Collaborative, Interdisciplinary and Student-Led Approaches in Undergraduate Research, Teaching, and Learning

The Importance of Scientific Publishing: Teaching an Undergraduate How to Swim the Entire Length of the Pool

The organization Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience (FUN; www.funfaculty.org) was established in 1991 by a group of neuroscientists dedicated to innovation and excellence in undergraduate neuroscience education and research (Ramirez and Normansell, 2003 ). The founders experienced a need for a community of neuroscience educators because no formal division existed within the Society for Neuroscience (SfN; www.sfn.org) to support undergraduates or the faculty who focus on undergraduate neuroscience education. An educator's ability to incorporate current research and techniques in crowded undergraduate curricula becomes even more critical as our understanding of how nervous systems develop, function, adapt, and malfunction continues to expand. Teaching faculty must meet the significant challenges of communicating a broad and fast-paced discipline to a growing undergraduate audience. Moreover, as research experiences for undergraduates are increasingly encouraged and expected, providing undergraduates with meaningful research experiences is an additional, ongoing challenge for educators in the face of smaller budgets for research and education. To help undergraduate neuroscience faculty meet these challenges, FUN has emerged as a professional organization dedicated to the support and development of undergraduate neuroscience educators. The need for an organization that specifically supports excellence in undergraduate neuroscience has grown as an increasing number of interdisciplinary undergraduate neuroscience programs are formalized at colleges and universities. As evidence of the growing interest, FUN's membership has been increasing steadily and currently includes more than 500 individuals at more than 300 colleges and universities. FUN's members represent a broad range of scientific disciplines, including biology, psychology, chemistry, computer science, and philosophy; they work and teach at a variety of institutions, ranging from private, small liberal arts colleges to regional, state, and research universities.

There is debate in the social work education community regarding the structure and depth of undergraduate research. This article emphasizes the importance of a commitment to undergraduate research in social work education. Because generalist practice is the first level of professional practice, students in baccalaureate programs need to be prepared to assess their own practice, evaluate the effectiveness of agencies and organizational structures, and study societal issues affecting clients. All of these components are vital to effective practice. The authors present the current state of undergraduate research, discuss issues in undergraduate research, and provide models and strategies to strengthen undergraduate research to prepare students for practice and graduate education. They also emphasize the benefits of undergraduate research for students and faculty and for the social work profession. KEY WORDS: evidence-based practice; research models; social work education; teaching research; undergraduate research ********** Research at the undergraduate level has been offered long social work accreditation has been in existence. Undergraduate research is receiving national attention in many universities and in many disciplines, including social work. Much of this attention is because of the efforts of the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR), which has defined undergraduate research inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that makes an original, intellectual, or creative contribution to the discipline (CUR, 2007). This reflects the Council on Social Work Education's (CSWE) definition of research in its statement on research integrity as a systematic process of investigation and analysis that develops and promulgates generalizable knowledge to inform professional practice and social policy (CSWE, 2006, p. 2). IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH AT THE UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL Research is one of the central elements to improving students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Understanding and applying research methods, ethics, and conduct rules strengthen students' ability to value subjects and outcomes that affect them. Other benefits include learning to read the discipline's literature in critical ways to understand the issues in social work and the methods of evaluating them; understand the link between theory and professional intervention; develop communication skills; learn to work independently; expand innovation and creativity; use technology, including specific research-based computer programs; and work successfully with diverse people. Students develop stronger problem-solving skills and an enhanced ability to apply academic concepts to practice situations both in their field internships and in professional practice. A crucial benefit of collaborative undergraduate research is developing mentoring relationships with social work faculty. Collaborative projects can help students expand their professional interests and discover new areas of research opportunity. Successful collaboration with faculty enhances students' self-esteem, which can increase their confidence in their ability to move onto graduate education. When students engage in research with faculty, retention rates increase (CUR, 2007; Secret, Ford, & Rompf, 2003), do the rates of graduate school attendance (Ohio State University [OSU], 2006). In research classes, students learn information and concepts that can be applied to practice situations, particularly professional communication skills, collaboration, and effective teamwork. They also have the opportunity to take their experience into local communities to evaluate the problems of those communities. Students can address real issues and truly learn to evaluate the person-in-environment (Reid & Vianna, 2001).Jenson (2006) argued that community partnerships can provide learning opportunities for students and contribute to the public good. …

How to Get a Job Offer from a Smaller Joint Teaching‐Research Mission University and What to Do Once You Have It

Undergraduate Research Abroad: Challenges and Rewards

This study documents the efforts of the North Dakota (ND) IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) program to assist in the development of undergraduate research programs at four state-supported primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) in ND. The study was initiated in the 2004-2005 academic year and continues to the present. The study shows that gaining initial institutional support for undergraduate research was assisted by providing salary support for faculty involved in undergraduate research. Once research was ongoing, each institution evolved their own unique plan for the use of support from the ND INBRE. Undergraduate student researchers have prepared, presented, and defended their research results on 188 unique posters since initiation of the program, with many posters being presented at more than one meeting. PUI faculty have authored 35 peer-reviewed manuscripts. Evaluation has shown that over 95% of the undergraduate students performing research matriculated with their bachelor's degree. Career choices of 77.2% of these graduates was determined, and 37% pursued a career in the health professions. Of the students not pursuing a post-baccalaureate degree, 81.2% chose careers directly linked to science. The study reinforces the concept that undergraduate research can be performed directly on the PUI campus and be of value in preparing the next generation of health professionals in research, service, and teaching.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has changed things in ways unimaginable – including disruption of in‐person scientific research. To facilitate undergraduate student research remotely, due to COVID‐19, our lab switched from a traditional to a pedagogical approach of research. Case studies are excellent tools to introduce undergraduate students to a normal scientific process and allow us to capture reality, highlight various research methodologies, and improve critical thinking skills through process‐oriented inquiries.Our case study is focused on the most relevant topic in the news, COVID‐19 vaccine types and their efficacy. To‐date, this has been the largest vaccination campaign with over 15.9 million doses administered in 37 countries thus far, of which 5.48 million vaccinations were given in the United States alone (Jan 6, 2021). With the arrival of the vaccine in the new year, health professionals are now confident in the world's ability to curb the virus. However, there is a growing concern on the differences between the various vaccines that are being offered around the world and their efficacies. The goal of this pedagogical research is to use an inquiry‐based approach while developing a case study that sheds light on these concerns.Our approach involved a comprehensive literature search, spanning the past year, using the PubMed Central search engine with “COVID AND SARS‐CoV‐2 AND vaccine” as descriptors. The search initially yielded 2,127 journal articles which was narrowed to identify articles on vaccine efficacy (1,122). We then examined the statistics of potential vaccines in the pipeline in various countries. Of the ~200 publications thus identified, 5 were clinical trials, 4 randomized controlled trials, 151 reviews with 9 systematic reviews. These articles were screened for the most accurate, peer‐reviewed information regarding each vaccine which was then used to construct this case study.Our case study follows a group of fictitious characters ‐ 3 friends living in the United States with family members abroad. One of the subjects who is living in Illinois is immunocompromised; the other has elderly family members living in India and the third with family members living in the United Kingdom, where there is a new variant of SARS‐CoV2. The case study discusses a) types of COVID‐19 vaccines available globally, b) efficacy, c) distribution, and d) vaccine campaign. This case study is geared towards undergraduate students in immunology, and allied health programs, graduate students in physiology, nursing and public health, and other professional programs using case‐based collaborative learning.With this case, we offer a novel strategy to circumvent COVID‐related barriers and move undergraduate research forward, with the caveat that students are not working on their original research hypotheses. The case study research model provides an alternate way to train students in the scientific process to evaluate and identify high‐quality research. Further, by addressing the science behind the COVID vaccines, we hope to provide timely information to assist with critical analysis, interpretation and to help navigate the quagmire of information available to the community.

IntroductionUndergraduate research initiatives across major institutions have received considerable investment and attention over the last two decades. The reason for this attention is not far‐fetched, as numerous studies have enumerated the benefits of undergraduate research. These include undergraduate students' self discovery, enhanced career preparedness, increased retention, intellectual independence, development of critical thinking and problem solving skills, to mention a few. Furthermore, academic institutions as well as research scientists see undergraduates as the future of the academia. Undoubtedly every investment in undergraduate research activity is about securing the future of the research enterprise.Like other research‐intensive institutions, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) is also very committed and continues to heavily invest in undergraduate research. This paper reports on one of such undergraduate research initiatives called the Undergraduate Research Workshop Series (URWS). This workshop series focuses on providing information and enhancing the capability and the untapped research potentials of undergraduate students at UAB. Succinctly, the workshop is structured in three main modules: Introduction to Research (2 sessions), Good Laboratory Practices (3 sessions), and Research Communication (2 sessions). Most of the invited speakers are postdoctoral scholars or graduate students. In addition, the undergraduate students are provided the opportunity to participate in the “Shadow‐a‐postdoc Initiative (ShaPI)” program. In this program, students interested in research experiences are “matched” based on common research interests with a postdoctoral fellow (mentor) for a brief period of research shadowing. Therefore, the major objective of this study was to evaluate the success of the URWS in tandem with the the ShaPI program.MethodsWe utilized a mixed‐methods research design in our evaluation of the URWS. Descriptive statistics and thematic analyses of students' responses are presented. For the quantitative date collection a likert‐scale survey was used to elicit participating students' perceptions of the different modules of the URWS. Moreover, qualitative responses were tallied through feedback provided by the students on their experiences with the ShaPI program and their assigned mentors.ResultsOur preliminary findings indicate that all the respondents rated the workshop as very good or excellent. Similarly, about 93% of respondents indicated that they agree or strongly agree that the workshop increased their awareness of different types of research being conducted at UAB. Of the students who signaled interest in engaging in the research shadowing opportunity, about 30% of these students made initial contact with their assigned mentors and participated in the shadowing program. Currently, about 22% of these undergraduates are currently performing undergraduate research in a research lab.ConclusionIncreasing the knowledge, attitude, and the interests of mentored undergraduates in research may enhance the likelihood of such students to pursue research opportunities in the future. Implications for improving recruitment, pedagogy, and students' retention as it relates to undergraduate research are also delineated.Support or Funding InformationThis work is supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants T32‐DK7545 and GM K12 088010 to Oreoluwa Adedoyin

This study analyzed terminal degree and career choices of students who performed undergraduate research. In one analysis, the study compared terminal degree and career choices between a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) and traditional non-course-based undergraduate research experiences at one primarily undergraduate institution (PUI). Students who pursued postbaccalaureate programs chose terminal degrees at levels exceeding 75%, with no significant difference between a CURE experience and a traditional research experience. Analysis of terminal degree and career choices at four PUIs providing traditional research experiences showed a marked difference in the number of students pursuing terminal degrees. Two PUIs showed rates > 75%, whereas students at the other two PUIs pursued terminal degrees <50% of the time. The majority of students not pursuing terminal degrees chose M.S. degrees in education and healthcare. An analysis was also performed among students participating in traditional summer undergraduate research on a research-intensive university (RIU) campus with a medical school. Students were accepted from two programs, an NIH IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) program recruiting students from the RIU and an NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program recruiting undergraduates from rural PUIs and minority-serving institutions, particularly tribal colleges. Analysis showed that >70% of the students who pursued postbaccalaureate programs chose terminal degrees. INBRE undergraduates displayed a marked preference for the M.D. degree (73.9% vs. 17.4%), whereas the REU students chose the Ph.D. degree (75.0% vs. 22.9%). American Indian students were also analyzed separately for career choice and showed an equal preference for the M.D. and Ph.D. degrees when pursuing postbaccalaureate education. Overall, the results provide evidence that undergraduate student research stimulates student careers in areas needed by the nation's citizen stakeholders.

Undergraduate (UG) research is an important component of today’s engineering education. Research experiences allow students to explore beyond the classroom by applying concepts towards scientific discovery and the development of products and technologies that impact society. The number of UG engineering students interested in participating in research is increasing. However, UG research opportunities are often limited to students finding a project, laboratory, and mentor on their own. Therefore, only a handful of students typically benefit from a mentored UG research experience. In addition, students seeking UG research opportunities and projects have little, if any, knowledge on how to conduct research. A well-structured, guided UG research program could enhance the undergraduate experience of a large number of students and better prepare them for making an appropriate postgraduate choice (industrial R&D, graduate school, etc.) that would lead to career success. In Armour College of Engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology, we have developed and implemented a college-centered engineering Undergraduate R&D Program that teaches students the art of conducting research using a comprehensive approach. The students are introduced to research methods and concepts through a research course, and a series of competitive research project opportunities is provided. In addition, students are required to present their research findings at a college-wide research expo and submit a paper to studentreviewed campus research journal. The program aims to impact a large number of students interested in working on research and development projects in all disciplines within engineering. The program is centralized at the college level and supports student/faculty teams that compete by submitting formal proposals focused on basic research projects or the development of a technology or product. Proposals are solicited every semester, including summer, and reviewed for quality and impact with special attention to the mentoring plan. Since its inception (Spring 2013), 178 projects have been supported, with participation of engineering students in their second through fourth years. Student participants in this Armour R&D program reported acceptance of their work for presentation in national conferences, received research awards, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Surveys have been implemented to evaluate the impact of the UG research experience on graduate school acceptance rates, industrial internships, and placement opportunities upon graduation. Currently available metrics support the significance and impact of this program on student education and career success. In this paper we present and discuss a more comprehensive analysis of the results from the assessment of the program.

Undergraduate research, which is considered a high-impact practice in higher education, has been shown to provide an enriching educational experience to students. Undergraduate research provides students with an opportunity to engage in hands-on activities and allows them to develop potential solutions to real-world problems. It has been demonstrated that students who participate in undergraduate research significantly improve their critical thinking and communication skills and are more satisfied with their overall educational experience. My presentation will focus on recruitment strategies for undergraduate researchers, different categories of research projects, and the successes and challenges associated with undergraduate research. Specifically, my talk will focus on the teaching of electrochemistry and discuss the scope of possible electrochemistry-based research at a primarily undergraduate institution.

The executive summary provides an overview of some of V&C's key recommendations regarding next steps in the effort to mobilize the biology community. It is, in essence, a call for national service. A publication discussing these recommendations and action items in more depth will be available later this year. Meanwhile, we highly recommend reading the Executive Summary of V&C, the NAS report (NAS, 2010), and a seminal article by Labov et al. (2010) summarizing the synergy created by these several reports on the changing nature of studies in biology and concomitant need to change biology education. Then, take action! Our hope is to see the formation of a community of biologists, similar to that forming in geology (Manduca et al., 2010): one that will advance biology undergraduate education so it truly reflects the discipline it serves.

This third Special Issue featuring Undergraduate Research offers more compelling examples of study abroad learning. The student articles span several academic disciplines and geographic regions, and together provide us with an understanding of the high-level academic work of which students studying abroad are capable. &#x0D; Each of the three Special Issues that we have published have been well received by education abroad colleagues, faculty, and by those interested in the assessment student learning outcomes. The Frontiers Editorial Board continues to believe that these volumes serve an important purpose in raising the bar for quality education abroad programs by showcasing the very best examples of what our students may achieve. Based on the very positive feedback to these Special Issues, we think that these volumes are achieving this goal. &#x0D; The collaboration with the Forum on Education Abroad in publishing these volumes has been extremely fruitful. The idea for the Undergraduate Research Awards, from which the student papers are generated, began and continues to be nurtured in the work of the Forum on Education Abroad’s Committee on Outcomes Assessment. A full description of the Committee’s work and the award selection process is available on the Forum web site at www.forumea.org.&#x0D; Natalie Mello of Worcester Polytechnic Institute coordinated the Undergraduate Research Awards process and the mentoring of students who presented at the Forum Conference in Austin in March, 2007, and we thank her for her outstanding work. She worked with the faculty selection committee that chose the Award winners and that nominated students who submitted their papers to Frontiers for review. The three winners who presented at the conference were Hannah Arem, Demetri Blanas Hannah Arem, and Jason Nossiter who were all outstanding. Many attendees commented that their presentations were highlights of the conference.&#x0D; This year’s selection process has been overseen by Bernhard Streitwieser of Northwestern University, and we thank him for his excellent work. Bernhard collaborated with Neal Sobania of Pacific Lutheran University to write an exceptional introductory article that discusses the important topic of institutional oversight of and the role of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in student research conducted abroad. Drawing on the relevant literature, established best practices, and their own experiences in overseeing programs that involve students in conducting research, they offer expert guidance to those of us who are developing and managing education abroad programs that involve student research.&#x0D; I am pleased to announce that at its most recent meeting the Frontiers Editorial Board decided to continue to publish in future volumes the best examples of undergraduate research. The Board will continue to work with the Forum to identify and highlight student research as part of our ongoing collaboration.&#x0D; This project would not have been possible without funding from the IFSA Foundation, which saw the value of featuring research abroad as a way to encourage quality academic achievement in the field. The fact that Frontiers will continue to feature undergraduate student research in future volumes is testimony to the successful outcomes of the IFSA grant. The Frontiers Editorial Board thanks the Foundation for making this possible.&#x0D; As always, we wish to thank our institutional sponsors that continue to support the Frontiers mission.&#x0D; Brian Whalen, Editor&#x0D; Dickinson College&#x0D;

From the Editor

<h3>Objective:</h3> To investigate the association between BP parameters, MAP, rebleeding events, and outcomes for aSAH patients. <h3>Background:</h3> Elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) has been linked to pre-procedural rebleeding risk and poor outcome in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). However, the relationship between blood pressure parameters including mean arterial pressure (MAP) with rebleeding prior to and after aneurysm securement remains unclear. This study seeks to determine the association between BP parameters and rebleeding events and outcomes in patients with aSAH. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with aSAH admitted to an academic center between 2016–2022. BP values were recorded hourly from admission. Per our institutional protocol, the SBP target is &lt;140 mmHg for all unsecured aSAH aneurysms. Rebleeding was defined as radiographic worsening of hemorrhage prior to or immediately following aneurysm securement. Binary regression analysis was used to determine the association of maximum recorded BP with rebleeding and poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 4–6 at 3 months post-discharge). <h3>Results:</h3> The cohort included 325 patients (mean age 57 years [SD 13.4], 61% female, 87% received endovascular treatments, 13% surgical clipping). Two or more consecutive SBP values &gt;140 were seen in 41% and &gt;160 in 15% of patients. Rebleeding prior to or during securing aneurysms including intra-procedural bleeding occurred in 48 patients (15%). There was no association between either maximum recorded SBP (175 mmHg [36.3] vs. 167 [33.4], p=0.12) or MAP (124 mmHg [25.5] vs. 117.9 [22.5], p=0.08) and rebleeding. However, only maximum recorded MAP pre-angiogram was associated with poor outcome (OR 1.014 for 1 mmHg increase in MAP, 95% CI: 1.004–1.03, p=0.006). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Elevated MAP peri-securement of a ruptured cerebral aneurysm can be associated with poor outcome. Multicenter prospective studies should further examine the association between MAP cut offs and outcomes to consider modifying current guidelines. <b>Disclosure:</b> Miss Haripottawekul has nothing to disclose. Ms. Paracha has nothing to disclose. Ms. Haque has nothing to disclose. Mr. Persad-Paisley has received research support from NIH National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute (NHLBI) . Ms. Shamshad has nothing to disclose. Mr. Meyer has received research support from Brown University - Undergraduate Teaching and Research Award. Dr. Reznik has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving as an Expert Witness for Morrison Mahoney. The institution of Dr. Reznik has received research support from NIDUS. The institution of Dr. Furie has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Janssen/BMS. The institution of Dr. Furie has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for ACTICOR. Dr. Furie has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as an Editor, Associate Editor, or Editorial Advisory Board Member for BMJ/JNNP. The institution of Dr. Furie has received research support from NINDS. Dr. Yaghi has nothing to disclose. Dr. Mahta has nothing to disclose.