and try to reach some middle ground of understanding. Often, roadblocks, opposition, or obstruction result from a misunderstanding of the intent of the reforms. Taking the time to visit your colleagues and have a dialogue can be very effective in smoothing the path to the reforms you seek. Communicate (II). Make sure that there is sufficient and sufficiently frequent communication among all of those involved in the reform effort. This way, you can identify problems early and work together to develop solutions. Assess early and often. It’s surprising how often simple logistical problems or minor issues can undermine reform efforts. A series of small annoyances can be compounded into outright resistance or resentment. Solicit feedback from the students early in each course where major changes are being implemented so that these problems can be corrected quickly and do not obscure the “big picture” reforms.

Conclusion As professors in STEM at all different types of universities and colleges we have an academic duty to deliver quality education to our students. The understanding of how students learn has produced effective practices that we can introduce into our classrooms and laboratories to aim for a high level and a high quality of educational engagement. Unfortunately, these effective practices are slow to be introduced into STEM courses and programs. Leaders of change are needed and if you are reading this chapter that leader can be you. Arm yourself with institutional knowledge, leadership skills and data and build relationships with faculty, administrators, students, and staff to design reform as a team.

11

References 1.

2. 3.

4.

5.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

Brownell, S. E.; Tanner, K. D. Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and...Tensions with Professional Identity? CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2012, 11, 339–346. Anderson, R. D. Reforming Science Teaching: What Research Says About Inquiry. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2002, 13, 1–12. Anderson, W. A.; Banerjee, U.; Drennan, C. L.; Elgin, S. C. R.; Epstein, I. R.; Handelsman, J.; Hatfull, G. F.; Losick, R.; O’Dowd, D. K.; Olivera, B. M.; Strobel, S. A.; Walker, G. C.; Warner, I. M. Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities. Science 2011, 331, 152–153. Chasteen, S. V.; Perkins, K. K.; Code, W. J.; Wieman, C. E., The Science Education Initiative: An Experiment in Scaling up Education Improvements at a Research University. In Transforming Institutions: Undergraduate STEM Education for the 21st Century; Weaver, G. C., Burgess, W. D., Childress, A. L., Slakey, L., Eds.; Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, IN, 2016. Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students’ Diverse Pathways; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2016. Tagg, J. Why Does the Faculty Resist Change? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 2012, 55, 6–15. Becher, T. The Significance of Disciplinary Differences. Studies Higher Educ. 1994, 19, 151–161. Ege, S. N.; Coppola, B. P.; Lawton, R. G. The University of Michigan Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum. 1. Philosophy, Curriculum, and the Nature of Change. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 74–83. Mervis, J. Undergraduate Science. Better Intro Courses Seen as Key to Reducing Attrition of STEM Majors. Science 2010, 330, 306–306. Talanquer, V.; Pollard, J. Let’s Teach How We Think Instead of What We Know. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11, 74–83. Abraham, M. R.; Cracolice, M. S.; Graves, A. P.; Aldhamash, A. H.; Kihega, J. G.; Gil, J. G. P.; Varghese, V. The Nature and State of General Chemistry Laboratory Courses Offered by Colleges and Universities in the United States. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 591–594. Cooper, M. The Case for Reform of the Undergraduate General Chemistry Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 231–232. Kerr, S.; Runquist, O. Are We Serious about Preparing Chemists for the 21st Century Workplace or Are We Just Teaching Chemistry? J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 231–233. Canelas, D. A. Teaching College Chemistry to the Edges Rather Than to the Average: Implications for Less Experienced Science Students. In The Promise of Chemical Education: Addressing Our Students’ Needs; Daus, E. K., Rigsbee, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, U.K., 2015; pp 11−28.

12

15. Smit, R. Towards a Clearer Understanding of Student Disadvantage in Higher Education: Problematising Deficit Thinking. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 2012, 31, 369–380. 16. Twigg, C. A. Institutional Readiness Criteria. Educause Rev. 2000, 35, 42–51. 17. Bradforth, S. E.; Miller, E. R.; Dichtel, W. R.; Leibovich, A. K.; Feig, A. L.; Martin, J. D.; Bjorkman, K. S.; Schultz, Z. D.; Smith, T. L. University Learning: Improve Undergraduate Science Education. Nature 2015, 523, 282–284. 18. Brewer, C. A.; Smith, D. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, 2010. 19. Henderson, C.; Dancy, M. H. Barriers to the Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Influence of Both Individual and Situational Characteristics. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.−Phys. Educ. Res. 2007, 3, 020102. 20. Center for Studies in Higher Education. http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/ seru/ (accessed February 16, 2017). 21. Student Assessment of Learning Gains. http://www.salgsite.org/ (accessed February 16, 2017). 22. Fairweather, J. S. Beyond the Rhetoric: Trends in the Relative Value of Teaching and Research in Faculty Salaries. J. Higher Educ. 2005, 76, 401–422. 23. POGIL: Stage 1 - Shifting to a Student-Centered Classroom. https:// pogil.org/resources/implementation/hspi-implementation-guide/stage-1shifting-to-a-student-centered-classroom (accessed February 16, 2017).

13

Chapter 2

Building a Modern Chemistry Undergraduate Program at Hanoi University of Science-Vietnam National University: A Vietnam−U.S. Partnership Martin Gruebele,* James M. Lisy, Alexander Scheeline, and Steven C. Zimmerman Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 600 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

In 2007, the University of Illinois Chemistry Department entered an agreement with the Hanoi University of Science Chemistry Department (part of Vietnam National University) to modernize their chemistry curriculum. This was achieved by sending Illinois faculty to teach classes in Vietnam, introducing active learning, live demonstrations, U.S. textbooks and English language instruction into the curriculum. Illinois also provides undergraduate research positions and faculty training in the U.S., takes excellent students into the Illinois PhD program. The loop eventually closes when Vietnamese PhDs return to their home country to teach as chemistry faculty themselves. This chapter outlines the approach we took, provides some assessment data, and discusses the personal connections of the Illinois-Hanoi outreach program as a model for similar programs to build up chemical education infrastructure and foster international science education collaboration in interested countries.

© 2017 American Chemical Society

Introduction Higher education in the U.S. has a long-standing focus on outreach into the community, ranging from lectures for the lay public to high school student summer research opportunities, to continuing teacher training in STEM fields to TED talks on the radio and internet. There have also been global scientific partnerships, such as ‘branch campuses’ of prominent universities abroad, bringing together U.S. researchers with their counterparts in host countries. Activities that impact global education have received less attention at the level of university departments, being left to campuses overall or national educational organizations. This makes it harder to achieve specific chemistry-oriented goals. Here we pose the question: What about modernizing the chemistry education of an entire country, especially one that was not always on friendly terms with the U.S., to become a potential global partner in science and technology? We discuss such an outreach program, conducted as a partnership between the chemistry departments at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC or Illinois), and Hanoi University of Science (HUS, affiliated with Vietnam National University, VNU). The HUS faculty realized that they needed to: modernize their curriculum and teaching methods; enable their students to communicate science in English, which has become the de facto language of scientific journals around the world; and to sustain the changes that graduates with a combined education at HUS and UIUC could make. This chapter discusses how the UIUC-HUS global outreach project was initiated, what were its various facets (e.g. undergraduates taught by Illinois faculty in Vietnam, summer undergraduate research at Illinois, PhD research at Illinois), and what we hope the future will bring. Our “East-West Partnership” was featured in a 2010 article by Celia Arnaud in C&EN (Arnaud, 2010) (1).

Getting the Program Started In the mid 1980s, Vietnam began a program of re-structuring — “ Đổi Mới,” or “Renovation,” loosely translated into English — to reintegrate Vietnam into the world community (Figure 1). Economic reform boosted productivity to annual GDP growth averaging about 6% between 1995 and 2015, with far less of a drop during the 2008 economic crisis than the international community in general (Data at data.worldbank.org). In 1995, the U.S. and Vietnam established normalized diplomatic relations, and by 2001, a bilateral trade agreement was signed. Economic and political reforms turned cities like Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City into bustling centers of activity. As a consequence the unavoidable transition was made from roads filled with bicycles to roads jammed with vehicular traffic (not all imports from the West are great). It became clear to university administrators at HUS that STEM education would rapidly become a bottleneck to sustained growth as Vietnam attempted the direct leap into a modern technology-based economy. They contacted the UIUC Chancellor, and it quickly became apparent that a focused relationship at the department level would be the best way to start an outreach program between the two universities. By the end of 2006, a delegation from HUS, including Rector 16

Búi Duy Cam and Dean Luu Van Boi of Chemistry visited Illinois, and entered an agreement with Steven Zimmerman, then Department Head of Chemistry at Illinois. (Note that a Vietnamese “Dean”, like the German “Dekan,” leads a department. A Vietnamese “Rector,” like the German “Rektor,” leads the university or at least a whole faculty, such as the sciences.)

Figure 1. The contrast of past and future after the “renovation” program in Vietnam. Photo by Steven C. Zimmerman.

The goals of the collaborative undergraduate-level educational outreach program between the two chemistry departments were as follows: •

•

• •

•

To create an English-language undergraduate chemistry curriculum at HUS. English is the international language of science, and fluency in it is important for students who will eventually do research at the PhD level. To introduce modern teaching methods into the HUS chemistry curriculum, including a professor who freely ranges around the classroom instead of reading from a lectern; real-life chemical demonstrations; ‘inverted’ class rooms and lecture videos, slide shows, group discussion sessions, and internet use for materials. To facilitate summer undergraduate research experiences, by hosting students from HUS in UIUC-Chemistry labs. To provide students with training and competitive recommendations so they could participate in international PhD programs, including Illinois and elsewhere in the U.S. and world. To provide training of current HUS faculty in the U.S., as well as cultural exchange for both Illinois and HUS faculty.

These goals were outlined in the initial agreement between the two chemistry departments, and the program was off to a start with the arrival of Illinois professors to teach the K51 class of nearly 40 students in 2007. In the same year four HUS faculty came to the University of Illinois, attending multiple courses to gather course information and directly observe how the UIUC faculty teach their courses. For several subsequent semesters additional HUS faculty similarly spent a full semester at UIUC. 17

Curriculum in Vietnam UIUC has sent a wide range of disciplinary chemistry faculty to Vietnam, including in organic chemistry (Anne M. Baranger), chemical biology, organic and materials chemistry (Steven C. Zimmerman), green chemistry (Patricia A. Shapley), physical and general chemistry (James M. Lisy, and Martin Gruebele, who did this as part of an outreach program inspired by the Cottrell Science Collaborative), and analytical chemistry (Alexander Scheeline). The program continues with visits from new faculty members, such as Prashant Jain (nanomaterials chemistry) planned for 2017. The most difficult part of preparing for successful outreach rested nonetheless on the shoulders of HUS. They had to get students ready to participate in a fastpaced, English-language classroom, which presented several challenges. The Vietnam secondary education system is quite rigorous, but not without its own problems. Whereas education is inexpensive, it has not been free in the past, and many poor families cannot afford secondary education. Schooling can be parttime, or be replaced by work full time, closing doors to higher education early on. The students from middle-class families that make it through the tough National High School Examination are often stressed by incredible work and study loads by the time they get to the university. Fortunately, the HUS Chemistry faculty are well aware of these problems, and this is an ongoing discussion for educators and the government in Hanoi. This ‘feeder’ problem is not one that Illinois could tackle, focusing instead on higher chemistry education at the undergraduate level. To prepare students for a rigorous and different-from-the-usual curriculum in English, HUS selected students that ranked highly in science tests, and also had basic language skills. English skills were further developed between high school and university by taking students out of regular high school at age 16 to 17, and entering them in a special English language program that lasted for a year. As one might expect, ≈35 students in the K51 class, the first to come from that preparatory curriculum to the HUS chemistry department for the HUS-Illinois program, were among the most outstanding science students in the country, but exhibited mixed English skills. Many had Science Olympiad Gold or Silver Medals, a very difficult honor to achieve, but language was not facile for all of them. Before we joined forces with our Vietnamese counterparts, chemistry classes were of course taught purely in Vietnamese. Although many faculty in Vietnam speak a foreign language, it is often Russian, or French, particularly for older faculty. A typical style was for a professor to read excerpts from a chemistry text standing at a lectern in front of the class, while students copied down notes, and the HUS faculty wanted to change that. After discussions with them in Illinois and Hanoi, the following system emerged as workable to introduce modern curriculum concepts. Type I: In an intense 2 to 3 week period, a U.S. faculty member would visit HUS and teach an entire class. About 3 one hour lectures per day were given in this intense program, covering freshman chemistry or introductory analytical chemistry. A faculty member from HUS would also be in class and help supervise/grade, thus absorbing some of the teaching techniques that were used. These classes had midterm and final exams that were very similar to 18

corresponding courses taught at Illinois, such as Chemistry 202 or Chemistry 204, the Accelerated Freshman Chemistry sequence at Illinois. 202/204 are taught to majors in chemical engineering and chemistry, with mostly an AP chemistry background. Type II: After agreeing on a textbook to use, and visiting Illinois for a semester to see how the courses were taught there, a HUS faculty member would be in charge of teaching the class in English. Using an inverted classroom, the Vietnamese students would first listen to brief video lectures recorded by the co-teaching faculty member from the U.S., and then the HUS professor would continue with lectures and discussions. One example of this format combined powerpoint lecture notes with video/audio from the faculty, in 10-15 minute portions, and upload them to iTunesU. An Illinois faculty member would then come for 1 to 2 weeks either in the middle of the class, or at the end, and teach part of the material. The schedule here was more relaxed, with two one hour lectures per day. This approach was used for instance to teach Chemistry 442 or 444, the physical chemistry quantum mechanics/electronic structure theory and thermodynamics/ statistical mechanics/kinetics courses. Both of these types received positive feedback from the students, with the more relaxed format generally preferred because it reduced the intensity of the daily load. We introduced many well-known curricular activities into the HUS chemistry curriculum, besides video lectures and inverted classrooms. Vietnam still has a reputation for ignoring U.S. copyrights. Entire textbooks are photocopied. One way to avoid either ignoring or enabling the problem is to use open access texts. The Quantitative Analysis class now uses (Harvey, 2009) (2) rather than (Harris, 2007) (3) for this reason. Course content was not affected by the change, and no comparison of student response was sought. We did extensive live demonstrations with materials available there. It turns out, for instance, that students had never seen a thermite reaction, or had a liquid-nitrogen-frozen rubber ball snapped in half. Many demonstrations that seem very obvious to U.S. educators had simply not been done before. Bringing a spectrophotometer into lecture to demonstrate its operation was treated as mildly revolutionary; bringing a potentiostat was beyond what could be allowed (due to the rarity of the instrument and fear for any harm it might suffer). The Vietnamese students, at least the ones selected for the program, had an almost child-like excitement for these demonstrations, and insisted that they be done over and over again while taking cell-phone photos and sending them to family and friends. Another example would be classroom discussions in the more conventional lecture format. Rather than standing on a podium and lecturing, we would ask students questions , start a lively discussion in the classroom, and then see if we could get a consensus of what the right answer was. When the answer was wrong, it provided an even better starting point for analyzing the problem and why intuition sometimes fails even scientists. Feedback from the students was that this was also a much-appreciated feature in the classroom. Professors asking questions highlighted an important cultural difference. It is already not easy to get U.S. students asking questions freely in the classroom, although methods (such as pairing) have fortunately been developed to help break the ice. It is even harder in Vietnam, where students come from an educational 19

system that emphasizes deference to the senior person, and where the stress of performance (e.g. national entrance exams) is so high that no student wants to appear ‘silly’ in front of his or her peers by asking a question. Our solution to this problem was a gradual one: the same faculty from Illinois would visit multiple times and teach the same class, emphasizing participation. By the K53 or K54 class, about 4 years into the program, it seems that the word had gotten out that the American professors don’t bite, and students gradually felt more at ease asking questions, rather than just listening and taking notes. It should be mentioned that the modern versions of classes, taught from books such as Zumdahl’s “Chemistry” for freshmen or Atkins’ “Physical Chemistry” for juniors, were in all cases complemented by labs. These labs were fully taught by faculty from HUS. For ‘Type II’ classes this was often done in the period of time before the visiting professor from the U.S. would arrive. Although some of these labs use relatively antiquated experiments (as we also still do sometimes in the U.S., such as elemental qualitative analysis by precipitation), the HUS administration has made a concerted effort to upgrade equipment. They applied for and received grants from the government to purchase modern instrumentation from NMR machines down to UV-vis spectrometers, and everything in-between. This is an effort that was solely spearheaded by the HUS/VNU administration, although we believe that the buy-in from major institutions in the U.S. (UIUC), France, and Japan gave some impetus to the instrumentation modernization program. There were also problems in implementation. On the HUS side, the department had to completely renovate a classroom to provide such amenities as a sliding white board, computer projector and screen, and (not unimportant for the U.S. faculty) air conditioning. As we found out from our side, a significant fraction of the students in class (about a third) still had an English background that made it hard to follow lectures. It became very important to speak clearly, allowing not just the science, but also the English to sink in, before proceeding. We quickly realized that less was more. Thus, presenting less material and spending more time to stop and take questions produced greater learning. Of course everyone knows that this idea can also be fruitfully applied in courses with native English speakers. Overall, the Illinois faculty taught and later co-taught every lecture course from freshman chemistry to junior-level physical and organic chemistry. The one type of class we left to the Vietnamese instructors were the laboratories. The lecture courses taught encompass a full chemistry curriculum, of the type accredited in the U.S. by the ACS. In the next few paragraphs, we discuss examples of specific courses that were taught using the different implementations. Accelerated freshman chemistry (as taught by James Lisy). The first course involving the K51 class, the equivalent of Chem 202 (Accelerated Freshman Chemistry at Illinois), was taught during summer of 2007 at the end of July and beginning of August. At the time, there was no special (i.e. air-conditioned) classroom at HUS. Environmental conditions: 35 °C and a heat index of over 40 °C, were extremely challenging. The lecture hall was quite large, easily holding the ~35 members of the K51 class, and a number of HUS faculty who were better acclimatized to the conditions. Lisy had lectured extensively in the Far East for 20

a decade prior to this first trip to Hanoi, and modified both his lecture notes and presentation. Key to this was a slow and deliberate oral presentation that allowed the HUS students and faculty to follow the lecture. The General Chemistry staff at UIUC (specifically, Don DeCoste, Patricia Phillips-Batoma, and Gretchen Adams) were extremely supportive and helpful, providing laboratory video demonstrations, and example exams. The course was conducted with three hour-long lectures each day, over a two week period. All of the normal Chem 202 topics were covered. Starting with a discussion of stoichiometry and reaction types, we quickly moved to gases and chemical equilibria. This was the first section of the course. Quantum mechanics and atomic theory, with an introduction to chemical bonding, hybridization and molecular orbital theory comprised the second half of the course. Exams were given at the end of each week, using a slightly modified format of UIUC Chem 202 exams. A larger number of multiple choice and a smaller number of "long answer" problems were given for the first exam in hopes of reducing the reading time that the K51 students would need to spend. However, this was not the case, as the students spent considerable time reading the multiple choice questions. The second exam used the standard Chem 202 format with the same number of multiple choice and long answer problems as given to UIUC students. Performances on this exam by the HUS K51 students were similar to the UIUC class, comprised of mainly Chemical Engineering and Chemistry majors. Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics (as taught by Martin Gruebele). As an example of the abbreviated visit, where a HUS faculty member pre-teaches a part of the course, an Illinois chemistry professor then teaches another segment, and finally the HUS faculty concludes the course, we will use Chem 444. At Illinois, this is the junior-level class in thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and kinetics. Gruebele arrived in Vietnam after HUS professor Cam Ha had already taught introductory thermodynamics to the K55 class. Gruebele taught a special one-week sequence of two lectures a day making the connection between statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. The classes started with the two fundamental postulates of statistical mechanics: that Hamiltonian dynamics works for many particles, and that microstates of equal energy have equal probability. From there, we derived the laws of thermodynamics (much to the surprise of students), and basic equations of state (again, students were surprised when PV=nRT suddenly appeared on the board in a few simple steps starting with the two postulates). From there, we went on to derive the mass action law to make the connection with chemical thermodynamics. Gruebele developed a special set of lecture notes in clear English, only 10 pages long but containing all derivations, to help the Vietnamese undergraduates to get the most out of the class. After that, Cam Ha took over again and concluded the course. Techniques used during the class included live demos, students pairing up to discuss and answer questions, students coming to the board to solve a prepared homework problem for the class, and daily office hours with both professors to go over the material. Office hours between and after classes, giving students flexible access, were another innovation at HUS that is of course par for the course in the U.S. (Figure 2).

21

Figure 2. An Illinois faculty member and member of the Cottrell Science Collaborative with a HUS undergraduate discussing chemistry during office hours. Reproduced from Reference (1). Copyright 2010 American Chemical Society. Photo courtesy of authors.

Analytical chemistry (as taught by Alexander Scheeline). Vietnamese faculty were more familiar with classical wet chemical techniques than most American faculty, but less familiar with instrumental methods. Scheeline taught “Quant” four times. For K51, he taught the entire course in two weeks, supported by assistant professor (now associate) Pham Thi Ngoc Mai and HUS alumnus, UIUC graduate student, and now assistant professor at HUS, Tu Truong. Course structure was almost entirely information push, with daily problem sets, an hour examination, and a final examination. In-class discussion improved by the second week of the course, but was still strained. Each K54 student worked an individual problem at the blackboard, Pham Mai taught most of the material with only occasional suggestions from the eastern side of the Pacific, and since has run the course independently. Instrumental analysis evolved more slowly. There still are no optical, vibrational, or mass spectroscopists on-staff at HUS. Research focuses on environmental monitoring, so chromatographic strength exceeds spectrometric skills. How can one teach instrumentation principles to students who have never used instruments? Because students had ubiquitous access to digital cameras (in later years, in their cell phones), a build-it-yourself absorbance spectrometer was used to introduce engineering and chemical/instrumental ideas. This resulted in several papers, one patent, and the founding of a U.S. company co-owned by one of the K51 students (4–8). Use of in-class, web-supported projects for some students while others worked on English language presentations on various instrumental topics allowed one-onone instruction. Scientists from the Vietnam Institute for Science and Technology provided additional instruction in separations and electrochemistry, reducing the amount of time consumed for American lectures. The mixed student lecture, Vietnamese instructor, plus American supplemental lecture format has evolved to the point that Thi Thao Ta and, more recently, Pham Tien Duc, now cover almost everything except microfluidics, vibrational spectrometry, and mass spectrometry. Each student presents a lecture for which extensive questioning in English by fellow students is expected. 22

Organic Chemistry (as taught by Steven Zimmerman). This was an abbreviated visit with Dr. Phạm Văn Phong teaching the majority of the course. The usual instructor for this course, Prof. Nguyễn Văn Đậu, a senior organic faculty member at HUS had unexpectedly broken his leg on a hike in the countryside. So the young faculty member Phong, who obtained his Ph.D. in the U.S. and carried out a postdoc with John Hartwig at the University of Illinois, filled in at the last moment. He taught the K58 advanced class from Vollhardt’s textbook and passed the baton to Zimmerman who covered the chapters on the chemistry of alkynes, conjugated systems, and arenes. The lectures featured considerable time for problem solving with mechanism and synthesis problems presented, the students working in small groups on a solution, and the instructor circulating around the classroom to offer hints and answer questions. Students would go to the board and present solutions, and the class would critique the solutions. At Illinois, Zimmerman uses multiple methods to supplement standard chalkboard lectures, including pre-lecture videos that allow for a partially flipped classroom to complete lecture notes and full video lectures posted on-line. Despite some technological challenges in transferring many GB of videos to the Hanoi server, the course materials covering the entire semester, not just the chapters covered, were made available to all of the students. The feedback was very positive with some students saying that they watched all of the video lectures and found them to be excellent learning tools. The remainder of the course was covered by Phong who administered a final exam written by Zimmerman, who also graded them in Urbana over the winter break.

Student Performance Assessment Students in the K51-current classes by and large performed extremely well. Part of this is due to careful selection of the best young chemists in Vietnam by the HUS faculty for the program, but of course this was counterbalanced by the extra challenge of studying difficult material in a recently acquired foreign language. Figure 3 shows the performance of the K52 class on a standardized freshman chemistry exam, which was also given a semester earlier to the Illinois Accelerated Freshman Chemistry Class, consisting largely of AP students (scores of 4 or 5), most of them valedictorians or salutatorians of their high school class (determined by a self-reported poll). As can be seen, the HUS students in this particular class ranked in the upper half compared to the Illinois 202 class, due to selection of top students, but in spite of the exam being in English. It is important to note that in later classes (K54 to present), HUS has made an effort to democratize student selection more, and bring in more good but not exceptionally strong students, to broaden the base of the program. Chem 442 and 444 were given by Lisy to the K51 and K52 classes. His exams were based on the UIUC courses, which he has taught for a number of years. The exam format is demanding with five questions during an hour exam: three questions based on homework content, a fourth question that combines two separate concepts, and a final question that could best be described as 23

"challenging". Student performance by the HUS students was very similar to that of UIUC students. For Chem 444, results from the K51 class were typical. The average (based on a total score of 100) was 64.4, with a standard deviation of 17.5. Among the top students in this course, four have now successfully completed PhD degrees (three at UIUC and one at UC-Berkeley). Similarly, the K51 class was given an hour exam similar to that for the equivalent Illinois class where the mean was 50 and standard deviation 17. Graded by Vietnamese faculty (but with grading spot checked by Scheeline), the mean and standard deviation matched the U.S. grades within 1 point. Comparisons for recent years are not available, as Vietnamese faculty write most of the questions (although their English is edited by American faculty, if our Vietnamese colleagues so desire). Thus we conclude that the Vietnamese students generally performed equally, and in some cases even better than, U.S. classes consisting mainly of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering majors at Illinois.

Figure 3. Performance of an Illinois (red) and Hanoi (black) accelerated chemistry class on the exact same multiple choice exam, which is not available on the internet.

Cultural Experience for Illinois Faculty We also learned a lot from our interaction with Vietnamese faculty and students. Our hosts at HUS generally assigned a faculty member (usually co-teaching the class), and a TA (often another lecturer) to help with the course, but also to serve as a cultural guide. Likewise, students participated extensively in showing visiting faculty around Hanoi and Vietnam, and engaging them in activities. Examples of activities include visiting the tomb of Ho Chi Minh, a national shrine near a beautiful garden that the Vietnamese are very proud of; sight-seeing Hanoi by walking tours or cycling with students and faculty; driving tours to locations such as Ha Long Bay, Sa Pa or Ninh Binh, hand making your own pottery in Bat Trang, the pottery village near Hanoi; and of course tasting a huge 24

variety of unusual (in the U.S.) foods from grilled goat to all the exotic fruit that Southeast Asia has to offer. It was also quite a sobering experience to visit Vietnam (especially Huế) during “Victory Day,” when liberation from U.S. and other international forces is celebrated. As Americans, we are generally not used to be on the losing side of a victory celebration. Although all of these experiences had a strong recreational component, they turned out to be a critical part in making the exchange a success. Faculty got to know one another at a personal level, visiting each other’s homes in Vietnam or in the U.S. Long discussions outside the classroom with students revealed their ambitions and worries in what is still not an open and democratic society. Talking to administrators and faculty in social settings allowed a bigger picture to emerge as to where they want to take education and research in Vietnam. This often brought together counterparts from the U.S., France or Japan, who also participated in educational outreach activities with Hanoi. In the end, all of us felt that we had become friends with our counterparts at HUS. Our senior faculty was integrated in discussions with Hanoi faculty to define the policy of the program. Some of these sessions were formal (Figure 4), while others were handled at one of many teas or business dinners (a favorite way in Vietnam to conduct work, unlike the U.S., where spending funds on food or drink is generally frowned upon by federal agencies).

Figure 4. Steve Zimmerman in Dean Luu Van Boi’s office in Hanoi in 2008 discussing implementation of the cooperative program with Boi (third from right) and his leadership team including future Rector Noi (far left). There was also a strong scientific outreach component, with faculty from Illinois presenting their research at the weekly seminar series at HUS during their visit. These seminars were well-attended by faculty, postdocs and students of HUS. Again, we found after talks that students and even faculty are quite shy about asking questions, and it took 2 to 3 years of visits to get them routinely used to the idea of asking questions, although the questions remain polite as opposed to critical. For faculty who visited in May, it was at times possible for Illinois professors to co-examine students during their bachelors thesis defense. At times, students whose English had been mediocre during classes exhibited outstanding speaking skills. In a few unfortunate cases, their English skills had atrophied after the classes had ended. Outreach to VNU faculty Interaction with Illinois has become a sine qua non for leadership at VNUS-H (Figure 5). Nguyen Van Noi has become rector, Le Than Son is now Dean of the Faculty of Chemistry, Trieu Thi Nguyet leads Inorganic 25

Chemistry, and Thi Thao Ta is head of Analytical Chemistry. All (plus 5 others) spent three months each at Illinois, attending classes, participating in research group meetings, experiencing the culture, visiting sites of regional interest, and using the chemistry library, a facility rare in the world and orders of magnitude richer than available in Vietnam. All also improved their English substantially while in residence. To encourage interaction with research groups, each was provided a desk with graduate students in a group doing research at least somewhat related to the work the visitors did at home. Some participated immediately, while others were shy. Especially among early visitors, the mandate that they attend classes to observe teaching methods translated into perfect attendance in lectures and near absentia from research group meetings. Once Illinois faculty sensed the pattern, one-on-one discussions led to better integration and more productive visits. As an example of research participation, Professor Le Long Kim visited Argonne National Lab with the Gruebele group. He, Gruebele and graduate students worked at the APS BioCAT beamline together closely for two days to study protein-protein association of SH3 and lambda repressor at Argonne. Although courses in Hanoi needed to be tuned so that students could fully relate to the material, the course outlines started as those provided by Illinois faculty. An example of an adjustment can be seen in the treatment of gas chromatography detectors. In the U.S., the standard order in textbooks is typically thermal conductivity, flame ionization, electron capture, mass spectrometry. Because of the widespread characterization of chlorinated compounds in soil secondary to the use of defoliants during the American War (1959-1975), starting with the widely used electron capture detector was more sensible. Instead of discussing atomic absorption starting with flame AA, cold vapor mercury and borohydride reduction arsenic AA were more relevant. Assigning lecture topics to students meant learning of relevant industries, environmental problems, and economic aspirations. Exams could be similar in emphasis to those in the U.S., but geographical features, specific analytes, and proper nouns all were adjusted. Joint writing of exams revealed differences in emphasis. Whereas the Vietnamese faculty wrote questions that heavily focused on knowing method details, their American counterparts asked for application of basic principles. Vietnamese faculty were used to having all exams approved by their co-workers before administration, while Americans were astonished that anyone but the course instructor would see questions in advance. Perhaps one reason for slow curriculum change prior to 2007 was this exam writing and critiquing by committee. By 2010, exams were frequently written and graded only by the U.S. and Vietnamese co-instructors of each course. In the opposite direction, U.S. faculty assigned the first student lectures with minor input from their Vietnamese counterparts. By 2016, 90% of the topics were assigned by Vietnamese faculty, the U.S. faculty member edited the topics for scope and language, and the courtesy 10% of topics left for the U.S. faculty member to assign were as much to maintain U.S. involvement as to provide engaging topics.

26

Figure 5. Vietnamese and American faculty in Champaign, May 1, 2008. Seated: Triệu Thị Nguyệt, Nguyễn Văn Đậu, and Phạm Thị Ngọc Mai. Standing: Anne Barranger, Martin Gruebele, James Lisy, Patricia Shapley, and Alexander Scheeline. Reproduced from Reference (1). Copyright 2010 American Chemical Society. Photo courtesy of authors.

Undergraduate Research Opportunities The initial components implemented in our program, modernizing chemistry courses at HUS and bringing HUS faculty to Illinois to visit classrooms and adopt materials, were followed up with additional components to enable HUS undergraduate students to engage in research, and eventually apply successfully to U.S. and international institutions such as Stanford, Illinois, or University of Tokyo. Summer undergraduate research was phased in during the third year of the program, when the K51 (first) class of Hanoi students had taken sufficiently many classes and labs to be prepared for research, just like their counterparts in the U.S.

Figure 6. Duc Nguyen from HUS-VNU with Illinois student Krish Sarkar, doing research on RNA folding that led to a co-authored publication. Photo by Martin Gruebele. 27

Typically every year 2 to 11 students are selected from the current junior class. The primary selection criteria are performance in their courses at HUS, and English proficiency. The latter is judged by faculty from the U.S. We had multiple opportunities to get to know students at length in Vietnam, and most students were well-known to several Illinois faculty members. Out of a set of students proposed by HUS, Illinois faculty made a final selection of those most likely to succeed based on both chemistry and communications skills. To facilitate the transition to the U.S., the program has in the past also included additional language instruction for students during their 2 to 3 month summer visit. In addition, outreach activities included trips to Chicago or the Lincoln House and Grave sites in Springfield IL, led by Illinois students who were assigned as mentors. In all cases, students are paired with a graduate student mentor at Illinois, who directly supervised their projects in addition to general faculty supervision. Projects range widely, because faculty from many areas of Illinois chemistry participate in the program. One project on surface adsorption on silica was a collaboration between the WATER CAMPwS consortium, the Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, and the Department of Chemistry involving a masters student from Bangladesh, a K53 student from Hanoi, and a U.S. undergraduate. Each brought different strengths to the project, which was largely completed in 1.5 months. Luu Minh Long and Lien Nguyen, two students from the K51 class at HUS first came to UIUC as summer students, ultimately becoming key members of a remarkably productive team working on a drug discovery project directed toward myotonic dystrophy type 1 and 2. Beyond publishing multiple papers during their Ph.D. studies, they became heavily involved in outreach related to their research. Thus, both regularly attended Muscular Dystrophy Association meetings and fundraising events, discussing their research with patients and their families as well as other researchers. Somtimes, a Vietnamese student was even able to visit for two separate summer research experiences. Figure 6 shows Duc Nguyen in the lab with former Illinois PhD student Krish Sarkar, working on a project to measure fast laser-induced RNA folding. Their work resulted in a co-authored publication. During a second visit, Duc worked on a completely different project with then-graduate student Sumit Ashtekar, measuring dynamics on glass surfaces by scanning tunneling microscopy. That collaboration also resulted in co-authored publications. In most cases, we limited the program to one summer research experience per student, to enable as many as possible to visit Illinois during the summer. Similar exchanges with France, Japan and other countries also organized by HUS led to about a quarter of each class (8-12 students) getting some research experience at the international level, a significant impact on the HUS chemistry student population. Students from Vietnam also got to meet other undergraduate researchers, for example through our Chemistry REU program. This enriched their experience further, through joint poster sessions with U.S. REU students to showcase their research at the end of the visit. All students were asked to provide a written report 28

about their science, to be evaluated by the U.S. professor. In addition, all students were asked to give a short talk about their research experience. The cost of the program was facilitated by a combination of funds from HUS, from the Chemistry Department at Illinois, and from faculty who had summer undergraduate research funds available for a student stipend. The previously described evolution of a spectrometry experiment into a cottage industry led to Bui Anh Thu performing Masters research on her concurrently patented instrument at VNUS-H. The fortuitous timing of a trip to teach Instrumental Methods in the spring of 2016 led to Ms. Thu receiving her Masters at the hands of both VNUS-H and her company co-owner, co-inventor, and summer research adviser from 2010 (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Bui Anh Thu receiving her Masters degree from Rector Nguyen Van Noi by way of Alexander Scheeline in Hanoi. Photo by Pham Tien Duc.

Graduate Studies in the U.S. Following a successful undergraduate research experience, Illinois agreed to review applications for graduate school from HUS students, as we would for any other international student. No special exceptions were made at this stage as far as passing English proficiency test requirements, GPA performance, or letters of recommendation and research experience. Naturally, the HUS students who applied having gone through the entire HUS-Illinois program often were at an advantage. A good fraction of them had sufficient English skills to pass language exams, or came close enough that we made an exception (subject to ESL training at Illinois and later passage of exams), as we also do for other foreign students. They had letters of recommendation from our faculty based on knowing them personally from Vietnam or from their undergraduate summer research, which helped enormously both for us to judge the quality of the student, and for the student to make a choice as to which university to attend because a large fraction of them were also admitted to peer institutions such as Stanford or Wisconsin. 29

Duc Nguyen (Figure 6) is an example of a success story. After two summers at Illinois, he successfully applied to the graduate program in chemistry, and joined the group of one of us (Gruebele) as a PhD student. He immediately started getting results and publishing papers, and is now writing up his 9th and last UIUC publication, on excited state tomography of quantum dots, after receiving his PhD from Illinois in 2016. Duc has offers for postdoctoral positions, and is interested in an academic career. He mentored two U.S. undergraduate students during his stay at Illinois, and has presented his work at many conferences, becoming a fully integrated member of the scientific culture. During this time, he also got married and had a child, showing that success in science does not have to come at the expense of family. He is an outstanding role model for other PhD students in the department, and won both departmental and Beckman graduate fellowships. The program has had many other success stories. For example, Thanh Phuong Dao from the K51 class went to work for Alex Pines at UC Berkeley. Other examples include LSU: Nguyen Huu Huy and Nguyen Hoai Thu; Arizona State: Nguyen Duc Trung; UMass: Pham Gia Bach; Alberta: Nguyen Thuong Thuy; UI Chicago: Pham Thi Ha; University of Iowa: Phan Tri Hoa. Thus, students end up at universities all over the U.S. and Canada, not just at Illinois. Although only 8 years old, in one case the program has closed full circle: Tu Truong received his Ph.D. working with John Rogers at Illinois, and is now on-staff as a 3rd year assistant professor in Hanoi. Thus freshmen once trained by the program are now beginning to trickle back to VNU, ready to teach in English as well as in Vietnamese, and trained using modern curricula, classroom teaching approaches, and materials. The program has now been operating for 9 years, such that freshmen from the K51 or K52 class, who graduated in 2011/2012, are now finishing up their graduate education in the U.S. or abroad elsewhere. This is a critical juncture where they will make decision about whether to return to Vietnam to teach, take on a different career in Vietnam or internationally, or remain in the U.S. for their career choice.

What the Future Holds The Vietnamese government has reviewed the VNU/HUS-Illinois cooperative program extremely favorably with continued funding allotted this past academic year (2015). Indeed, the program received the highest score of those reviewed. The program was also reviewed by ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) in 2012. It received the second highest chemistry rating (Singapore was ranked highest), largely because of collaboration with universities in Japan, Korea, and Illinois. Moving forward there will be several important challenges. Once the U.S. curriculum was fully operational, it would then be migrated to all the relevant departments within the VNU system. Of course, that process will occur largely through efforts on the Vietnamese side, but we are prepared to offer assistance as necessary. Success in this migration means the Illinois chemistry curriculum would be taught throughout Vietnam, significantly increasing the impact of the 30

educational program. We already have on campus students from Ho Chi Minh City with connections to South Vietnam, who are interested in participating. The original goal of the Vietnamese government was to have a similar cooperative program for each major subject area, pairing a U.S. university and a school within the VNU system. So far, the approach has not been extended to other subjects such as physics, but we hope that more departments and U.S. universities will get engaged in the future. Another challenge relates the propensity for older faculty at HUS to continue to teach their courses as they have for years. This desire is entirely natural and handled by pairing a younger faculty member as TA and older faculty member who work together. As more U.S.-trained instructors return home in the footsteps of Tu Truong over the course of the next several years, the change in delivery will accelerate. These same students bring a desire for a more globally competitive research environment. As the research enterprise is further built up opportunities for research collaborations will emerge, closing yet another loop that connects our two departments. The program has also proven beneficial for the Illinois faculty, as a means of cultural exchange, broadening their teaching base, and building new scientific collaborations. Our young colleagues, such as Prashant Jain in physical chemistry, are now taking over and bringing their unique view and curricula to Vietnam. The Chemistry Department of HUS-VNU, founded in 1956, has just celebrated its 60th anniversary on November 19th, 2016. As one of us remarked in his address to the faculty (Figure 8), we look forward to future work together, building ties between the two countries through higher education in chemistry.

Figure 8. Alexander Scheeline addressing the VNU faculty and alumni at the 60th anniversary celebration of the founding of the chemistry department in Hanoi.

31

References 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

Arnaud, C. East-West Partnership. Chem. Eng. News. 2010, 88, 58–59. Harvey, D. Analytical Chemistry 2.0: An Electronic Textbook for Introductory Courses in Analytical Chemistry; Greencastle, IN, 2009. Harris, D. C. Quantitative Chemical Analysis; W. H. Freeman: New York, 2007. Scheeline, A; Kelley, K. J. Analyt. Sci. Digital Libr. Cell Phone Spectrometer; entry 10059, 2009. Reprinted in m-Science: Sensing, Computing, and Dissemination; Cannesa, E., Zennaro, M., Eds.; The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, November, 2010. Scheeline, A. Teaching in Hanoi: Good Mornings in Vietnam. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 398, 2751–2753. Scheeline, A. Focal Point: Teaching, Learning, and Using Spectroscopy with Commercial, Off-the-Shelf Technology. Appl. Spectrosc. 2010, 64, 256A–268A. Scheeline, A.; Thự, B. A. Stacked, Mutually Rotated Diffraction Gratings as Enablers of Portable Visible Spectrometry. Appl. Spectrosc. 2016, 70, 766–777. Bui, T. A.; Scheeline, A. Energy Dispersion Device. Patent Application 13/596,242, 20130093936 A1, filed 8/28/2012, published 4/18/2013, issued 8,885,161 B2, 11/11/2014.

32

Chapter 3

Throwing Away the Cookbook: Implementing Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) in Chemistry Jennifer M. Heemstra,*,1 Rory Waterman,*,2 John M. Antos,3 Penny J. Beuning,4 Scott K. Bur,5 Linda Columbus,6 Andrew L. Feig,7 Amelia A. Fuller,8 Jason G. Gillmore,9 Aaron M. Leconte,10 Casey H. Londergan,11 William C. K. Pomerantz,12 Jennifer A. Prescher,13 and Levi M. Stanley14 1Department of Chemistry, University of Utah, 315 S. 1400 E, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, United States 2Department of Chemistry, University of Vermont, 82 University Place, Burlington, Vermont 05045, United States 3Department of Chemistry, Western Washington University, 516 High Street, Bellingham, Washington 98225, United States 4Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States 5Department of Chemistry, Gustavus Adolphus College, 800 West College Avenue, Saint Peter, Minnesota 56082, United States 6Department of Chemistry, University of Virginia, McCormick Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, United States 7Department of Chemistry, Wayne State University, 5101 Cass Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48202, United States 8Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California 95053, United States 9Department of Chemistry, Hope College, 35 E. 12th Street, Holland, Michigan 49423, United States 10W.M. Keck Science Department of Claremont McKenna, Pitzer, and Scripps Colleges, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, California 91711, United States 11Department of Chemistry, Haverford College, 370 Lancaster Avenue, Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041, United States 12Department of Chemistry, University of Minnesota, 207 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United States 13Department of Chemistry, University of California, 1102 Natural Sciences 2, Irvine, California 92697, United States

© 2017 American Chemical Society

14Department

of Chemistry, Iowa State University, 2415 Osborn Drive, Ames, Iowa 50011, United States *E-mails: [email protected] (J.M.H.); [email protected] (R.W.).

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) provide significant benefits to students compared to prescriptive (“cookbook”) laboratory curricula. However, carrying out research on the scale of an undergraduate course can present logistical challenges. Fortunately, the CURE format provides significant flexibility to tailor curricula to meet the needs of various class sizes, disciplines, and student groups, and to fit with the resources available in the institutional environment. Here we present a diversity of experiences and perspectives on the implementation of CUREs, with the goal of offering examples and practical advice to current or prospective CURE practitioners while highlighting the numerous approaches available for incorporating authentic research into undergraduate laboratory courses.

Introduction The recent Engage to Excel PCAST report lists “replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses” as one of the top five recommendations for preparing tomorrow’s STEM workforce (1). This is supported by assessment data demonstrating that CUREs provide significant benefit to both students and faculty members (2–4). Despite the wide acceptance that discovery-based curricula are superior to “cookbook” labs, significant barriers to implementation of this evidence-based practice still remain. Key barriers cited by faculty include logistics, time investment, increased cost, research problem selection, and the chance of failed experiments (3). While some of these challenges are general across disciplines, others are specific to the subject area. This chapter aims to offer practical advice for implementing CUREs in the field of chemistry, and demonstrates the wide range of approaches that are available for successful implementation of a CURE.

What Is a CURE? A broad spectrum of laboratory curricula formats exists, including standard prescriptive experiments, inquiry-based experiments, and authentic research activities. Recognizing the need to delineate between these different formats, the 2012 CUREnet working group sought to address the question of what constitutes a CURE (2). This working group proposed that CURE curricula are characterized by the inclusion of five elements: (1) scientific practices such as formulating 34

hypotheses, collecting and analyzing data, coping with the “messiness” of real world data, and communicating findings; (2) discovery of new knowledge or capabilities that were previously unknown to both the students and instructor; (3) research that is broadly relevant and has potential to impact society or the scientific community; (4) collaboration between students; (5) an iterative process in which data from one experiment are used to design or guide a subsequent experiment. Arguably, all laboratory curricula include at least some of the elements listed above. For example, even “cookbook” laboratory courses typically require students to collect and analyze data and collaborate with other students. Taking a step beyond this, inquiry-based laboratory courses are characterized by their requirement that students discover knowledge that is unknown to them (but is typically known to the instructor), and students frequently have the opportunity to utilize data from one experiment to design a subsequent experiment. However, in contrast to “cookbook” and inquiry-based laboratory curricula, CUREs are characterized by inclusion of all five of the elements listed above, which are nearly identical to the characteristics of traditional research internships in the university setting.

Challenges and Opportunities CUREs represent a unique opportunity to dramatically increase student exposure to authentic research. However, scaling the research experience from that found in a faculty research laboratory up to the size of a course can present challenges. There is a rapidly growing body of literature demonstrating that CUREs increase student engagement and learning gains, and thus provide many of the same benefits of traditional research internships (5–12). Additionally, Brownell and coworkers recently conducted an investigation into faculty attitudes and experiences with teaching CUREs. Through a series of interviews with faculty in the biological sciences who had recently taught a CURE, key themes were identified regarding the perceived challenges and opportunities associated with this curriculum format. The three most frequently reported challenges were logistics, time investment, and financial constraints, while key opportunities included connecting education and research, increased enjoyment of teaching, and the ability of the research from the CURE to enhance the faculty member’s scholarly productivity (3). While a number of resources are available to aid in the implementation of CUREs, these are primarily focused on the biological sciences. Because the challenges associated with implementing a CURE are primarily practical in nature, they often require solutions that are specific to a given discipline. Thus, many of the resources currently available may be difficult to translate to the chemical sciences. A working group of Cottrell Scholars has formed to address this need by generating resources aimed specifically at CURE implementation in the physical sciences. This chapter serves as an initial work product of that effort, with the goal of sharing our own experiences and perspectives in the implementation of CUREs in the chemical sciences. The examples below 35

highlight that just as there is a virtually infinite number of ways to carry out research, CUREs offer significant flexibility in their design, and thus can be customized to accommodate factors such as class size, subject area, resources available, and institutional environment. Our goals in sharing these perspectives are to disseminate ideas that may inspire additional faculty to “throw away the cookbook” and incorporate research into their curricula, and to highlight the many options that are available for doing so.

Perspectives and Experiences in Teaching CUREs Andrew Feig, Wayne State University, Department of Chemistry In conjunction with the ReBUILDetroit Program, a consortium also including University of Detroit Mercy and Marygrove College Course title: Research Coordination Network Laboratories Level: Freshman Approximate enrollment: 75 students on three campuses

Lecture/Laboratory Format – – –

Biology 4 credit combined lecture and lab where the lab is in the CURE format Chemistry 1 credit lab taken during the same term as 3 credit lecture course Health Disparities, 1 credit add-on taken during the same term as a 3 credit introduction to public health course

Summary of the Course The Chemistry Lab course focused on the analytical chemistry of urban gardens and issues related to soil contamination. In the first year, the team looked at garlic as a model system for understanding the uptake of metal from contaminated soil using commercial soil (purchased from a garden store), sampled ground soil, and doped samples. Students developed standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the analysis of several metal contaminants. They then grew garlic plants in the coded soil samples and measured speciation of the metal contaminants in different parts of the plant and the garlic bulb. The biology project, depending on the site, either participated in the HHMI SEA-PHAGE project (9) or the Barcode of Life Project (13, 14). In SEA-PHAGE, students isolate novel phage from soil samples in the first term and then sequence one of the novel phage species. In the second semester, they annotate the genome looking for novel features. The Barcode project focused on water samples from a local watershed, identifying invertebrate species in the sample using modern DNA methods and investigating the health of the waterway based on the diversity 36

of species isolated. Attempts are being made to go further and look at the microbiomes within the GI tracts of the invertebrates to look for pathogens that are being transmitted through these vectors. The health disparities work has focused on issues related to food choices and the impact on public health using a mixed methods approach. That project has led to a less focused result due to consortium-related issues. The course is taught in different majors on the three campuses and the projects are not well-synchronized yet. They currently function more as individual projects than a concerted whole, and structural issues are being addressed to try to bring this project into better alignment with the cross-consortium goals for curriculum alignment.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? The CUREs are part of an integrated first year curriculum for the BUILD Scholars program (15). These students participate in a pre-freshman year summer program, a fall research methods class and then a winter term CURE. The entire curriculum is based on cohort building and development of self-efficacy in research, such that students can picture themselves as researchers. The long-term goal of the program is to enhance retention of underrepresented groups in biomedical research.

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? Faculty professional development is essential for running the courses effectively. This was a team project involving more than 10 faculty across three campuses in Detroit and multiple disciplines, but with common learning outcomes for all sections. While it was easy to put the learning outcomes on paper, getting the discipline-specific actionable pedagogy in place was more difficult. The goal was to have the projects be very culturally aware and informed, but the faculty research interests of the instructors involved did not always facilitate the easy development of one common project that all members could rally around.

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? The most important outcome is associated with science identity. Students completing the course show very large changes in their self-perceptions of themselves as scientists and their readiness to enter research laboratories for mentored research experiences at the end of their first year in college.

37

Aaron Leconte, Keck Science Department of Claremont McKenna, Pitzer, and Scripps Colleges Course title: Introduction to Biological Chemistry (IBC) Level: Freshman Approximate enrollment: 50 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format The course blends the first semester of Introductory Chemistry and Introductory Biology and counts as two courses. Lecture meets for 6 hours/week. Lab meets for 8 hours/week. The labs have undergraduate student teaching assistants who will be researchers in my laboratory.

Summary of the Course Introduction to Biological Chemistry (IBC) is a course co-developed by Biology and Chemistry faculty members in the Keck Science Department with the support of the S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation. The course is designed to use the intersections of modern biology and chemistry to reinforce and enrich the core ideas in these subject areas. In this course, students should expect: –

–

– –

A challenging and exciting introductory-level course that intertwines and enhances the core material of a typical Introductory Biology and Introductory Chemistry course. Exposure to modern research that combines chemistry and biology such as personalized medicine, epigenetics, protein engineering, synthetic biology, and more. To apply core course concepts to modern research questions on the current leading edges of biology, chemistry, and all things in between! A meaningful laboratory experience that emphasizes skills development while pursuing a faculty-guided, student-driven modern research project.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? Early research experiences are well-known to be crucial to development of young research scientists, increasing retention, GPA, and pursuit of graduate studies. Importantly, these opportunities are particularly important for underrepresented groups in science such as women and minority groups. While our department offers quite a few CUREs, they are all part of upper-level courses for more advanced students. I wanted to give first-year students the opportunity to get some exposure to research during their first semester. IBC, which serves as both an Introductory Biology and Introductory Chemistry course seems like an ideal place in our curriculum to begin developing CUREs for first-year students. 38

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? Overall, I want students to gain an appreciation for and understanding of the scientific process. There are two major aspects of a research experience that I hope that students in my class will obtain. Specifically, students should i.) experience the intellectual excitement of research by creating and characterizing new proteins and ii.) experience the culture of research by working on team-focused research initiatives and interfacing with more senior undergraduate student researchers. John M. Antos, Western Washington University, Department of Chemistry Course title: CHEM 356 – Organic Chemistry Laboratory II for Life Sciences Level: Sophomore/Junior Approximate enrollment: 24–48 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format 1–2 sections (24 students per section) are offered per academic quarter. Each section has one lecture (50 mins) and one laboratory session (3 hours) per week. An undergraduate teaching assistant (TA) assists the faculty instructor during lab sessions. All other responsibilities (lectures, grading) are handled by the faculty instructor.

Summary of the Course CHEM 356 is an advanced undergraduate Organic Chemistry Lab course. The goal of this course is to instruct students in the theory and practice of experimental organic chemistry, including reaction setup using air and moisture sensitive materials, separation and purification techniques, and practical spectroscopy (IR and NMR). This course is also intended to meet the curricular needs of pre-health, biochemistry, and life sciences majors; therefore, course content is designed to emphasize the relevance of organic chemistry to these disciplines. In its current iteration, approximately half of the course is taught as a CURE in which students are tasked with developing inhibitors of a therapeutically relevant enzyme family. Other lab exercises consist of stand-alone modules focused on organocatalysis, synthesis of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, and enzyme-catalyzed reactions. With respect to the CURE component, students engage in a multi-week research project in which they design, synthesize, and test structurally diverse small molecule chalcones for their ability to serve as covalent inhibitors of bacterial sortase enzymes. Sortases have an established role in anchoring virulence factors to the bacterial cell wall, and therefore represent authentic targets for drug development. Furthermore, the chalcone scaffold has been largely unexplored for sortase inhibition, and therefore student effort on this project will generate new knowledge for the field. Specific activities in the CURE begin with computer-aided structure design (covalent docking). 39

Students are first given a set of available chalcone precursors. They then model the interactions of multiple chalcones with the sortase enzyme in order to select a lead inhibitor structure. Students then synthesize their chalcone of choice via aldol condensation using commercially available acetophenone and benzaldehyde building blocks. Chalcone structures are verified using standard characterization techniques (melting point, IR, 1H NMR). Finally, students test the inhibitory activity of their chalcone in vitro using recombinant sortase A and model peptide substrates. In total, the CURE project covers four weeks and exposes students to topics in synthetic organic chemistry, computational modeling, and enzymology. Moreover, the CURE project is intended to be iterative, with the results of current students informing and guiding the activities of subsequent class sections.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? My decision to incorporate a CURE into this course arose from a desire to expose more undergraduates to research and to foster increased student engagement in our organic chemistry curriculum. By offering an authentic research problem to course participants, I’m able to include significantly more students in the scientific process than I’m able to accommodate in my independent research group. Furthermore, by offering each student the opportunity to make genuine discoveries, my hope is that students will take ownership of the project and feel as though they have a stake in the experimental outcome. One additional benefit of the CURE model is that it provides a great way to infuse my scholarly interests into the teaching curriculum. This fact, coupled will the continually evolving nature of the CURE project, ensures that the course will remain fresh and relevant for both instructor and students.

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? The fact that this CURE arose from my independent research has made the implementation of the project fairly straightforward. However, a lesson I have learned is that the individual CURE activities do require time for development and optimization. An effective strategy to address this is to gradually phase in new components of the CURE each quarter. For example, the first instance of this CURE did not include computer modeling, a feature which has since been added to the project. Looking ahead, I plan to continue expanding the CURE and would like to have the project encompass the entire 10-week academic quarter. An additional change that I would like to make concerns transfer of results and information between course sections. The CURE is intended to be iterative, and so facilitating the transfer of data between class sections is critical. A way that I plan to address this is by maintaining a database of previous results and then introducing a writing assignment at the outset of the CURE project that requires students to evaluate and discuss this information as a point of departure for their work. 40

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? Given the fact that we are still in the early stages of implementing this CURE at Western Washington University, the most concrete positive outcome is simply the increase in number of undergraduate students exposed to research. Going forward, this CURE will be performed with a larger cohort of students across multiple class sections, and we will be employing the Grinnell College CURE Survey as a means to more rigorously assess student experiences (16). It is my hope that this CURE will enhance students’ confidence in their abilities, provide them with an understanding of the scientific process, and ultimately strengthen student interest in pursuing a career in STEM. Amelia Fuller, Santa Clara University, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry Course title: Organic Chemistry II Laboratory Level: Sophomore Approximate enrollment: 16 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format I teach one section of approximately ten offered in each term, and it is populated primarily by chemistry and biochemistry majors. The course is 10 weeks long and meets once per week for 4 hours. I personally instruct the laboratory, and one undergraduate TA assists me with preparation of reagents and materials, helps students use instrumentation (e.g., acquisition of NMR spectra) and assists with troubleshooting experiments in the laboratory.

Summary of the Course I have developed a 10-week curriculum to provide an authentic, discovery-based research experience for many of the chemistry and biochemistry majors inspired by the model of “Distributed Drug Discovery” pioneered by Profs. William Scott and Martin O’Donnell at Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis (17). Drug discovery is frequently initiated by screening large compound libraries for desired biological activity. Because of the large number of students involved, beginning organic chemistry students can substantially contribute to the diversity of potentially bioactive molecules available. Both the students and I are inspired and motivated by the exciting prospect of making and identifying a bioactive molecule. In this course, each student designs a combinatorial library and carries out parallel six-step syntheses of six compounds based on the “arylopeptoid” molecular scaffold. Although robust methods to prepare analogs with this molecular scaffold have been detailed in the literature, our examples expand the scope of this chemistry; molecules prepared in this course have never been 41

reported in the chemical literature. Thus, in addition to preparing diverse examples for biological evaluation, analysis of synthetic data enables us to assess the scope of these reactions and to optimize reaction conditions efficiently. Crude reaction products are analyzed by LC-MS to evaluate purities. Following their synthesis, the inhibition of bacterial growth by these molecules is evaluated in my own research laboratory or at Community for Open Antimicrobial Drug Discovery (CO-ADD), which offers free evaluation of synthetic compounds’ ability to kill important pathogens. In their responses on simple surveys, students are highly enthusiastic about the research-based approach and self-report gains in conceptual understanding and in their confidence.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? I have two motivations for teaching this course as a CURE. First, I want to advance my own scholarship. The CURE structure allows me to do this by obtaining more experimental results by engaging more students in projects that interest me. Moreover, I am able to identify excellent students early in their undergraduate careers and train them with skills that will enable smooth transition to contributing to related projects in my independent research laboratory. Second, we simply cannot accommodate all of the students who wish to do independent research in our individual faculty laboratories. The CURE course structure allows us to train more students in research.

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? A significant challenge as I implement my CURE course is to calibrate how much independence to give students. Two representative considerations are highlighted here. First, I charge students with the preparation of their own reagent solutions to mimic what they would do in a research laboratory. Although this slows down the process and introduces an added level of variability to consider when analyzing student results, I feel that the experience and skills developed are more important. Second, I have allowed students to design what compounds they want to prepare given a set of combinatorial reagents. Because of the somewhat random nature of which molecules are made, we have “gaps” in the reaction space that has been covered. In future iterations of the laboratory, I intend to structure this more closely to be more systematic about the targets to be synthesized while still enabling some student participation in experiment design.

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? I think the most important outcome from students’ participation in the CURE course is that they are more confident in their ability to contribute to scientific research. In this course, we take small steps toward solving big, important 42

research problems, and we make those steps accessible to novice scientists. Students emerge from the course with a greater appreciation of how they can contribute among the many hands and many hours that go into making meaningful scientific discoveries. Scott Bur, Gustavus Adolphus College, Department of Chemistry, William C. K. Pomerantz, University of Minnesota, Department of Chemistry Course title: Organic Chemistry Laboratory II Level: Sophomore Approximate enrollment: 80 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format Two sections meet two times per week with two TAs.

Summary of the Course This course is a redesign of a traditional skill-focused curriculum to incorporate discovery-based research experiences into an undergraduate Organic Chemistry Laboratory. The laboratory is designed around discovery of bio-active small molecules, based on multi-step reaction design and “fragment-based” synthesis, and using a readily analyzed biomolecular nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) experiment. Fragment-based synthesis with protein NMR analysis has yet to be incorporated in an organic chemistry laboratory, but offers a route for independent molecular design, tractable syntheses, and exposure to macromolecule:small-molecule analysis. One method to reduce the challenge of small molecule discovery for protein interfaces is to reduce the size and complexity of small molecules that are employed, a technique called fragment-based screening. However, a sensitive detection method such as NMR is required to quantify the interaction. The Pomerantz laboratory screened 508 low complexity small molecules called fragments and characterized their interactions along the protein surface (18). Due to the low complexity of the molecules, students in the CURE course at Gustavus Adolphus College (GAC) will design analogs of these small organic molecules, each taking ownership of their individual scaffold and fostering creativity in the design process. As a skill building exercise, students will first carry out a three-step synthesis of a known ligand. This molecule will also be used at the end of the semester for conducting a modern organometallic coupling reaction. Derivatives of their first small molecule will then be proposed by the students, selecting from a matrix of different building blocks to yield a total of 80 target molecules. Small molecule fragments can be made in short two to four step syntheses with only a small amount of material needed for testing (1–5 mg), making multi-step synthesis tractable in an undergraduate laboratory. Small molecules will be tested against the Pomerantz laboratory’s fluorinated proteins. 43

The 19F NMR spectrum is acquired in a few minutes and requires low amounts of protein. All students will receive the NMR spectral data to analyze and assess the success of their designs. The learning objectives to be met by this research experience in an undergraduate laboratory are designed to teach students to plan a multistep synthesis, troubleshoot reaction conditions using literature precedent rather than follow a prescribed set of reaction conditions, analyze biomolecular NMR data for comparing experimental results to a positive control, identify important parts of small molecules for binding, and develop new synthesis proposals for these small molecules. Assessment will include pre-and post-knowledge and attitudinal surveys developed with the UMN Center for Educational Innovation, and online assessment using the Classroom Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) survey (16). Finally, analysis of two reflective writing assignments on the students’ perception of their research experience (pre-, and post semester) will be used to assess the change in of their impression of the scientific process (e.g., What is an experiment, a theory, a hypothesis, and research?).

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? At both the University of Minnesota (UMN) and primarily undergraduate institution GAC, over 40% of chemistry majors fail to receive an independent research experience in their home department. Engaging a large number of students in a discovery-based research experience in the undergraduate laboratory can be scaled to help meet this need. Although challenging, successful cases such as the Science Education Alliance Phage Hunters Advancing Genomics and Evolutionary Science (SEA-PHAGES) course, “The Chemistry and Biology of Everyday Life (CBEL),” and the University of Texas at Austin’s Freshmen Research Initiative have garnered enthusiasm. Fragment-based synthesis with protein NMR analysis has yet to be incorporated in an organic chemistry laboratory, but offers a route for independent molecular design, tractable syntheses, and exposure to macromolecule:small-molecule analysis. A winter “J-term” pilot course of 17 students at GAC in 2015 and follow-up research experience this summer with three students hosted jointly by UMN and GAC, have generated considerable enthusiasm, prompting further curriculum development.

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? The lessons still need to emerge as we are in the preplanning stages. As our baseline survey data is starting to come in, we will have a better idea for curricular changes.

44

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? The most important outcome that we hope to gain from this course is to see how we can reshape student perception and engagement with their major. The ultimate hope is to increase retention in STEM fields based on this early research experience, while providing a more realistic exposure to the scientific method. Levi Stanley, Iowa State University, Department of Chemistry Course title: Laboratory in Organic Chemistry II (primarily for chemistry majors) Level: Sophomore Approximate enrollment: 25 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format There are 3 sections. Each section meets 2 times for a total of 6 hours. The course utilizes 4 TAs with one TA per section and a “head” TA that coordinates the research project.

Summary of the Course Our CURE is incorporated into our standard second-semester chemistry laboratory for chemistry majors and students pursuing a research career. This course is a 16-week course split into approximately 4 weeks of traditional “cookbook-type” labs, four weeks of inquiry-guided experiments, and eight weeks built around a course-based undergraduate research project. In 2012, we implemented a 4-week research experience (8 laboratory periods of 3 hours) into this course. Students were tasked with the multistep synthesis of a novel fluorous dye molecule as the main goal of the research experience. Although students were generally positive about the project and appreciate the introduction to advanced laboratory practices such as Schlenk techniques, affinity chromatography, and microwave-assisted chemistry, student motivation consistently wanes toward the end of the project. Assessment shows that students do not connect the project to a real-world research problem, and thus lose interest as the project moves forward without the potential for an end-game payoff. To improve student motivation and investment in our CURE, we redesigned the research experience by 1) providing target molecules that stimulate independent thought and are potentially important to the research community, 2) providing a framework for students to generate publishable data, and 3) providing a gateway project to enter research in faculty laboratories. Students are tasked with the synthesis of a derivative of a 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrroloindole. Students are required to research known methods to access 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrroloindoles and present a proposed route to the class three weeks prior to the start of the project. Students are asked to focus on developing flexible routes that enable 45

the installation of a variety of substituents on the 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrroloindole core. The laboratory instructor and TAs provide feedback on the feasibility of the route (in an undergraduate laboratory) and suggest modifications to the proposed routes at this time. Students whose synthetic routes are not appropriate for an undergraduate laboratory or the duration of the project will be asked to consider an alternative route that has been pre-validated by the PI’s laboratory. The 2,3-dihydropyrroloindoles that are successfully synthesized are then screened for biological activity in collaboration with scientists at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Iowa State University.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? The importance of incorporating research opportunities into the undergraduate experience has become a driver for improvement in undergraduate curriculum over the past twenty years. However, simply incorporating a research experience into an undergraduate course is not enough to generate positive student outcomes. Studies show that students benefit most from research experiences in laboratory courses in which fundamental concepts are emphasized in the context of current research applications and problems. These types of laboratory course-based research experiences have been shown to improve student interest, enhance independent thinking, and motivate students to search for answers beyond textbooks and faculty.

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? I learned that progress is never as fast as one anticipates in a CURE. Our undergraduate students do not like to fail in the laboratory and have a hard time adjusting to unsuccessful experiments as an important part of research. Thus, significant time to explain the goals of the CURE is necessary to motivate students. I also found that anticipation of proposed research directions and timely feedback to students are critical in CUREs that provide significant freedom for students to design synthetic routes. Through three iterations of the course, we have scaled back our expectations for student progress. We have accommodated this change by providing students with more advanced starting materials to ensure that more students “finish” the project.

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? I view three outcomes as significant from our CURE: 1.

Students learn for the first time to design and execute experiments without a provided procedure. 46

2. 3.

Students learn to approach the chemical literature and adapt existing synthetic methods to make new molecules. Students learn to deal with unsuccessful experiments in the laboratory and find solutions to achieve their project goals.

Jason G. Gillmore and Traci L. Smith (and all Hope College organic chemistry lab faculty since 1971), Hope College, Department of Chemistry Course title: CHEM 256B Organic Chemistry Laboratory Independent Synthesis Projects Level: Sophomore Approximate enrollment: 20–35 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format We run 4 sections of 4–10 students each (condensed from 5 sections of 16–20 students each of CHEM 256A Organic Chemistry Lab II in the first half of the semester) meeting for 7 weeks, second half of Spring Semester. Students in the course typically spend 5–10 hours per week over 7 weeks (2 weeks in library training and preparing proposals, 5 weeks in execution). This is a 1 credit, 5–6 hour per week, half-semester laboratory course, requiring a faculty member (ca. 1/2 – 2/3 FTE for half semester, or net 1/4 – 1/3 FTE for the semester teaching load) and one undergraduate TA per section of up to 10 students. The undergraduate TA helps with trouble-shooting, safety, lab supervision, instrumentation, etc., but a faculty member is present at all times. Also required are chemical equipment, supplies, and instrumentation (primarily NMR, GC/MS, FTIR, and melting point apparatus), mostly common to the organic teaching laboratories or faculty research laboratory but some specifically purchased for the projects. The support of an organic lab coordinator and supporting student workers is essential in gathering required chemicals and helping with ordering, as well as helping cover necessary "open lab" hours when projects do not fit neatly into laboratory periods. Time spent outside direct teaching required in this implementation include 30–40 hours by the organic laboratory coordinator, including preparing for library training, syllabi, an hour lecture on project structure and requirements, and mostly the gathering and ordering of necessary chemicals. An additional 30–40 student worker hours assisting are also required, along with an hour of science reference librarian time and 1–2 hours of time from each participating faculty member to delineate possible projects related to their research. As this has been an ongoing evolution but part of our curriculum for 45+ years, it is already built into the department budget and not much more costly than having a full semester Organic II Lab would be. Hope’s HHMI grant and Gillmore’s NSF CAREER grant have helped fund CURE assessment of this project (and we gratefully acknowledge the help of Stephen C. Scogin, Professor of Biology and Education at Hope College, for help with the analysis of CURE survey data). 47

Summary of the Course This 7-week section is an optional continuation of CHEM 256A (half semester Organic Chemistry Laboratory II) to be taken in the same semester. In Chem 256B, students search the chemical literature, write a proposal, and execute an independent synthetic project concluding with a final report. Students grow in independence and autonomy and gain appreciation for authentic research while developing new skills such as reaction design, spectroscopic analysis, and the purification and characterization of mixtures. Offered last half of the semester. CHEM 231 Organic Chemistry II lecture is a required pre- or co-requisite course, as is CHEM 256A. Our 6 hour/week two-semester organic laboratory sequence has long included a half-semester three-step independent synthesis project in the second semester. Over the past two decades this has evolved from a mandatory, closely controlled suite of projects tied to a central ‘theme’ that varied annually, to an elective and increasingly independent set of projects tied to a wide variety of ongoing faculty research programs across chemistry and beyond. This has allowed faculty to leverage this course to advance their research as well as students’ learning, and has drawn a diversity of organic chemical targets from most of the faculty in the chemistry department and some from other STEM disciplines. Students gain exposure to and connection with authentic faculty research, providing some a springboard to future research engagement. All have the satisfaction of contributing to ongoing work rather than to a waste container. Projects begin with a literature search workshop on using SciFinder and other library resources. Students identify a target molecule and develop a synthetic plan. They craft a research proposal including lists of chemicals, hazards, and required equipment. Students execute the multistep synthesis with complete purification and characterization of intermediates over five weeks, and prepare a comprehensive written report. Two years of CURE survey data indicate students are successfully achieving desired learning gains from this course-based research experience at a level that is comparable with summer undergraduate research experiences. Moreover, targets prepared in these projects have contributed to the work of 21 faculty including 18 papers and 4 funded research proposals since 2000, which speaks to the authenticity of the research in this CURE.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? This course has had an undergraduate research-like experience since the 1970s, as a way to expose students to research early in their undergraduate careers, long before there was documented evidence of the effectiveness of such experiences. The shift to a genuine research focus over the past decade or two was to better leverage resources (faculty teaching time & department dollars, in what is a somewhat “expensive,” in both resources, endeavor) to advance ongoing externally funded publishable student-faculty collaborative research.

48

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? This course transitioned from being required of all Organic II students to an elective primarily taken by slightly more than half of all Chemistry majors (most of those pursuing ACS certified degrees, plus nearly half of those pursuing less rigorous chemistry degree tracks). This allowed us to manage increasing organic enrollment and the increased demands as we moved from a closely controlled suite of projects to a more diverse range of projects. This change was also somewhat student driven, as it allowed those with research in their home department or those not interested in additional organic chemistry the ability to opt out. To aid in registration logistics at the behest of our Registrar, we’ve recently moved from a variable credit model to a separate course number model, with little direct impact on us but much to the relief of the Registrar’s office.

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? 1.

2.

3.

Hope College’s CHEM 256B advances ongoing faculty-student research programs by leveraging teaching time and dollars and the manpower of a fairly large course. The course expands capacity for giving students an early taste of research (enticing them to pursue organic research or research in other chemical sub-disciplines or different scientific disciplines altogether), or helping them realize that research is not something they want to pursue further. On the CURE survey, students who participate in the lab demonstrate substantial self-reported learning gains and scientific attitude changes more commensurate with, or even exceeding, a full-time 8-10 week summer research experience – we rationalize this based on the “full cycle” nature of searching the literature, preparing a proposal, gathering the resources, executing the plan, analyzing results, and preparing a report (even if this is far from a complete research project, they do all of the elements.)

Jennifer A. Prescher, University of California-Irvine, Department of Chemistry Course title: Chem 128L: Introduction to Chemical Biology Laboratory Level: Junior/Senior Approximate enrollment: 80–120 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format Chem 128L comprises one lecture (1 hour) and one laboratory session (4 hours) per week. We offer 8–10 laboratory sections each year, with one TA assigned per section. There is also a head TA assigned to the course. 49

Summary of the Course Chem 128L is an undergraduate laboratory course designed to teach basic principles and techniques in chemical biology. This course is often a student’s first exposure to biology-related laboratory skills, as most chemistry graduates do not enroll in an advanced biochemistry course (offered by a different department). Thus, a large part of Chem 128L is devoted to mastering laboratory fundamentals: pipetting, gel electrophoresis, etc. To provide these students with more than just a set of techniques, I developed experiments that not only teach basic skills, but also incorporate an element of research. The most popular of these experiments involves a high-throughput screen of small molecules for anti-cancer properties. UCI is home to a collection of 3000+ molecules synthesized by various research laboratories on campus. The molecules are arrayed over 96-well plates and provided to researchers courtesy of the UCI High-Throughput Synthesis and Screening Facility (HTSS). For the lab exercise, the students screen the compound library using luciferase-labeled cancer cells. Cellular readouts are obtained using luminescence screening equipment, with a loss of signal correlating with cell death. Students work in teams to collect data and present their findings (via classroom PowerPoint presentations). Additionally, undergraduates interested in follow up analyses of compound “hits” are eligible for summer research opportunities. The experiment has thus far been a success: over 250 students have screened a total of >1200 compounds (in triplicate), and compounds with anti-cancer properties have been identified. Students have consistently praised the “real world” nature of the screening exercise in written evaluations. Importantly, the experiment also provides training in key areas relevant to chemical biology: compound screening, pharmacokinetics, assay development, and data analysis.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? One of my major educational goals involves exposing students to interdisciplinary science via “real world” experiences. Significant coursework is already required for a bachelor’s degree in chemistry at UCI, leaving little time for extra classes. So, rather than develop a suite of new specialized courses, I decided to leverage our existing curriculum and integrate authentic research projects into UCI laboratory courses. These experiences enhance the undergraduate experience and expose students to modern and interdisciplinary science.

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? Several lessons were learned: 1.

Research-based inquiry can be integrated into large laboratory sections with careful planning. 50

2. 3. 4.

Research-based classroom learning (in large courses) can lead to additional undergraduate research opportunities in the department. Students are particularly responsive and enthusiastic about UCI (home institution)-driven projects and data. Research-based inquiry in courses can build critical team working and data dissemination skills.

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? While I’m not sure this is the most important outcome, the success of research-based laboratory exercises in Chem 128L is changing how other instructors approach their courses. Research-based exercises are not “impossible” to execute in large laboratories, and I have consulted with faculty at UCI and beyond about how to replicate some of the exercises in their own courses. Penny Beuning, Northeastern University, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology Course title: Chemical Biology for Chemists Level: Junior/Senior Approximate enrollment: 20–40 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format This is a 3 semester-hour lecture course with 1–2 lab sections (1 semester hour) in fall and spring that meet 3.5 hours per week There is one TA per not more than 18 students. The lab has several research projects that together comprise half of the semester.

Summary of the Course Chemical Biology for Chemists is an upper-level course that introduces students to biochemistry and chemical biology concepts. The course enrolls primarily Chemistry and Biochemistry majors. The lecture section includes active learning and presentations by students on papers from the primary research literature. The accompanying laboratory section provides opportunities for students to build skills in biochemistry along with completing research projects. The class satisfies the chemistry major requirement for Biochemistry and the laboratory is writing intensive. There are two small research projects and one multiple-week research project as part of this laboratory that integrate teaching skills with research. In the process of teaching sterile technique, we have the students carry out a phenotypic screening experiment using a zone-of-inhibition assay. Students are given a wild-type bacterial strain and the same strain with a gene of interest deleted. 51

We chose different deletion strains of interest depending on current research in my laboratory. There are numerous knockout strains available from stock centers, so obtaining bacterial strains for this experiment is straightforward. In a second one-week experiment inspired by Computational Bridges to Experiments (COMBREX) (19, 20), the students are given a protein sequence that represents a protein of known function and asked to identify other proteins of similar sequence from sequenced genomes. Each student chooses a different protein from their list of similar sequences and then searches for a structure in the Protein Data Bank (www.pdb.org) or generates a homology model. From the structure or model, the students use a predictor that was developed at Northeastern to identify the functionally important residues (www.pool.neu.edu) (21). The students then compare the predicted functionally important residues of the known protein and their protein of interest in order to make predictions about protein function. In the multi-week experiment, students design and construct site-directed mutations in a protein. The proteins are chosen to be relevant to work in my research laboratory and, ideally, relevant to the research of the TA(s) for the course. The students are given an introduction to the protein either by the TA or by another student who is working on the protein as part of thesis or dissertation research. We usually guide the students to choose from a list of potential residues to mutate, along with why these residues are of interest. Past projects have included cancer-associated mutations, mutations of residues predicted by students in a molecular modeling class to be important for protein-protein interactions, or residues predicted by POOL to be important for activity. The students choose the mutation to make, design DNA primers, carry out the site-directed mutagenesis reaction and subsequent molecular biology steps, purify the plasmid DNA, carry out a restriction digest of their DNA and have the DNA sequenced. After the proteins are purified by TAs or others, we generally have the students carry out assays of their predicted effects. This aspect of the laboratory changes periodically depending on the protein and whether assays are amenable to a teaching laboratory. The students must include a rationale for their chosen mutation and discuss the effects on activity in their reports.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? Our students take this class with varying degrees of prior biology and biochemistry courses, and so one motivation for teaching this course as a CURE was to avoid duplicating laboratory experiences some students may have already had, while also ensuring that students learn fundamental skills. Northeastern follows a cooperative education model in which students alternate periods of full-time work with periods of attending classes. Therefore, another motivation for designing this course as a CURE was to make students more aware of biotechnology or biochemistry careers, as well as more competitive for co-op positions in those fields after having a more in-depth laboratory experience.

52

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? We have found that the skills of pipetting and sterile technique learned in the first week have to be reinforced throughout the semester. For many students, this is the first experience in research and we found that we need to emphasize that we expect new results to be obtained. So, for example, in the mutagenesis laboratory, mutations should be well justified and designed to give stable proteins if possible. We have also developed rubrics for grading reports and the TAs spend considerable time discussing writing in pre-lab lectures with the class. This course requires regular maintenance as we choose new “known” proteins for the bioinformatics laboratory every semester and every few semesters we choose new strains for phenotypic screening and proteins for site-directed mutagenesis. We also are careful not to use examples in which our need for results is critical; these experiments are ideally suited to gathering very preliminary data for new or longer-term projects in the research laboratory.

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? There have been a number of important outcomes from this Chemical Biology laboratory. One is that some students find a new interest in carrying out chemical biology or biotechnology research. This class is writing intensive and some students have reported that they have come to appreciate the importance of writing for understanding material. They also report gains in confidence in using computer modeling. There is a major benefit to the teaching assistants who have taught the course, as they gain extensive teaching experience and in many cases, acquire data relevant to their projects. Ideally, TAs who have an interest in teaching as a career are sought to serve as TAs for this course, as they have the opportunity to redesign parts of the course periodically, providing a deep teaching experience and building their teaching portfolios. Linda Columbus, University of Virginia, Department of Chemistry Course title: Biological Chemistry Laboratory I and II Level: Junior/Senior Approximate enrollment: 90 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format The students meet for 50 minutes on Monday for the laboratory “lecture”, which is in an active learning classroom with round tables, multiple projectors, and a throwable microphone. The laboratory meets in six sections with no more than 18 students and is facilitated by a graduate student teaching assistant. The course is team taught with a departmental staff member and a research active faculty member. 53

Summary of the Course The Biochemistry Laboratory course is designed as a full year, two semester curriculum (22). Students are assigned to study a protein which has a known structure and either a putative enzymatic function or a confirmed enzymatic function. Depending on which protein they are studying, their goal is to determine the function, which they are able to narrow down through the use of bioinformatics and their knowledge of the structure-function relationship, or, in the case of proteins with confirmed function, to design a mutation which will alter the specificity of the enzyme without eliminating activity. By creating a year-long curriculum, we are able focus our teaching in the first semester on the biochemical techniques and theory that the students need to know to conduct their second semester research. They then work much more independently in the second semester, applying what was learned in the first semester to study their protein. Students can take their project as far as time and their interests allow. Most groups are able to design assays that yield kinetic parameters for their enzyme and many groups go further, including doing substrate screens, assessing the pH and temperature range for the enzymatic activity, or determining the effect of inhibitors. Students enjoy the freedom they are afforded in this course to take their research in the direction that interests them. In addition to learning hands-on biochemistry techniques, the course is designed to give the students real-world experiences. These experiences include collaboratively working in groups, writing scientifically, reading primary literature, and communicating their work both orally during group meetings and at poster presentations and in writing in the final course paper, a publication style manuscript.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? The desire to educate scientists, not science majors, is at the heart of our redesign. While students at the University of Virginia, and certainly other institutions, excel at learning facts and learning about theories, many biochemistry graduates are deficient in their problem-solving abilities, and in their ability to design experiments. Many laboratory courses are focused primarily on integrating principles taught in lecture courses into the laboratory, using textbook experiments in an attempt to transfer information. Implementation of a CURE curriculum encourages students to be self-directed, while also learning the team skills necessary for most post-undergraduate pursuits. The curriculum does not require sacrificing the student’s mastery of basic techniques, but rather incorporates the learning of these techniques into real, bona fide research projects.

54

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? The main challenge for this course is the cost and number of personnel required to run the course. The development, instruction, and maintenance of the course was completed with a part-time PhD level instructor, two research-active faculty, teaching assistants (TAs), and undergraduate students. With the curriculum (mostly) established, the course requires a TA for each section (we have five – six for ~ 90 students), a part-time PhD level instructor, and one faculty instructor. The team aspect of the development was critical so that the research-active faculty could still maintain their research group. Training teaching assistants both in pedagogy and content remains a challenge. Most incoming graduate students have not seen the content or been challenged in experimental design as this course encourages. The TA could in essence be the principal investigator of the research that the laboratory is conducting; however, expectedly, they are not ready for this type of responsibility, mentoring, or teaching.

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? First, all of our developed materials are distributed and shared with instructors through Biochemistry Laboratory Education (BioLEd) a resource available at http://biochemlab.org. Second, assessment indicates that 79% of the students learn the necessary understanding and skills by the end of the year course (using pre- and post-tests) (22). Using Student Assessment of their Learning Gains (SALG) (23), ~90% of the students positively rated their learning of biochemistry and experimental design at the end of the year compared to less than 30% before the class started. Finally, the number of students now impacted by this curriculum is over 500 and growing.

Jennifer Heemstra, University of Utah, Department of Chemistry Course title: Advanced Chemical Biology Laboratory Level: Junior/Senior Approximate enrollment: 50–60 students

Lecture/Laboratory Format This is a 7.5-week course during which the students have 2 hours/week of lecture and 8 hours/week of laboratory. Students are divided into 5 sections with an enrollment cap of 12 students each. Every section has one graduate student TA.

55

Summary of the Course In this course, all of the students work together to generate new knowledge that can be beneficial to researchers in the area of biological chemistry. Part of the inspiration from this model comes from the widely-known publication in J. Org. Chem. that lists all of the NMR chemical shifts for common solvent impurities (24). While the research behind this paper is by no means as “flashy” and “innovative” as other work that is published in the journal, this paper consistently ranks as the most accessed article in the journal, and serves as a key reference for innumerable organic chemistry students and researchers. Thinking about this paper helped me realize that there is much research that can be of great value to the community, but is straightforward enough to be completed in the context of a CURE. Thus, the overarching theme for this CURE is to find reactions that are used by a large number of scientists, but where systematic studies of reaction parameters are lacking. In the first two iterations of the course, the curriculum has focused on exploring the effect of buffers, solvents, and surfactants on the kinetics of strain-promoted azide-alkyne cycloaddition (SPAAC) (25). This reaction is widely used in biological research, yet systematic studies of reaction kinetics were lacking in the literature. The 2014 student cohort made two interesting discoveries: (1) surfactants can be used to catalyze SPAAC between hydrophobic azides and cyclooctynes; (2) the kinetics of SPAAC are highly tolerant of buffer identity, pH, and ionic strength, but are impacted by the presence of organic co-solvents. From this cohort, we have published two papers, with all students who contributed usable data listed as co-authors (26, 27). Building upon the results from the 2014 cohort, the 2015 curriculum explored SPAAC in the context of cyclooctyne-functionalized DNA. The students tackled questions regarding the effect of DNA sequence context on reaction rate, and the ability of the micelle catalysis phenomenon to be extended to cyclooctyne-functionalized biomolecules. At the conclusion of the course, I offer students the opportunity to continue with the research project as members of my laboratory. Of the ~50 students enrolled in the course, 4–5 have volunteered for this opportunity each year. This aspect of the course has proven to be highly successful, as it essentially doubles my laboratory’s capacity for hosting undergraduate research students. Importantly, this increased capacity is made possible by the fact that the students have already learned the techniques they need to carry out their research project. Additionally, having a sub-group of students continue the project has proven to be essential to our goal of publishing the research in peer-reviewed journals, as these students can repeat experiments as needed or gather additional data to expand on the most exciting discoveries.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? I was asked to teach this as a new course in my department, and therefore there was no existing curriculum that I could adopt. I decided that it would not be much more work to establish the course as a CURE instead of creating a “cookbook” 56

curriculum, but that the benefits of the CURE format to the students could be significant. Also, I was excited by the prospect to use this course as a means to explore interesting scientific problems that aren’t a good fit for my research group because either: (1) we don’t have federal funding for the research, or (2) the study would require that similar experiments be repeated a large number of times, and this would become too mundane for one person to tackle alone. I have come to appreciate that while both of these factors make the research poorly suited for my research laboratory to pursue, they are ideal for a CURE, as the students can contribute information to the community that might not otherwise be gathered, and the need for a large number of similar experiments is very well-suited to the scale of a CURE.

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? The main lesson I learned is that CUREs are not immune to the fact that research often doesn’t work on the first try and takes much longer than expected. I’ve now learned to set more reasonable goals regarding what can be accomplished in a term. I also learned that while the majority of students were highly invested in the idea of the course being research-based, some just wanted to get through the course so that they could graduate. The outcome of this is that while most students were careful with their experiments and turned in carefully acquired and analyzed data, some students produced data that were clearly flawed. This would normally have caused problems for our goal of publishing the research, but having a few dedicated students continue to work on the research during the following semester successfully averted this problem.

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? Survey data from the course show that it increased students’ desire to pursue graduate studies or a career in the sciences, and students reported higher gains in research-related skills from the CURE compared to a “cookbook” lab course. Many of the students also commented to me on how excited they were to be able to contribute knowledge to the scientific community via publication. One student even told me that her mother printed out the journal article (on which the student was a co-author) and proudly displayed it on her refrigerator! Finally, showing that CUREs can lead to real research productivity – in the form of both data and publications – has increased the interest of my colleagues in adopting this curriculum format. Rory Waterman, University of Vermont, Department of Chemistry Course title: Synthetic Inorganic Laboratory Level: Senior Approximate enrollment: 12 students 57

Lecture/Laboratory Format One 4-hour afternoon laboratory section per week supported by the instructor and one TA.

Summary of the Course The course is meant to be an experience in experimental and synthetic inorganic chemistry, broadly defined. The outline for the course is that students build and characterize compounds that are then tested as catalysts for a particular reaction. To make the experience research, the process is repeated (compound selection, synthesis, characterization, and catalyst testing) with data from the previous iteration. The division of these efforts (synthesis, 2 weeks; characterization, 1 week; catalysis, 2 weeks) only allows for two iterations, but a third iteration would be possible and no less valuable. As preparation, the students are supplied with a limited set of initial resources for reading, some parameters for compounds, and a few suggestions for ligands. Our first two meetings cover some essential content relating to the course and the research problem as well as critical laboratory administration. The students are provided with the minimum requirements for characterization (two forms of spectroscopy and elemental analysis) and are supervised in the collection of electrochemical data for all compounds. The students then use their pure compounds in catalysis. The parameters for the catalysis (concentration, temperature, length of reaction, controls, etc.) were determined by consensus through a guided group discussion. Assessment arises from a range of components. Students write two significant reports, one after their first iteration of compounds and catalysis and the second at the end of the semester. The students also provide brief written pieces on proposed compounds and preparations, which allow for feedback on the choices made. The students also give brief presentations on their data. Because the students are working on the same problem, the mid-semester presentations are essential for the group to provide the students who have identified successful catalyst(s) feedback and suggestions, and it is important for the groups that did not identify active catalysts to garner ideas and receive help for their second round of compounds. Students are assessed on their laboratory notebooks as well. In this term, we have been investigating base metal catalysts for the dehydrogenation of ammonia borane. This is a good catalytic reaction because we can monitor activity by H2 evolution rather than spectroscopy, which makes scaling the class more straightforward. Their objective is to make one ligand and prepare three to five compounds as potential catalysts, which allows for some syntheses to fail, even after repeated effort but still have a candidate catalyst(s) to test. Their limitations are to use 3d transition metals and that their compounds should be air stable for convenience.

58

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? I wanted the students to gain more from the experience than a traditional laboratory. As seniors, I know they can follow a set of directions and make a single compound or set of compounds. What I sought was the tinkering that comes in research, but even more than that, I wanted students to do the thinking that was required. When problems come up (as they invariably do), I wanted students to realize that the solution would not be in a lab manual or a book but that the solution would only come from them.

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? This iteration has provided two majors lessons, one about the students and one more mechanical. About the students, we’ve clearly done too good of a job teaching them to expect that laboratories are formulaic! Though the students had found and summarized preparations for their ligands and compounds, they had little conception of how they would actually work in laboratory in the absence of a lab manual. Thus, students arrived and floundered a bit initially. After the first lab session, my TA had the excellent idea of requesting work plans for each week from the students, and then providing feedback. The activity of summarizing their plans transformed the lab sessions in a short time into much more efficient and task oriented times. The mechanical lesson came from giving perhaps too much choice to the students for the design of their compounds, though some suggestions and constraints were provided. Many of them shot the moon intellectually. While this is validating from an education standpoint, it did not work well in the lab. From a practical view, I would have added yet more constraint on compound design to allow some creativity on the part of the students, but not obligate us to redesign any student’s plans.

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? The students spent a lot of their time planning, thinking, and problem solving. There’s not much else I would want them to be doing!

Casey Londergan, Haverford College, Department of Chemistry Course title: Laboratory in Chemical Structure and Reactivity (“Superlab”) Level: Junior Approximate enrollment: 20–30 students

59

Lecture/Laboratory Format Two meetings per week for 4.5 hours, roughly including 1 hour of classroom activity and 3–3.5 hours of lab; senior undergrad TAs used as needed (mainly for instrumental experiments) and the departmental instrument technician is “on call” or training students throughout the course. The course runs for the entire junior year and is taught by four instructors, sometimes together and sometimes separately, depending on projects and research interests.

Summary of the Course “Superlab” is an integrated replacement for all of our majors-level lab courses (i.e. anything past organic chemistry). It was conceived and first executed in the late 1960s during the “instrumental revolution” in chemistry. The content of Superlab is highly variable year-to-year and depends on the instructors, who run some combination of 7- to 14-week projects in their areas of research expertise. The main learning goals of Superlab are process-based (experimental design, problem assessment, literature adoption, scientific writing) rather than skill-based. Besides the chemistry-only Superlab, similar courses and curricular structures exist at Haverford in Biology and in Biochemistry (where a Superlab module may be team-taught by faculty across departments). The 7- to 14-week integrated projects frequently include experiments and investigations motivated by current literature that have not been executed previously anywhere.

Why did you decide to teach the course as a CURE? Superlab was designed to be training for independent research; Haverford has a senior thesis requirement and all students do independent research as seniors. In our current context, many students are already involved in independent research as juniors, but this experience provides them with breadth of experience, collaborative opportunities with a much larger group, and process skills.

What lessons did you learn and what changes did you make (or would you make in the future)? Superlab changes every year and every semester, and instructors frequently run brand new projects in Superlab even when others have worked well before. One lesson from many years of this model is that training in research process, rather than specific skills or questions, is the most important outcome. Creativity and openness to trying new things are the best instructor attributes.

60

What do you view as the most important outcome from your CURE? Training in research process, rather than skills, is the most important outcome. Our alumni frequently come back to tell us that “everything important that I learned as an undergraduate was in Superlab.”

References 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report, 2012. Auchincloss, L. C.; Laursen, S. L.; Branchaw, J. L.; Eagan, K.; Graham, M.; Hanauer, D. I.; Lawrie, G.; McLinn, C. M.; Pelaez, N.; Rowland, S.; Towns, M.; Trautmann, N. M.; Varma-Nelson, P.; Weston, T. J.; Dolan, E. L. Assessment of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 29–40. Shortlidge, E. E.; Bangera, G.; Brownell, S. E. Faculty Perspectives on Developing and Teaching Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences. BioScience 2016, 66, 54–62. Hanauer, D. I.; Graham, M. J.; Hatfull, G. F. A Measure of College Student Persistence in the Sciences (PITS). CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2016, 15, 1–10. Bascom-Slack, C. A.; Arnold, A. E.; Strobel, S. A. Student-Directed Discovery of the Plant Microbiome and Its Products. Science 2012, 338, 485–486. Brownell, S. E.; Hekmat-Scafe, D. S.; Singla, V.; Seawell, P. C.; Conklin Imam, J. F.; Eddy, S. L.; Stearns, T.; Cyert, M. S. A High-Enrollment CourseBased Undergraduate Research Experience Improves Student Conceptions of Scientific Thinking and Ability to Interpret Data. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, 1–14. Brownell, S. E.; Kloser, M. J.; Fukami, T.; Shavelson, R. Courses: Comparing the Impact of Traditionally Based “Cookbook” and Authentic Research-Based Courses on Student Lab Experiences. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2012, 41, 36–45. Harrison, M.; Dunbar, D.; Ratmansky, L.; Boyd, K.; Lopatto, D. Classroom-Based Science Research at the Introductory Level: Changes in Career Choices and Attitude. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2011, 10, 279–286. Jordan, T. C.; Burnett, S. H.; Carson, S.; Caruso, S. M.; Clase, K.; DeJong, R. J.; Dennehy, J. J.; Denver, D. R.; Dunbar, D.; Elgin, S. C.; Findley, A. M.; Gissendanner, C. R.; Golebiewska, U. P.; Guild, N.; Hartzog, G. A.; Grillo, W. H.; Hollowell, G. P.; Hughes, L. E.; Johnson, A.; King, R. A.; Lewis, L. O.; Li, W.; Rosenzweig, F.; Rubin, M. R.; Saha, M. S.; Sandoz, J.; Shaffer, C. D.; Taylor, B.; Temple, L.; Vazquez, E.; Ware, V. C.; Barker, L. P.; Bradley, K. W.; Jacobs-Sera, D.; Pope, W. H.; Russell, D. A.; Cresawn, S. G.; Lopatto, D.; Bailey, C. P.; Hatfull, G. F. A Broadly Implementable Research Course in Phage Discovery and Genomics for First-Year Undergraduate Students. mBio 2014, 5, e01051-13. 61

10. Kloser, M. J.; Brownell, S. E.; Chiariello, N. R.; Fukami, T. Integrating Teaching and Research in Undergraduate Biology Laboratory Education. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9, e1001174. 11. Rhode Ward, J.; Clarke, H. D.; Horton, J. L. Effects of a Research-Infused Botanical Curriculum on Undergraduates’ Content Knowledge, STEM Competencies, and Attitudes toward Plant Sciences. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 387–396. 12. Sanders, E. R.; Hirsch, A. M. Immersing Undergraduate Students into Research on the Metagenomics of the Plant Rhizosphere: A Pedagogical Strategy to Engage Civic-Mindedness and Retain Undergraduates in STEM. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 157. 13. Henter, H. J.; Imondi, R.; James, K.; Spencer, D.; Steinke, D. DNA Barcoding in Diverse Educational Settings: Five Case Studies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2016, 371, 20150340. 14. Marcus, J. M.; Hughes, T. M.; McElroy, D. M.; Wyatt, R. E. Engaging FirstYear Undergraduates in Hands-On Research Experiences: The Upper Green River Barcode of Life Project. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2010, 39, 39–45. 15. Andreoli, J. M.; Feig, A.; Chang, S.; Welch, S.; Mathur, A.; Kuleck, G. A Research-Based Inter-institutional Collaboration to Diversify the Biomedical Workforce: ReBUILDetroit. Biomed. Central Proc. 2016under revision. 16. Lopatto, D. Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings. Cell Biol. Educ. 2004, 3, 270–277. 17. Scott, W. L.; Denton, R. E.; Marrs, K. A.; Durrant, J. D.; Samaritoni, J. G.; Abraham, M. M.; Brown, S. P.; Carnahan, J. M.; Fischer, L. G.; Glos, C. E.; Sempsrott, P. J.; O’Donnell, M. J. Distributed Drug Discovery: Advancing Chemical Education through Contextualized Combinatorial Solid-Phase Organic Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 819–826. 18. Gee, C. T.; Koleski, E. J.; Pomerantz, W. C. Fragment Screening and Druggability Assessment for the CBP/p300 KIX Domain through Protein-Observed 19F NMR Spectroscopy. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 3735–3739. 19. Roberts, R. J. Identifying Protein Function--A Call for Community Action. PLoS Biol. 2004, 2, E42. 20. Anton, B. P.; Chang, Y. C.; Brown, P.; Choi, H. P.; Faller, L. L.; Guleria, J.; Hu, Z.; Klitgord, N.; Levy-Moonshine, A.; Maksad, A.; Mazumdar, V.; McGettrick, M.; Osmani, L.; Pokrzywa, R.; Rachlin, J.; Swaminathan, R.; Allen, B.; Housman, G.; Monahan, C.; Rochussen, K.; Tao, K.; Bhagwat, A. S.; Brenner, S. E.; Columbus, L.; de Crecy-Lagard, V.; Ferguson, D.; Fomenkov, A.; Gadda, G.; Morgan, R. D.; Osterman, A. L.; Rodionov, D. A.; Rodionova, I. A.; Rudd, K. E.; Soll, D.; Spain, J.; Xu, S. Y.; Bateman, A.; Blumenthal, R. M.; Bollinger, J. M.; Chang, W. S.; Ferrer, M.; Friedberg, I.; Galperin, M. Y.; Gobeill, J.; Haft, D.; Hunt, J.; Karp, P.; Klimke, W.; Krebs, C.; Macelis, D.; Madupu, R.; Martin, M. J.; Miller, J. H.; O’Donovan, C.; Palsson, B.; Ruch, P.; Setterdahl, A.; Sutton, G.; Tate, J.; Yakunin, A.; Tchigvintsev, D.; Plata, G.; Hu, J.; Greiner, R.; Horn, D.; Sjolander, K.; Salzberg, S. L.; Vitkup, D.; Letovsky, S.; Segre, D.; 62

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

DeLisi, C.; Roberts, R. J.; Steffen, M.; Kasif, S. The COMBREX Project: Design, Methodology, And Initial Results. PLoS Biol. 2013, 11, e1001638. Tong, W.; Wei, Y.; Murga, L. F.; Ondrechen, M. J.; Williams, R. J. Partial Order Optimum Likelihood (POOL): Maximum Likelihood Prediction of Protein Active Site Residues Using 3D Structure and Sequence Properties. PLoS Comput Biol 2009, 5, e1000266. Gray, C.; Price, C. W.; Lee, C. T.; Dewald, A. H.; Cline, M. A.; McAnany, C. E.; Columbus, L.; Mura, C. Known Structure, Unknown Function: An Inquiry-Based Undergraduate Biochemistry Laboratory Course. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2015, 43, 245–262. Seymour, E.; Wiese, D. J.; Hunter, A.-B. In Creating a Better Mousetrap: On-Line Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains; National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, San Francisco, CA, 2000. Gottlieb, H. E.; Kotlyar, V.; Nudelman, A. NMR Chemical Shifts of Common Laboratory Solvents as Trace Impurities. J. Org. Chem. 1997, 62, 7512–7515. Sletten, E. M.; Bertozzi, C. R. Bioorthogonal Chemistry: Fishing for Selectivity in a Sea of Functionality. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 6974–6998. Anderton, G. I.; Bangerter, A. S.; Davis, T. C.; Feng, Z.; Furtak, A. J.; Larsen, J. O.; Scroggin, T. L.; Heemstra, J. M. Accelerating Strain-Promoted Azide-Alkyne Cycloaddition Using Micellar Catalysis. Bioconjugate Chem. 2015, 26, 1687–1691. Davis, D. L.; Price, E. K.; Aderibigbe, S. O.; Larkin, M. X.-H.; Barlow, E. D.; Chen, R.; Ford, L. C.; Gray, Z. T.; Gren, S. H.; Jin, Y.; Keddington, K. S.; Kent, A. D.; Kim, D.; Lewis, A.; Marrouche, R. S.; O’Dair, M.; Powell, D. R.; Scadden, M. H. C.; Session, C. B.; Tao, J.; Trieu, J.; Whiteford, K. N.; Yuan, Z.; Yun, G.; Zhu, J.; Heemstra, J. M. Effect of Buffer Conditions and Organic Co-Solvents on the Rate of Strain-Promoted Azide-Alkyne Cycloaddition. J. Org. Chem. 2016, 81, 6816–6819.

63

Chapter 4

Looking Outwards from the “Central Science”: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Graduate Education in Materials Chemistry Debra A. Fowler,*,1 Raymundo Arroyave,*,2 Joseph Ross,2,3 Richard Malak,4 and Sarbajit Banerjee*,2,5 1Center

for Teaching Excellence, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4246, United States 2Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, United States 3Department of Physics & Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, United States 4Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, United States 5Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station Texas 77843-3012, United States *E-mails: [email protected] (D.A. Fowler); [email protected] (R. Arroyave); [email protected] (S. Banerjee).

The centrality of chemical sciences has long been underpinned by the infusion of ideas from other disciplines. These ideas have contributed in large measure to advancing, accelerating, and expanding the scope of discovery. Recent advances in data analytics can potentially transform the discipline of chemistry and its practice. However, taking advantage of the “Big Data” paradigm requires a distinctive set of skills that are not thus far in the usual repertoire of chemistry or materials science graduate students who typically receive little formal training in handling large data sets. In this Chapter, we outline a recently initiated interdisciplinary graduate program focused on “Data-Enabled Discovery and Design of Energy Materials (D3EM)” that seeks to explore a novel model for interdisciplinary graduate education with a materials chemistry

© 2017 American Chemical Society

and materials science core at Texas A&M University. D3EM’s overarching goal is to develop and institutionalize a new training model that produces scientists/engineers grounded in one discipline but who have the professional and technical skills to collaborate and lead interdisciplinary teams, throughout their academic careers and beyond. The contribution seeks to outline our motivations for designing an interdisciplinary program, describes the structure of the program, and provides specific case studies of research projects that have benefited from an interdisciplinary perspective. Some salient aspects of the program include: 1) learning outcomes aligned with critical skills identified by potential employers; 2) a comprehensive e-portfolio to enable students to internalize interdisciplinarity; 3) a capstone Materials Discovery and Design Studio to promote interdisciplinary approaches to the solution of complex materials development problems; 4) the creation of a faculty community of scholars to facilitate the internalization of interdisciplinarity within faculty participants; and 5) a first-year graduate training sequence featuring strong disciplinary grounding followed by an interdisciplinary immersion––to ensure that the student have a sufficient disciplinary foundation.

Introduction: Rethinking Graduate Education in Chemistry Cross-currents from other disciplines have enriched the chemical sciences and brought methods and strategies that over a period of time have become integral to the practice of chemistry. Tools such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy adapted from the physics community turned out to underpin decades of explosive growth in organic chemistry (1); more recently, sandwich immunoassays developed by biologists have found use for the high-throughput screening of catalysts for organic coupling reactions (2). The structural model of matter that now underpins most physical sciences relies extensively on crystallography, which evolved over several centuries through a curious juxtaposition and unification of optics, mathematical concepts such as group theory and symmetry, and chemical ideas of essential building blocks; indeed, many consider crystallography to be the first scientific “inter-discipline” (3). Of course, disciplinary entrenchment in itself is a relatively novel phenomenon, which paralleled the formalization of academic departments and the post-war evolution of research universities and funding agencies. The recent mapping of academic genealogies (e.g., academictree.org) is particularly striking in the interconnectedness of what are defined as physics, chemistry, biology, and “neuro” trees (4); this interconnectedness is extensive across multiple generations and supports a “continuum” view of science. These mappings show strong cross-fertilization to be the historical norm much more so than the organized––and siloed––academic departments that have become the prevailing paradigm since the beginning of the twentieth century. 66

In contrast to the discipline-focused organization of the current system, modern research practice and industrial technology development both rely extensively on collaborative interdisciplinary teams (5–7). Indeed, in an influential commentary, Metzger and Zare note that “A substantial part of the history of U.S. research has been written by people who, against substantial cultural if not economic odds, have reached out to other fields, merging different perspectives and creating new ideas, even new fields” (5). Yet integrating interdisciplinarity within undergraduate and graduate curricula has been challenging given systemic and institutional cultures and frameworks. Disciplinary lines have become more sharply defined as an inevitable consequence of both undergraduate and graduate curricula becoming more formalized, in order to adapt to sometimes questionable driving forces for standardization, accreditation and documentation that have taken root across US research universities. An imperative for reconsidering existing chemistry curricula stems from the declining number of academic positions and the perceived inability of graduate programs to prepare students for complex modern professional careers that often place a premium on versatility, agility, and communication, rather on the highly specialized technical knowledge that naturally results from PhD studies (8). The seeds of disciplinary entrenchment are sown at an early stage. Ares has pointed out that the selection of an undergraduate major often locks-in students to a narrowly defined set of skills and perceived career paths with the major becoming a proxy for professional identity (9). Several federal funding agencies have sought to restructure undergraduate and graduate curricula to emphasize interdisciplinarity with varying degrees of success. In the physical sciences, the National Science Foundation Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program funded approximately 6,500 students from 1998 to 2012 with an emphasis on training students to solve complex problems that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries, with the implicit expectation that IGERT trainees eventually become the faculty of the future. Studies of IGERT-funded programs have indicated that there have been some levels of success, but also some clear drawbacks. Students were reported to find interdisciplinary research intellectually invigorating and to enjoy the social dynamics and communities of practice, as well as the pursuit of meaningful and important research that has societal implications (5, 10). However, students reported struggles with truly internalizing the interdisciplinary research processs (11, 12). Additionally, IGERTs employing an interdisciplinary curriculum throughout failed to provide students with a sufficient disciplinary foundation (13) thereby rendering them less competitive for professional positions and also less effective at contributing to interdisciplinary endeavors. More importantly, the (implicit) emphasis on academia as the most likely terminal position led in many cases to professional development goals which could not be satisfied in the current university environment when many, many more PhD students graduate than the number of open academic positions. The NSF Research Traineeship (NRT) program has sought to explore new graduate education models that can address the shortcomings of IGERTs and that can better prepare students for modern professional STEM careers. In this Chapter, we outline a recently initiated NRT program focused on “Data-Enabled 67

Discovery and Design of Energy Materials (D3EM)” that seeks to explore a novel model for interdisciplinary graduate education with a materials chemistry and materials science core at Texas A&M University. D3EM’s overarching goal is to develop and institutionalize a new training model that produces scientists/engineers grounded in one discipline but who have the professional and technical skills to effectively communicate within their disciplines, as well as collaborate and lead interdisciplinary teams, throughout their academic careers and beyond. While the program is thematically organized around materials science and materials chemistry, D3EM seeks to equip trainees to transfer their knowledge and skills to other highly complex challenges that require creative, unconventional approaches. In subsequent sections, we shall seek to outline our motivations for designing an interdisciplinary program, describe the structure of the program, and provide specific case studies of research projects that have benefited from an interdisciplinary perspective. Longitudinal studies of the effectiveness of the program will be reported at a later date upon the conclusion of the first phase of the program and will include assessments performed independently by an external evaluator.

Motivation: Of Data Mirages and Data Oases… The advent of microprocessors revolutionized the discipline of analytical chemistry and in doing so empowered chemists of all hues by tremendously accelerating the design and identification of molecules and extended solid-state compounds alike. Advances in computing power underpinned the development of rigorous quantum chemical descriptors, enabled unambiguous structure determination of molecules and compounds of unprecedented complexity, and allowed for measurements to push the envelope in terms of spatial, temporal, and spectral resolution. As a discipline, chemistry today ubiquitously involves large data sets whether they be eigenstates outputted by a desktop quantum chemical program, stacks of intensity values across tens of thousands of pixels obtained from hyperspectral imaging, fragmentation data obtained from mass spectrometry, nucleic acid sequences obtained from organisms, or libraries of compounds generated from diversified synthesis, to provide a rather non-exhaustive list. Our increasing facility at generating large data sets has led to new challenges and opportunities. Analogous to the microprocessor-driven revolution in characterization, machine learning and data analytics can potentially transform the discipline of chemistry and greatly accelerate the exploration of multidimensional parameter space. The sheer volume of data generated by computations and experiments can overwhelm chemical intuition and yet mining the data in a chemically meaningful manner is oftentimes rather difficult. As a specific example, modern materials chemistry research has produced large databases of structures and properties increasingly powered by advances in high-throughput and combinatorial experimental research and simulations. However increasing complexity will clearly limit the ability of such databases to expand to encompass materials needs for future applications. For instance, only about 5% of 160,000 possible 68

ternary materials are known and more than 99% of the estimated 4,000,000 possible quaternaries remain completely unexplored (14). The unexplored compositional space potentially includes materials that are solutions to our abiding problems preventing us from sustainably meeting the energy needs of the planet: room-temperature superconductors, high-zT thermoelectrics, cathode materials and electrolytes for multivalent intercalation batteries, earth-abundant catalysts that split water into solar fuels, etc. Synergy between computational materials chemistry, mining of digital data, and targeted materials processing and measurement has the potential to accelerate discovery as well as progression from the initial design of a material to its integration in commercial technologies by orders of magnitude. Recognizing this challenge, the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) (15) championed by the White House calls for the synergistic combination of experiments, simulation, and data in order to accelerate the discovery of new materials enabling transformative technologies Taking advantage of the “Big Data” paradigm requires a distinctive set of skills that are not thus far in the usual repertoire of chemistry or materials science graduate students who typically receive little formal training in handling large data sets. Data-cognizant scientists need to not just acquire data, but to meaningfully fuse complex and disparate data, identify trends, and design probabilistic machine learning models for the goal-oriented development of materials. In order to gauge the needs of potential employers, we undertook an extensive survey of critical skills sought by employers. The survey included 65 potential employers (12 academic, 28 private, 23 government, 2 nongovernmental entities); respondents were invited to list the technical and professional skills that were most critical for graduates they wished to hire (Table 1). Interestingly, the responses reflect the need to balance interdisciplinarity with core knowledge and to develop both technical and professional skills. In addition, to expanded technical skills, essential professional skills need to be better addressed in a graduate training model. The findings are further resonant with comments from former graduate students mentored by the authors. These students have heard explicitly from potential and eventual employers that experiences with interdisciplinary and industrial collaborations are particularly attractive characteristics; the students have further stated that their own involvement with interdisciplinary collaborations was particularly useful since it forced them to articulate their arguments free of jargon, listen to arguments from entirely different disciplines couched in a distinctly unfamiliar framework, and allowed them to adopt specific roles. Indeed, the literature likewise reports that higher-order cognition is a major benefit of cooperative learning (16). These findings corroborate ideas articulated in the current literature on interdisciplinary training in general (11), and IGERTs in particular (17). These results, along with other studies of IGERT programs described above, as well as previous experience with these programs within our own team have led to our primary hypothesis that students can make the most effective contributions to interdisciplinary research only when they are well trained in their disciplines. We posit therefore that interdisciplinarity must begin with grounding in a chosen traditional discipline and this approach forms one of the cornerstones of our program (17). 69

Table 1. Top desired professional and technical skills and experience identified by potential employers of D3EM trainees

The D3EM program at Texas A&M University is structured to address three main challenges. First, the need to train research professionals and entrepreneurs who can “seize the data moment” to accelerate the materials discovery-development-deployment cycle across academia, government, and industry (15, 18); secondly, the need to train scientists and engineers with the necessary skills to transform data into knowledge without being blinded by the ‘“Big Data” mirage—i.e., mistaking data for knowledge (19)—and to effectively utilize this knowledge in the discovery and design of novel energy materials; and finally, the need to educate scientists and engineers who truly internalize the interdisciplinary research process, a problematic issue for many IGERTs (11, 12). As established, D3EM seeks to train the participating students to become skilled at creating and applying innovative data-enabled approaches with sound informatics and engineering design foundations to the discovery, design, and deployment of advanced materials, in particular those that enable the efficient and sustainable generation, storage, or utilization of energy.

Goals and Desired Outcomes: Some Wishful Thinking... Based on external input, discussions engaging about 15 faculty members at Texas A&M, and a rigorous review of the literature, a wishlist of student outcomes has been developed. The D3EM program seeks to prepare students who 1) are grounded in their own disciplines; 2) are capable of applying tools and methods from other disciplines in their own fields; 3) are able to translate tools developed in their own disciplines to solve problems in other fields; 4) can communicate with experts in other fields; 5) can effectively contribute to interdisciplinary efforts while developing a comprehensive understanding of the potentials and limitations of their own as well as other disciplines; and 6) and have the skills necessary to thrive in their chosen career path. Through rigorous evaluation of the program as it proceeds and of student outcomes, we hope to develop a good understanding of the impact of disciplinary grounding on interdisciplinary research vis a vis the IGERT model. We further 70

expect to evaluate how direct reflection and early-academic-career interventions can influence interdisciplinary learning. Finally, a key aspect of the program is a “community of scholars” designed to connect and engage faculty mentors. We hope to be able to elucidate whether an explicitly constructed interdisciplinary faculty group enhances interdisciplinary learning of D3EM trainees.

Structure of the Program: Nuts and Bolts… The D3EM program was launched in 2016 funded by a NSF NRT grant with an initial cohort of 6 students and was designed to specifically address the needs outlined in preceding sections. Distinctive characteristics of the program include: 1) learning outcomes aligned with critical skills identified by potential employers (Table 1) (17, 20); 2) a highly structured and comprehensive e-portfolio to enable students to internalize and reflect on the learning process to explicitly promote metacognition; 3) a capstone Materials Discovery and Design Studio that develops strong collaboration skills and promotes interdisciplinary approaches to the solution of complex materials development problems; 4) the creation of a faculty community of scholars to facilitate the internalization of interdisciplinarity within faculty participants; 5) a one-of-a-kind international school in computational materials science/informatics/engineering design; 6) leadership experience gained through mentoring new cohorts as well as advising undergraduate design teams; 7) a first-year graduate training sequence featuring strong disciplinary grounding followed by an interdisciplinary immersion––to ensure that the student have a sufficient disciplinary foundation; and 8) a variety of self-selected programs and training modules offering insight and experience in entrepreneurship, business modeling, innovative product design, and customer development (Lean Startup/I-Corps). Figure 1 depicts the interdisciplinary framework, key desired outcomes, distinctive characteristics, and typical timeline for progression to a degree for the D3EM program. The major programmatic organization and the projected funding schemes for students are outlined in Figure 2. The program consists of a first academic year (Fall/Spring) of disciplinary grounding followed by a summer of technical and professional skill building (summer school in computational materials science, initiation of e-learning portfolios). The second year consists of interdisciplinary integration, followed by an internship. Ph.D. students continue their involvement with the program by participating in required activities related to mentorship, leadership, professional/career development, and/or energy/entrepreneurship academic activities. The D3EM program is designed to fit within departmental degree requirements, with elements of the interdisciplinary curriculum tailored to match elective requirements in participating departments. Therefore the program will not increase time to graduation. While only a subset of trainees receive stipends through the program (five trainees in Year 1 and nine in each subsequent year), the programmatic offerings are not restricted to fellowship recipients; indeed the program has been explicitly designed to accommodate 20 or more trainees each year for an expected minimum of 80 trainees impacted by D3EM during the funding period. A certificate program is in the process of 71

administrative approvals and participants (not just fellows) have the opportunity to obtain a distinctive certificate in data-enabled design of materials in addition to their graduate degrees.

Figure 1. Data-Enabled Discovery and Design of Energy Materials (D3EM) at a glance. Reproduced with permission from http://d3em.tamu.edu/. Copyright 2016 D3EM.

72

Figure 2. Typical D3EM training timelines, integrating disciplinary grounding in the first year with a strong interdisciplinary curriculum starting in the second year with a number of components to build interdisciplinary and professional knowledge and skills––over the first summer––followed by interdisciplinary integration. Reproduced with permission from http://d3em.tamu.edu/curriculum/. Copyright 2016 D3EM.

Year 1: Getting the Basics Right As noted above a central hypothesis of our proposed interdisciplinary framework is that interdisciplinarity must begin with grounding in a chosen traditional discipline (17). Therefore, in their first year, the Ph.D. students will enroll in traditional disciplinary courses. At Texas A&M, chemistry graduate students are expected to take four formal courses in their first year. During this year, the students are funded through existing university mechanisms for entering graduate students, including teaching and graduate assistantships or fellowships awarded by the university or by other institutions. Although the students are expected to grow their expertise within their discipline during this first year, D3EM activities also begin to expose them to colleagues and scholars in adjacent disciplines. Conversations begin with monthly coffee discussions led by faculty in the varying disciplines related to topics such as setting goals and expectations, time management, and dealing with conflict, along with the D3EM colloquia focused on current research, allowing students to begin to know one another as a cohort, as well as the participating faculty, and to develop awareness of the language, methods, and current issues relevant to materials informatics. The first cohort has taken a leadership role in structuring these sessions and indeed students have taken the initiative to begin an independent student organization. During year 1, the students remain associated with their primary research advisors and begin graduate research focusing on topics wherein the confluence of data, design, and materials science can yield a significant contribution. The faculty Community of Scholars meetings meanwhile help in establishing interdisciplinary collaborations and allow faculty to identify areas of common interest, especially as it pertains to explicit application of informatics and engineering design tools to materials chemistry problems. 73

A D3EM formal student learning community cohort is organized during the spring semester of the disciplinary grounding year. Colleagues from the Center of Teaching Excellence have taken the lead in structuring this community, defining topics of interest, inviting experts from different areas, and generating a framework for instilling and internalizing interdisciplinarity. The learning community further provides a forum for students to explicitly reflect on the perspectives and limitations of their disciplines. By focusing on interdisciplinary communication early in their graduate careers, the community seeks to tackle perhaps the single largest impediment to interdisciplinary research. At the conclusion of the first academic year, D3EM trainees attend the Texas A&M University International Summer School in Computational Materials Science––which forms an essential element of the D3EM experience and provides trainees with a global perspective as approximately half of the participants usually come from institutions in other countries. This school has been offered annually since 2012 and has thus far trained over 75 students from more than 21 different institutions within the US and from 14 different countries. The school brings leading researchers from across the world and focuses on multi-scale computational materials chemistry, informatics, data analytics, and computer-aided materials design. Lecture videos and notes––equivalent to a 3 credit hour course––are made freely available through the school’s website and have been accessed thousands of times from locations around the world. In other words, the school serves as a “bootcamp” and within a very short time equips students with the toolset required to integrate “Big Data” analytics with chemical and materials research. Another critically important element that has been initiated in the first year is a structured self-reflection exercise (21). Prompted by thought-provoking questions and problems, the students are invited reflect on a regular basis and record thoughts in an electronic integrated learning portfolio (22) that documents and synthesizes learning experiences, serves as a core of their individual development plan (IDP), promotes metacognition, provides evidence of learning throughout the program, and provides a valuable resource as students seek employment (23). Key personnel with teaching and learning expertise are overseeing the portfolio creation process in which the students articulate what they have learned, why it matters, and how they will utilize the knowledge in the future. The structured electronic portfolio is thus a valuable and entirely scalable tool to improve internalization of the interdisciplinary research process.

Year 2: Stepping It Up a Notch... Beginning in the fall of their second year, the D3EM curriculum is designed to formally expose students to the content that forms the basis for interdisciplinarity in materials, engineering design, and informatics. D3EM’s curriculum includes a core of four courses required of all students. These supplement the disciplinary coursework required by individual departments. In particular, the curriculum exposes chemistry and materials science students to a pair of formal courses in informatics and engineering design. In its first iteration, the informatics course 74

has served as a valuable vehicle for equipping students with coding and data analytics skills oftentimes entirely absent from chemistry and materials curricula. Similarly, the advanced product design course has provided students valuable exposure to industrial design specifications and by using a project-based approach has allowed students to experience the metabolic processes of a fast-paced startup. Having obtained a good feel for both disciplinary and interdisciplinary research and having integrated themselves within the D3EM community, the students will further proceed at this point to put together their doctoral advisory committees, which will include multiple members from amongst D3EM faculty. In each case this committee will play a vital role in assisting the student to define their lines of inquiry and to ensure disciplinary rigor across the multiple disciplines. A linchpin of the D3EM program is a semester-long Materials Studio Course. This course emphasizes experiential, problem-based learning and is specifically focused on preparing trainees for the next stage of their careers as they begin to establish the direction of their research. The course is intended to be a targeted follow-on to the Advanced Product Design course and seeks to actively and explicitly promote interdisciplinarity. Students in interdisciplinary teams will work on real-world materials problems defined by industrial and governmental partners in consultation with D3EM faculty, or linked to existing interdisciplinary research at TAMU. This approach was inspired by the Harvey Mudd Clinic, which uses externally sponsored projects to improve learning (24). Two particularly effective laboratory courses (albeit in very different disciplines) implemented at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and the University of California, Santa Cruz further serve as models for the incorporation of authentic practice, interdisciplinary experiments, and cooperative learning (9, 25). This studio was also motivated by Hackett and Rhoten who established the difficulty experienced by many IGERT students in internalizing the interdisciplinary research process (11). The Design Studio combines weekly seminars with studio sessions involving project teams, advisors (usually members of previous D3EM cohorts), and faculty instructors. The course is team-taught by D3EM faculty and also features guest lectures. The seminar provides a forum for instruction on important topics including: 1) ethics and responsible conduct of research; 2) societal challenges and their relationships to materials design; 3) methods to formulate interdisciplinary research problems; 4) entrepreneurial and start-up methodologies; and 5) relevant technical issues in materials design. A major objective is to train students to formulate difficult problems and open questions arising in materials design. Each team tackles problems provided by industry and national laboratory partners with “real world” datasets and is to be mentored by D3EM faculty. The goal is to solve materials development problems by integrating computational/experimental approaches and by using design theories as well as informatics approaches. At the end, the teams are expected to present and document either i) a basic science research proposal; ii) an industry technical feasibility report; iii) small business innovation research (SBIR)-type proposal for technology development; or iv) NSF I-CORPS proposal, depending on the interests of teams and technology readiness level of specific projects. The resulting document will be reviewed by 75

a panel of researchers from academia, industry, or national laboratories. Short modules have been provided by the Texas A&M Mays Business School’s Center for New Ventures as part of the course to instill an appreciation for entrepreneurial approaches. A detailed description of the studio course including case studies of specific problems tackled and outcomes will be documented at the conclusion of the first phase of the program. Beyond the second year, PhD students enrolled in the program are encouraged to continue their participation through continuing professional/career development activities, mentoring of junior D3EM trainees/undergraduate students and/or by taking courses in entrepreneurship or energy-related issues through D3EM’s partnership with the Center for New Ventures. The role of more advanced students in the evaluation process will also be critical in evolving the D3EM program. By identifying particular impediments, the program will be restructured to better provide students with the relevant tools to succeed in interdisciplinary research. The students will complete an internship for a minimum of three months, which will provide them with a situated learning experience involving real-world materials design and informatics problems with societal value. Clear objectives and desired outcomes, tailored to student interests and host needs will be developed prior to the internship. After the internship, those objectives will be assessed. Students will be asked to submit a reflection of the internship experience and further encouraged to continue to document their intellectual growth using the e-portfolio.

A Walk in Her Footsteps: Progression through the Program A student obtaining a BS degree in Chemistry has been accepted to the D3EM trainee program and desires to complete an interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Chemistry supplemented by experience in Informatics, and Engineering Design. The student receives funding for the first year through a departmental teaching assistantship in chemistry and begins the traineeship through disciplinary grounding––e.g., by taking two foundational courses in materials and analytical chemistry offered by the Department of Chemistry in her first semester where she also selects a research advisor. She receives advice from D3EM faculty and starts designing her individual development plan. During the first year, she begins graduate research under the supervision of her primary advisor and becomes involved in ongoing research activities, perhaps related to new materials for batteries. The student begins to develop fundamental reflection and communication skills. She records her experience as entries into her electronic integrated learning portfolio (22). The reflections are shared with her D3EM colleagues through biweekly discussions where communication skills are further developed. Once a month during the first year, the student attends a colloquium presented or hosted by D3EM faculty followed by further discussion with trainee colleagues and reflection in her journal. During summer 1, the student joins an interdisciplinary learning community where experts address topics such as ethics, programming, databases, and desired topics identified by the trainees. Interdisciplinary collaboration and 76

critical thinking techniques are explored and practiced along with mentoring from the D3EM faculty, who themselves have been meeting throughout the year as a Community of Scholars. The student further attends informal coffee sessions, learns about the research of her colleagues from other disciplines, and gets involved in the student organization. The trainee attends the International Summer School in Computational Materials Science. Reflection continues and is documented in the learning journal and shared through social media. During this time, she gains more experience and focus in her research. Interdisciplinary coursework begins in the fall including D3EM core courses in Advanced Product Design and Materials Informatics, which set the stage for the capstone Materials Design Studio in the Spring. During the fall, the student further picks a doctoral advisory committee based on her research problem and sets up a preliminary meeting with the committee to better define lines of inquiry. The NRT trainee participates in an internship at a national laboratory during the second summer, capturing experiences and writing about how those experiences relate to her interdisciplinary framework and can be capitalized during future education and experiences. A rubric describes the performance goals and expectations of the internship and are reviewed with the trainee by the D3EM mentor and agreed upon by the employer prior to beginning the internship. A focused interdisciplinary research plan becomes the target goal in the fall of the third year while the trainee begins developing leadership skills through mentoring undergraduate research projects. She submits and defends her dissertation proposal wherein based on research under her primary advisor, as well as input from D3EM advisory committee members and internship supervisor (where appropriate), she formulates a plan for the completion of the dissertation research. The NRT trainee is also presented with the opportunity to add a concentration in entrepreneurship by taking courses offered by the Center for New Ventures and Entrepreneurship during Years 3—5 of her PhD. It is expected that the student then navigates the academic cultures of multiple disciplines to publish meaningful research in premier peer-reviewed journals that provide a jargon-free understanding of the opportunities available at the “big data” and chemistry interface. It is expected that upon successful completion of her PhD dissertation, the trainee is well equipped for a variety of career paths and is able to navigate her way across changing landscapes. In addition to her technical skills, she has acquired leadership skills, coupled with a broad knowledge base.

Evaluating Progress: A Yardstick for Measuring Interdisciplinarity Structural aspects of the program including assessments and curricular activities are correlated to desired student learning outcomes as shown in Table 2. Each learning outcome was further defined using desired performance criteria expected across developmental levels as the student progresses (competency rubrics). These competency rubrics are then used for assessment and self-auditing purposes. Outcomes in the table have also been matched to desired skills identified 77

in Table 1. A means of assessment has been identified for each learning outcome following a specific curricular activity. These outcomes will be variously assessed by D3EM faculty and implementation team members, the doctoral dissertation committee, peer students, and/or the external evaluator. One example of a learning outcome assessment concerns the materials science core disciplinary component of the desired interdisciplinarity. Assessment involves the faculty advisor measuring the knowledge and skill development of a student. The faculty advisor identifies the current strengths as well as gaps in knowledge and skills for each of several performance indicators defined in the competency rubric, and suggests recommendations for improvement if gaps exist (Figure 3). This assessment opens the opportunity for dialogue around one of the key disciplinary components and the expectation is that the assessment will lead to better understanding and shared expectations among the faculty and students. Several professional skills were identified by potential employers as important for a graduate’s success and these skills are not always easy to measure. A competency rubric for each skill was carefully crafted starting with examples from best practices in the literature and edited by the D3EM key personnel. Specific curricular activities and assessments for each professional skill outcome are listed in Table 2. The overall program evaluation includes surveys of the faculty participating in the community of scholars as well as surveys completed by the students participating in the program.

78

Table 2. Learning outcomes for D3EM trainees, with corresponding technical (ts) and professional (ps) skill

79

Figure 3. A rubric designed to address strengths and gaps in student understanding of materials science and materials chemistry.

80

Case Studies in Interdisciplinarity While the D3EM program is barely a year old, we present here a brief synopsis of several research findings that it has enabled. These short case studies provide a glimpse of bringing to bear data science and engineering tools to chemical and materials design problems. The size of the data sets in this initial set of studies is relatively modest in comparison to truly large sets used for instance in analysis of retail preferences or diagnostics of genome information. It is anticipated that with refinement of data analytics tools as well as the development of high-throughput approaches for data acquisition, much larger data sets will become available and be amenable to similar analysis. Example 1. Reversing the Process−Structure Paradigm: An Inverse Design Framework The materials discovery/development cycle essentially comprises the exploration of a material design space in order to identify the chemistry/processing conditions that result in optimal (micro)structural and/or morphological features that in turn yield targeted/desirable property/performance metrics. Due to the highly complex relationships between processing conditions and (micro)structure and morphology, the determination of optimal materials processing schedules relied extensively on prior work, extensive Edisonian exploration of the materials design space, and/or intuition built through decades of experience. This traditional approach has clearly been effective in both materials chemistry and materials science, as can be attested by the vast number of technologies enabled by materials discovery over the past centuries. There are, however, limits to this approach, particularly when one considers that technology development often occurs at time-scales that can be several times faster than the normal materials development cycle. In recent years, there have been significant efforts towards the acceleration of the materials development cycle. As mentioned above, the advent of the Materials Genome Initiative has energized this area of research even further (15). D3EM seeks to explore different aspects of this challenge through the development of concepts and tools organized along the process—structure—property—performance (PSPP) paradigm (Figure 4) (26). Within the PSPP paradigm, considerable effort has been spent on the forward problem connecting processing to structure, structure to properties or properties to performance. On the computational front, much work has in fact been invested on identifying the response/properties of specific chemical structures (materials chemistry) or microstructures (materials science). While there has been some progress on the connection of property/performance metrics to (optimal) microstructures (27), not much work has been carried out towards solving the inverse problem of connecting desired/optimal microstructures (or structural motifs) to their corresponding processing schedules. In the remainder of this section, we will briefly describe some efforts carried out by faculty and students of the D3EM collaboration towards the solution to these types of problems (26). Here, we discuss the specific case of materials 81

microstructural features characterized by the presence of nanoscale secondary phases within a matrix. The secondary phases in this type of microstructural motif usually form through precipitation reactions from a metastable solution phase. The precipitation of secondary phases from a metastable matrix can be understood essentially as one involving nucleation and growth kinetics (28). Since nucleation events keep occurring as long as the thermodynamic force for the formation of a secondary phase is not exhausted, the resulting microstructure consists of a matrix enclosing a population of secondary particles following a size distribution that depends not only on nucleation and growth but also on the coarsening of individual particles as the system seeks to minimize excess interfacial energies by growing larger particles at the expense of the smaller ones (29). Since precipitation is a highly non-linear process, the final shape of the size distribution in a population of precipitates is very sensitive to specific processing conditions (i.e., time—temperature histories). In the context of computational materials science, this specific problem has already been formalized as the so-called numerical Kampmann—Wagner model (29). Within the NKW framework, the population of precipitates is organized in terms of bins corresponding to the time interval during which a population of particles nucleated. The model follows each (sub)population of particles by growing them according to local growth laws derived from fundamental kinetic theories and also accounts for coarsening as a result from curvature-driven differences in chemical potentials between different sub-populations of particles (30). The actual solution to the NKW model is mathematically that of a system of non-linear ordinary differential equations and for a given time-temperature history it is possible to predict a distribution of particle sizes.

Figure 4. The forward and inverse problems in materials science development. A much more difficult problem is that of identifying the temperature—time history necessary to produce a specific, pre-defined distribution of particle sizes. This is in essence an inverse problem in that there may be a vast number of solutions––i.e., temperature histories––that yield very similar precipitate populations. Mathematically, the problem can be framed in terms of three major components: (1) implementation of the NKW model to predict nucleation, growth and coarsening of secondary precipitate phases as a function of arbitrary thermal 82

histories; (2) development of a unique metric that is able to provide an indication on how close/far is a given precipitate distribution; and (3) the search/optimization framework necessary to navigate the materials design space. In Figure 5 we illustrate the framework developed by D3EM faculty and students to address this issue as applied to the problem of engineering precipitate distributions in NiTi-based shape memory alloys, a very important class of active materials whose response can be tailored through microstructural design. Figure 6 illustrates the performance of the proposed framework against synthetic (i.e., target) precipitate distributions. Preliminary results suggest that the framework is able to develop robust solutions to this very specific structure-processing inverse problem.

Figure 5. Proposed framework for the prescription of heat treatments yielding specific precipitate distributions in heterogeneous NiTi-based shape memory alloys.

Figure 6. Precipitate size distributions of two distinct thermal histories attempting to match distribution marked as square markers. Reprinted from Materials & Design, 107, Johnson, L.; Arroyave, R., An inverse design framework for prescribing precipitation heat treatments from a target microstructure, 7-17, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier. 83

Example 2. Tracking Li-Ion Diffusion in a Cathode Material The second case study focuses on understanding the mechanisms by which a potential cathode material for Li-ion batteries is transformed upon the reversible insertion of Li-ions. V2O5 is a layered transition metal oxide that serves as a classical intercalation host for cations (31–33). The insertion of Li-ions results in reduction of the pentavalent vanadium sites with the intercalated ions residing in interstitial sites between the layers where they are coordinated by the oxide anions from [VO5] polyhedra. Initial intercalation events result in localization of electron density and the formation of small polarons, thereby establishing lithiation gradients within particles (34). Subsequent intercalation of Li-ions is accompanied by a series of structural transformations as the structure seeks to make room for a higher concentration of Li-ions by expanding the interlayer spacing and puckering as well as sliding of the individual layers (35, 36). Each phase is stable for a specific range of Li-ion concentrations x in LixV2O5. In an electrochemical cell, Li-ion intercalation proceeds rather heterogeneously with different particles lithiated at different rates depending on their size, defect density, and distance from the electrode. This heterogeneity is responsible in large measure for many electrode materials not reaching their theoretical capacity. The analysis of a lithiated sample is thus rather complex since it is almost always a phase mixture of materials with different Li-ion stoichiometries oftentimes also crystallized in different phases. In past work, we have shown that even individual nanowires can show considerable heterogeneity of lithiation across their cross-sections (34). Analyzing a complex heterogeneous mixture by spectroscopy or imaging methods thus represents a formidable challenge. However, recognizing that each phase of LixV2O5 with a specific stoichiometry x will have its own distinct spectroscopic signature provides a means to follow intercalation/deintercalation processes, which of course is of tremendous importance for mechanistic elucidation and cathode design. The challenge therefore is to chemometrically deconvolute measured spectra to chemically meaningful combinations of spectral signatures. X-ray absorption spectroscopy is an excellent element-specific probe of both local geometric and electronic structure of transition metal oxides (37, 38). By using data analytics, specifically principal component analysis and multivariate curve resolution in conjunction with first-principles density functional theory calculations, we have identified V K-edge X-ray absorption spectral signatures of different phases of LixV2O5 (Figure 7). A chemical lithiation process, modeling Li-ion intercalation within a battery, is then analyzed using V K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (39). Deconvolution of the spectral data suggest that at low concentrations of Li-ions, the V2O5 nanowires are homogeneously converted to a low-lithium-content (x ~ 0.1) α-phase; with a further increase of lithium concentration, a high Li-content ε-phase is nucleated. Increasing the Li-ion concentration thereon brings about an increase in the concentration of the ε-phase at the expense of the α-phase with a clear two-phase progression observed in this concentration regime. Although the changes in the pre-edge features are subtle, the application of deconvolution methods to spectra acquired in triplicate allows for detailed insight into the structural progression induced by lithiation without 84

need for standard samples (Figure 7G). Data analytics further inform speciation of lithiated species visualized from scanning transmission X-ray microscopy acquired at V L- and O K-edges (Figure 7C and D). In this measurement, transmission X-ray spectra are acquired at each ca. 30 x 30 nm pixel yielding an image stack of hyperspectral data. Singular value decomposition of the image stack using specific spectral components identified by region of interest analysis allows for mapping of the weight of each spectral component at each pixel as illustrated for the spectra in Figures 7E and F in Figures 7C and D, respectively. The spectral mapping clearly illustrates phase segregation of Li-rich ( ε-phase) and Li-poor (α-phase) domains. In other words, data analytics allows for the construction of a chemically meaningful model of structural progression from complex and highly heterogeneous spectral and imaging data (39).

Figure 7. An example of the application of data analytics to examine the mechanism of lithiation of V2O5. A) V K-edge XANES spectra of LixV2O5 with varying extents of incorporated lithium are treated with a multivariate curve resolution approach that allows for the identification of three components as illustrated in (B). MCR spectra represent the total variances in the spectral data and do not directly correspond to specific spectral signatures but the components can be assigned as being characteristic of specific vanadium oxidation states and symmetries. Component 3 has spectral features characteristic of unlithiated V2O5; component 2 corresponds to low-lithiated α-LixV2O5; whereas component 1 is characteristic of a relatively highly lithiated ε- or δ-phase. (C) and (D) represent scanning transmission X-ray microscopy intensity maps for the spectral components shown in (E) and (F), respectively; the X-ray absorption spectral components are identified based on singular value decomposition of spectral stacks. The images suggest a two-phase behavior with the interior 85

corresponding to a higher extent of lithiation. (G) Schematic illustration of lithiation mechanism. The V2O5 nanowires are initially homogeneously lithiated to the low-lithium-ion α-phase. Subsequently, further insertion of Li ions results in supersaturation of the low-concentration phase, resulting in nucleation of the high-Li-ion concentration phase at the nanowire edges (as discernible in Figure 7C and D). This high-lithium-ion phase then grows at the expense of the low-lithiated phase until full conversion is achieved. Adapted from Reference (39). Copyright 2016 American Chemical Society. In ongoing work, spectral imaging of large data stacks is being used to develop a multiscale model for intercalation/deintercalation of Li-ions from a model cathode material. Machine learning is further being used to delineate synthetic conditions for hydrothermal synthesis of metastable vanadium oxide compounds by rapidly mapping multidimensional parameter space. Detailed mechanistic elucidation is further permitting the design of novel cathode materials and cathode architectures specifically designed to mitigate bottlenecks to Li-ion intercalation and diffusion.

Prospects and Some Concluding Remarks The chemical sciences have continuously evolved to embrace the opportunities made available by adjacent disciplines. The emergence of data science and its intersection with the physical sciences provides tremendous opportunities for addressing the inherent complexities of chemical and materials design particularly from the perspective of inverse design directed at meeting functional requirements as needed for specific technological applications. The D3EM program at Texas A&M is taking aim at piloting a new interdisciplinary model for STEM doctoral education that produces scientists grounded in one discipline but who have the professional and technical skills to effectively communicate, collaborate, and lead interdisciplinary teams, as is increasingly required in both academia and industry. As tectonic shifts of the global economy dramatically alter the landscape of desired skills and the trajectories of professional careers, we are seeking to emphasize versatility, agility, and communication, combined with deep disciplinary grounding. The D3EM model has been designed based on detailed discussions and surveys of potential employers, a review of the strengths and failings of past models for interdisciplinary graduate education, and is inspired by feedback provided by former graduate students mentored by the authors. A rigorous formative and summative evaluation framework has been designed to ensure that the model can be continuously refined to meet the overarching objectives of preparing students who can effectively communicate beyond disciplinary boundaries and who are well positioned to take advantage of tools developed in adjacent disciplines. An important ongoing endeavor is to consider opportunities and challenges for scaling this model beyond the cohorts funded by the NRT grant. Indeed, the introduction of a certificate program has allowed extension of the model to students not directly supported by the grant. Several components of the program, for instance, courses in materials informatics and the studio 86

course have already received widespread interest across campus and have allowed graduate students to access several of these components on an a la carte basis. Ongoing efforts are directed at expanding the scope of the program with the help of industrial, state, and federal support. While this contribution seeks to outline the motivation and design of the program and to highlight its specific components, future contributions will report on our qualitative and quantitative learnings and the success of this model in instilling interdisciplinarity both in the students and involved faculty.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge support of the Data-Enabled Discovery and Design of Energy Materials (D3EM) program by the National Science Foundation under Award DGE-1545403. SB acknowledges the Research Corporation for Science Advancement for Cottrell Scholar and Scialog Awards that have allowed for experimentation with interdisciplinary research and education. We thank Jodie Lutkenhaus, Doug Allaire, Patrick Shamberger, Ed Dougherty, Miladin Radovic, and Hong-Cai Zhou for their thoughtful comments and contributions to designing this program.

References Blocker, A. A Brief History of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Anal. Chem. 1993, 65, 295–302. 2. Doerr, A. A Biological Tool with Chemical Applications. Nat. Methods 2005, 2, 896–896. 3. Schmahl, W.; Steurer, W. Laue Centennial. Acta Cryst. 2012, A68, 2–2. 4. David, S. V.; Hayden, B. Y. Neurotree: A Collaborative, Graphical Database of the Academic Genealogy of Neuroscience. PloS One 2012, 7, 1–12. 5. Metzger, N.; Zare, R. N. Interdisciplinary Research: From Belief to Reality. Science 1999, 283, 642–643. 6. Cech, T. R.; Rubin, G. M. Nurturing Interdisciplinary Research. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2004, 11, 1166–1169. 7. Gill, S. V.; Vessali, M.; Pratt, J. A.; Watts, S.; Pratt, J. S.; Raghavan, P.; DeSilva, J. M. The Importance of Interdisciplinary Research Training and Community Dissemination. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2015, 8, 611–614. 8. Hancock, S.; Walsh, E. Beyond Knowledge and Skills: Rethinking the Development of Professional Identity During the STEM Doctorate. Studies High. Ed. 2014, 41, 37–50. 9. Ares, M., Jr. Interdisciplinary Research and the Undergraduate Biology Student. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2004, 11, 1170–1172. 10. Rhoten, D.; Parker, A. Education: Risks and Rewards of an Interdisciplinary Research Path. Science 2004, 306, 2046–2046. 11. Hackett, E. J.; Rhoten, D. R. The Snowbird Charrette: Integrative Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Environmental Research Design. Minerva 2009, 47, 407–440. 1.

87

12. Begg, M. D.; Vaughan, R. D. Are Biostatistics Students Prepared to Succeed in the Era of Interdisciplinary Science? (And How Will We Know?). Am. Stat. 2011, 65, 71–79. 13. Borrego, M.; Newswander, L. K. Definitions of Interdisciplinary Research: Toward Graduate-level Interdisciplinary Learning Outcomes. Rev. High. Ed. 2010, 2010, 61–84. 14. Rodgers, J. R.; Cebon, D. Materials Informatics. MRS Bull. 2006, 31, 975. 15. Materials Genome Initiative for Global Competitiveness; National Science & Technology Council: Washington, DC, 2011. 16. Herron, J. D.; Nurrenbern, S. C. Chemical Education Research: Improving Chemistry Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 10, 1353–1361. 17. Borrego, M.; Cutler, S. Constructive Alignment of Interdisciplinary Graduate Curriculum in Engineering and Science: An Analysis of Successful IGERT Proposals. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 99, 355–369. 18. Pollock, T. M.; Allison, J. E.; Backman, D. G.; Boyce, M. C.; Gersh, M.; Holm, E. A.; LeSar, R.; Long, M.; Powell IV, A.; Schirra, J. J.; Whitis, D.; Woodward, C. Integrated Computational Materials Engineering: A Transformational Discipline for Improved Competitiveness and National Security; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2008. 19. Bittner, M. L.; Dougherty, E. R.; Newton, R. R. Laplace, and the Epistemology of Systems Biology. Cancer Inf. 2012, 11, 85–90. 20. Wang, X.; Su, Y.; Cheung, S.; Wong, E.; Kwong, T. An Exploration of Biggs’ Constructive Alignment in Course Design and its Impact on Students’ Learning Approaches. Assess. Eval. High. Ed. 2013, 38, 477–491. 21. Van Hartesveldt, C.; Giordan, J. Impact of Transformative Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education on Academic Institutions; National Science Foundation, Division of Graduate Education: Washington, DC, 2008. 22. Yancy, K. B. Reflection and Electronic Portfolios. In Electronic Portfolios 2.0: Emergent Research on Implementation and Impact; Cambridge, D., Cambridge, B., Yancy, K. B., Eds.; Stylus Publishing: Sterling, VA, 2009. 23. Peet, M.; Lonn, S.; Gurin, P.; Boyer, K. P.; Matney, M.; Marra, T.; Taylor, S. H.; Daley, A. Fostering Integrative Knowledge through ePortfolios. Int. J. ePortfolio 2011, 1, 11–31. 24. Engineering Clinic Handbook: Harvey Mudd College: Claremont, CA, 2013. 25. Wright, J. C. Authentic Learning Environment in Analytical Chemistry using Cooperative Methods and Open-Ended Laboratories in Large Lecture Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 827–832. 26. Johnson, L.; Arroyave, R. An Inverse Design Framework for Prescribing Precipitation Heat Treatments from a Target Microstructure. Mater. Des. 2016, 107, 7–17. 27. Fullwood, D. T. Microstructure Sensitive Design for Performance Optimization. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2010, 55.6, 477–562. 28. Wagner, R.; Kampmann, R.; Voorhees, P. W.: Homogeneous Second‐Phase Precipitation. In Phase Transformations in Materials; Kostorz, G., Ed.; Wiley-VCH, 1991. 88

29. Institut für Werkstoffwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnologie. MatCalc6. http://matcalc.tuwien.ac.at/ (accessed February 7, 2017). 30. Kozeschnik, E.; Svoboda, J.; Fischer, F. D. Modified Evolution Equations for the Precipitation Kinetics of Complex Phases in Multi-Component Systems. Calphad 2004, 28.4, 379–382. 31. Winter, M.; Jurgen, O. B.; Spahr, M. E.; Novak, P. Insertion Electrode Materials for Rechargeable Lithium Batteries. Adv. Mater. 1998, 10, 725–763. 32. Whittingham, M. S. Lithium Batteries and Cathode Materials. Chem. Rev. 2004, 104, 4271–4301. 33. Marley, P. M.; Horrocks, G. A.; Pelcher, K. E.; Banerjee, S. Transformers: The Changing Phases of Low-Dimensional Vanadium Oxide Bronzes. Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 5181–5198. 34. De Jesus, L. R.; Horrocks, G. A.; Liang, Y.; Parija, A.; Jaye, C.; Wangoh, L.; Wang, J.; Fischer, D. A.; Piper, L. F. J.; Prendergast, D.; Banerjee, S. Mapping Polaronic States and Lithiation Gradients in Individual V2O5 Nanowires. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12022/12021–12029. 35. Chernova, N. A.; Roppolo, M.; Dillon, A. C.; Whittingham, M. S. Layered Vanadium and Molybdenum Oxides: Batteries and Electrochromics. J. Mater. Chem. 2009, 19, 2526–2552. 36. Horrocks, G. A.; Likely, M. F.; Velazquez, J. M.; Banerjee, S. Finite Size Effects on the Structural Progression Induced by Lithiation of V2O5: A Combined Diffraction and Raman Spectroscopy Study. J. Mater. Chem. A 2013, 1, 15265–15277. 37. Chaurand, P.; Rose, J.; Briois, V.; Salome, M.; Proux, O.; Nassif, V.; Olivi, L.; Susini, J.; Hazemann, J.-L.; Bottero, J.-Y. New Methodological Approach for the Vanadium K-edge X-ray Absorption Near-Edge Structure Interpretation: Application of Vanadium in Oxide Phases from Steel Slag. J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111, 5101–5110. 38. Wong, J.; Lytle, F. W.; Messmer, R. P.; Maylotte, D. H. K-edge Absorption Spectra of Selected Vanadium Compounds. Phys. Rev. B 1984, 30, 5596–5610. 39. Horrocks, G. A.; Braham, E. J.; Liang, Y.; de Jesus, L. R.; Jude, J.; Velazquez, J. M.; Prendergast, D. Vanadium K-Edge X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy as a Probe of the Heterogeneous Lithiation of V2O5: First-Principles Modeling and Principal Component Analysis. J. Phys. Chem. C 2016, 120, 23922–23932.

89

Chapter 5

Creation (and Recreation) of a Graduate Core Course in Chemistry Vincent M. Rotello* Department of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts, 710 North Pleasant St., Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Chemistry as a science and as a career choice is evolving rapidly. While considerable thought and effort has been placed into creation of undergraduate curricula to address these changes, graduate studies have not received the same level of attention. This chapter discusses efforts made at the University of Massachusetts to evolve the graduate chemistry curriculum over the past two decades, focusing on the centerpiece of the program, the Graduate Core Course.

Two readily defined goals for graduate chemistry education are knowledge in the field and professional training to help the students in their future careers. While it is relatively easy to obtained consensus on these goals, it is quite challenging to develop strategies to these ends that can be implemented by Faculty, many of which are quite conservative. This inertia is exacerbated by the fact that every faculty member is, by definition, successful. We are also quite confidant that what made them successful will make the next (and the next…) generation equally thrive. When I joined the Department of Chemistry at UMass in 1993, it was quite clear to me that the graduate curriculum was far from optimal. Students were required to “qualify” in three of five areas (organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, or biological.) either by passing the ACS exam in that subdiscipline or by taking a course and passing with a grade of “B” or better. There were multiple issues with that practice First, the students ended up taking full semesters of the two easiest areas outside of their own, which a) limited the “depth” courses they could take

© 2017 American Chemical Society

that semester in their area of choice and b) only gave them coursework in a portion of the discipline. A second, more philosophical issue in the prior system was that there was no effort to integrate students’ knowledge and understanding of chemistry. Siloing of knowledge presents a limitation in the ability of scientists to broaden their research outside of standard sub-disciplines, and also inhibits collaboration both across the field and with researchers in other disciplines.

Designing the Graduate Core Course In 1997 I started working with Scott Auerbach, a physical chemist (likewise untenured at the time) to revamp the graduate curriculum. Talking with other faculty, we found that the educational wishes of the faculty could be divided into two categories: depth and breadth. Depth represents knowledge and expertise in the student’s subdiscipline, while breadth refers to a broader understanding across the discipline. Our goal was to develop a program that addressed both needs, and preferably provided the students with the opportunity to gain other “soft” skills, such as writing and presentation. Scott and I first thought about the depth part of the equation. Conceptually, it is hard to argue that researchers in different subdisciplines know best what their students should know. Pragmatically, it seemed very unlikely that a couple of Assistant Professors were going to convince their senior colleagues that they had a better way of teaching the required concepts to the students, or even that we were qualified to determine what concepts were important. As a result, we decided that the division should determine depth requirements. As implemented, the divisions required two courses in their subdiscipline per semester. As the field of chemistry has broadened, however, these requirements have been loosened to allow students to pursue directions beyond the normal divisions of chemistry. The breadth issue required quite a bit more thought. Clearly, all chemists work with atoms and molecules, but different subdisciplines can view them in very different ways. What we came up with was the idea of a “Core Course” that would distill the key elements from the subdisciplines of chemistry and present them in a single class. We built off the current structure of the Department, with elements of physical, organic, inorganic, analytical and biological chemistry. Our goal was to provide students review and education in areas that people expect chemists to know. Given the range of science we wanted to cover, we next worked on how to teach the course. Given the topics, we felt that team teaching would be the best way to effectively teach the course, with the added benefit that being able to team teach would make the course attractive to professors looking to balance their research and educational efforts, i.e. the people you want teaching the course. The structure we generated had two professors/semester. The offerings were Fall: Physical and Organic; Spring: Inorganic, Analytical and Biological, with one of the faculty in the Spring covering two areas, e.g. Analytical and Biological taught by a biological mass spectrometrist. 92

While our conception seemed reasonable in terms of covering the topics chemistry graduate students needed, there was and still remains considerable challenges in implementation. In particular, it is very difficult to a) distill an area down to its essence and b) get faculty to teach that essence. The fact that we were unable to generate a departmental consensus on what students needed to know meant that that decision was handed to the faculty teaching the course. At times this worked well, with coherent curricula built around physical organic, integrating the tools of computational chemistry with the concepts of organic. Other times things were less successful, with incoherent unrelated topics that were often outside what most chemists would consider required for the discipline. Overall, there are times when the correct faculty align and an integrated view of “chemistry” is presented, and at other times a disjointed set of mini-courses has been presented. The Core Course and “Soft” Skills While coverage of the science material has remained a challenge, the Core Course has evolved into a program that has excelled in providing the “soft” skills required by careers in industry, academics and other areas. In the first year of the class we created a computational chemistry project focusing on the use of ab initio and density functional tools to predict or explain aspects of organic structure or reactivity. These projects were group projects, with three-four students per group. The product of the project was a short research report discussing their results. This assignment served a number of important roles in student development. First, for many students this is the first time they have been asked to conceive of a research project, giving them practice in thinking creatively, identifying a problem, and coming up with feasible strategies to provide answers. It also provides an opportunity to introduce basic elements of scientific writing, including generating a scientific narrative to enhance readability. Perhaps most importantly, the group nature of the project provided a chance for students to learn how to work creatively, and provided faculty with a chance to provide tips to help the students to work together. Building on the perceived success of the computational project, we next created a paper critique project. In this project, the students identify a paper, and create a presentation where one student argues the pro case for publication, one argues the con case, and one serves an editor and renders the decision. This activity provides an opportunity to help students look at the literature in a critical fashion, once again something that many or most of the students have never done. The exercise also provides an opportunity to give students the basics of preparing an oral presentation, where we can teach them basic elements of design and storytelling. At the same time as we instituted the paper critique, we introduced proposal writing as the capstone for the course. In this activity students work in teams of four to five, and are required to generate an idea, a one-page white paper, and a full proposal in the NIH R21 format (one page specific aims/executive summary, six pages of proposal text including statements of significance, innovation, and research design) and a 15-minute presentation. As one might expect, this project 93

is very demanding on both the students and faculty. Coming up with an idea that appeals to the group is quite difficult, and generally requires quite a bit of back and forth communication between the students and the two faculty teaching that semester. Writing the proposal likewise provides substantial further opportunity to help student learn how to frame their ideas textually, and how to create graphics that are informative. And as mentioned above, this proposal really places emphasis on developing good collaborative skills. It is perhaps somewhat glib to categorize the challenges of group projects as an issue of “collaborative skills”. What we have observed over the past few years is that most groups worked quite well, and the students genuinely enjoyed the teamwork aspect of the projects. There was also an imperative for the students to participate in the group effort, since each of them had to do part of the presentation, and (perhaps more significantly) answer questions afterward. Occasionally (~5% of the time) we heard grumblings from team members about either generic or specific teammates. These issues we could sometimes covertly address by asking questions about the project during class time allotted for the work. Pointed questions to each of the members worked well to encourage everyone to know the material, and hence pitch in. The success of this approach can be deduced from the absence of complaints on the students’ (anonymous) course evaluations. We also attempted to have the students do evaluations of teammates, but the normal reticence of students to “rat” on each other made these less than useful. The above being said, we did have one group over this period that devolved into what could be best described as a “Lord of the Flies” situation that required rapid and un-subtle intervention by the faculty teaching the course. This situation was quite surprising, and the best advice I can give is keep your eyes open for body language in the groups. In addition to the projects, we provide multiple “workshops” for the students through the Core Course. These include topics directly related to the projects, such as “How to read a paper—an Editor’s perspective” and “Writing a compelling proposal”. We also have an ethics workshop, where students do case studies and render their verdicts on a range of issues. In the past two years, I have instituted a workshop on leadership: “Managing up, down, and sideways”. In this meeting, Faculty discuss with the students how they can manage up, i.e. work most effectively with their bosses and mentors. We also provide hints on how they can work more effectively laterally, important tools for their collaborative projects. Finally, we have senior graduate students provide advice on how to work successfully with undergraduates, providing a chance for them to learn about aspects of leadership that are rarely provided to students. To provide a better idea of how the course is structured, here is the relevant portion of the syllabus from 2016:

94

Lessons Learned from the Group Activities There have been a number of positive outcomes (anecdotally, at least) from the group projects in the Core Course. First, students have had a much easier time and have done a better job on their Original Research Proposal, a requirement for the degree that they perform in the first semester of their third year. Second, students have had improved writing and presentation skills when they join research groups. Perhaps the greatest impact was surprising, but shouldn’t have been—Core Course instilled a sense of unity into the class. This cohesiveness was manifested in increased departmental spirit, and in a noticeable increase in collaborative research spawned from bottom-up connections initiated between students while in the Core Course. As with all social experiments, issues arose with the group projects. The vast majority of the groups worked quite smoothly, however there were some groups that devolved into reality show-like confrontations. These issues arose from key challenges that we all have, including: who should lead? How do we obtain consensus? What if there are two big egos on the team? In our teaching of the Core Course we learned a few lessons on how to maximize the positive aspects of group work while minimizing the conflicts. First, we found that having in-class time devoted to each of the projects provided 95

the faculty with a chance to smooth out interactions, helping to (subtly or not) direct discussions in profitable directions. We could also monitor the groups and intervene when confrontations were just starting. The second lesson we learned was to mix up the groups for each project—having to work with the same incompatible student for the entire semester created conflicts that were unresolvable.

Where Is the Core Course Going? After almost twenty years, it is now time for us to re-evaluate the role of the Core Course in the graduate curriculum. From the above it is clear that the “soft skills” goals of the course are being addressed better than the scientific content questions. This begs the question of whether the Core Course should focus on building the presentation, writing, and sociological skills required by the students and leaving the scientific content to other venues. This potential of moving the scientific breadth question outside of the course places the design of the Core Course into the broader question of “what does a graduate student need to learn in their classes.” Moving forward, our plan is to start with an outcome-oriented strategy. In this approach we will ask students who took Core Course what they thought was helpful and not regarding the materials. We will concurrently ask research faculty what they would like to have their students know before entering the labs. These will help us plan the new curriculum. We will then work to quantatively assess the success of our efforts through follow-up interviews with both students and faculty. This follow-up process will take time due to the stochastic nature of students and their advisors.

Concluding Thoughts When we started the Core Course it was an experiment that like most experiments had some surprises. But the underlying hypothesis that having all of the chemistry graduate students together would provide an integrational experience has held up. Additionally, the broader impacts of this approach are clear, with enhanced departmental spirit and communication. Overall, the experience has apparently been positive for both students and faculty, however a) there is always room for improvement and b) we need to develop metrics to help us assess and optimize the program,

Acknowledgments The support of the Research Corporation for Scientific Advancement for the Transformational Research and Excellence in Education Award.

96

Chapter 6

The Fisk-Vanderbilt Masters-to-PhD Bridge Program: Broadening Participation of Underrepresented Minorities in the Physical Sciences Keivan G. Stassun*,1,2 1Department

of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, VU Station B 1807, Nashville, Tennessee 37235, United States 2Physics Department, Fisk University, 1000 17th Ave. N., Nashville, Tennessee 37208, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

We describe the Fisk-Vanderbilt Masters-to-PhD Bridge program as a model for increasing PhDs to underrepresented groups in the physical sciences. The program couples targeted recruitment with active retention strategies, and is built upon a clearly defined mentoring structure that addresses individual student needs while maintaining high standards for student performance. An essential insight is that student potential must be evaluated with metrics (such as “grit”) that are much less biased against women and minorities than standardized tests (e.g., GRE). A key precept of the program philosophy is to eliminate passivity in student mentoring; students are deliberately groomed for the transition to the PhD program through active involvement in research experiences with future PhD advisers, coursework that demonstrates competency in core PhD subject areas, and frequent interaction with joint advising committees. This allows student progress to be monitored effectively and performance to be evaluated holistically. Since 2004, the program has attracted nearly 120 students, 85% of them underrepresented minorities, 45% of them women, with a PhD completion rate of 82%, making Fisk and Vanderbilt top producers of minorities earning master’s and PhD degrees in astronomy, physics, and materials science. © 2017 American Chemical Society

Introduction The under-representation of minorities in the space sciences is an order-of-magnitude problem, and is one of the major challenges facing the nation’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce as a whole (1). Black-, Hispanic-, and Native-Americans comprise more than 25% of the U.S. population, yet represent only ~3% of all astronomy and astrophysics PhD’s earned (National Survey of Earned Doctorates; NSED). In raw numbers, this translates into an average minority PhD production rate of about five individuals per year. Put another way, each of the roughly 50 astronomy and astrophysics PhD programs in the U.S. has an average PhD production rate of one underrepresented minority every ten years (2). This pattern of underrepresentation has remained largely unchanged for the past 30 years. Significantly, only about 40% of all PhDs earned in space science related disciplines are awarded to U.S. citizens and permanent residents (NSED). Minority-serving institutions are important producers of domestic minority talent in the sciences. Roughly one-third of all STEM baccalaureate degrees earned by African-Americans are earned at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and the top 15 producers of Black baccalaureates in physics are all HBCUs. Just 20 HBCUs were responsible for producing fully 55% of all Black physics baccalaureates in the U.S. for 1998 to 2007 (3). Institutional partnerships with HBCUs are thus a promising avenue for broadening participation in the physical sciences (4). At the same time, recent research on the educational pathways of minority students in STEM disciplines indicates that these students are roughly twice as likely as their non-minority counterparts to seek a master’s degree en route to the doctorate (5). These facts motivate programmatic approaches aimed at deliberately preparing underrepresented minority students for success as they traverse the critical Masters-to-PhD transition. Here we describe a program developed in partnership between Vanderbilt University, a PhD-granting R-1 university, and Fisk University, a research active HBCU, both in Nashville, Tennessee. The Fisk-Vanderbilt Masters-to-PhD Bridge Program (see www.fisk.edu/bridge) is for students who seek additional coursework or research experience before beginning PhD-level work. Students are not evaluated on the basis of GRE but rather on alternative metrics that are predictive of long-term success. The program provides a continuous path—a bridge—to the PhD that we have found is particularly effective for students whose baccalaureate degrees are from small, minority-serving institutions, and who may for a variety of reasons seek a master’s degree en route to the PhD. The program is flexible and tailored to the goals of each student. Courses are selected to address any gaps in undergraduate preparation, and research experiences are designed to pave the way for PhD-level work in the chosen area of study. While at Fisk, students enjoy regular interaction with Vanderbilt faculty including access to Vanderbilt courses and, of critical importance, thesis research performed under the joint supervision of Vanderbilt and Fisk faculty. In all cases, we deliberately develop research-based mentoring relationships between students and faculty that will foster a successful transition to the PhD. 98

The Importance of Masters-to-PhD Transitions for Underrepresented Minorities Master’s education is a growing enterprise in U.S. colleges and universities. Much of that growth has been attributed to the entrance of students of color. In the decade between 1990 and 2000, the total number of master’s degree recipients increased by 42%. During this same time period, the number of women earning master’s degrees increased by 56%, African Americans increased by 132%, American Indians by 101%, and Hispanics by 146% (6). A recent studyv provides critical new insight into the role of the master’s degree as underrepresented minority students proceed to the doctorate in STEM disciplines. Data from the NSED was used to examine institutional pathways to the doctorate, and transitions from masters’ to doctoral programs by race and gender, for a sample of more than 80,000 PhDs. As shown in Figure 1, the study identified six primary pathways to the PhD. Statistical analysis reveals that pathways are significantly different for underrepresented minorities (χ2=49.1, df=18, p