Involving Faculty at Research Universities in Undergraduate Research

Printable Version
Web Link - http://www.cur.org/Publications/AIRE_RAIRE/cmu.asp

Involving Faculty at Research Universities in Undergraduate Research

Janet Stocks, Assistant Vice Provost for Education
Jessie Ramey, Founding Director, Undergraduate Research Initiative
Barbara Lazarus, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs

Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Research vs. undergraduate education

The “urban myth” of higher education maintains that faculty at primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) focus on teaching, with research a secondary interest, while faculty at research universities (RUs) focus on research nearly to the exclusion of teaching. The widely quoted 1998 Boyer Commission Report strongly criticized RUs that sacrifice the quality of undergraduate education by focusing exclusively on the research enterprise. Yet over the past twenty years, faculty at research universities have felt increasing pressure to provide a high quality undergraduate education, just as faculty at PUIs have felt increasing pressure to conduct research and publish.

One way that both the PUIs and the RUs have been able to address this seeming contradiction in their core missions has been through undergraduate research. At the PUIs, science and engineering faculty who cannot rely on graduate students as research collaborators have found that undergraduates are quite capable of participating in research at a sophisticated level. This involvement actually supports and enriches the educational mission of the institution in addition to providing the faculty with a means of conducting research. At the RUs, involving undergraduates in research allows them to be engaged with faculty in the most valued activity at the institution. Though most RUs still do not provide incentives to faculty that encourage the integration of research and education, more and more faculty are nonetheless successfully advising undergraduate research projects.

This chapter recounts our experience at Carnegie Mellon in developing a centralized undergraduate research program that helped change the culture of the university and led to greater faculty and student involvement in research in all disciplines. Although we have not yet changed our faculty incentive and reward structures, more attention is given to the significant contributions of faculty advisors than ever before.

A rich history of research activities

Throughout much of its history, Carnegie Mellon existed as a regional technical school. Courses of study, even at the undergraduate level, placed heavy emphasis on the solution of real-life problems, sometimes specific to the region. Because of this emphasis on technical education and on solving real-world problems, Carnegie Mellon has traditionally engaged students in hands-on learning experiences. For instance, in the College of Engineering, all students participate in project courses in which they devise solutions to problems presented by real clients in the region. These problems, much like research, cross disciplinary boundaries, are challenging to solve, and don’t allow easy answers. In other fields, particularly in the sciences, individual faculty brought with them their own undergraduate research experiences, and established labs where undergraduate participation was welcome or even expected. For example, by the 1980s, such faculty initiatives in the Department of Biological Sciences resulted in a strong department-wide commitment to undergraduate participation in faculty-sponsored research.

A centralized program and culture change

While students in some fields had been involved in research for many years at Carnegie Mellon, no centralized program existed until the late 1980s. An administrator who wanted to foster more meaningful relationships between students and faculty reasoned that the best way to encourage greater mentoring for undergraduates was to involve them in the very activity that faculty most cherished. Increasing faculty/student research would bring more students into the heart of the institution. This effort started small and, at first, had little support from the university. In the highly decentralized culture that is typical of research institutions, it was not surprising that some faculty and administrators openly opposed a central program that would reach all departments and divisions. However, our vision for the program meant involving students in all fields and providing services that cut across traditional departmental boundaries.

Indeed, one of the hallmarks of our Undergraduate Research Initiative has been the participation of students from the arts, humanities, and social sciences as well as students in science and engineering. In accord with Carnegie Mellon’s emphasis on interdisciplinary research, the program also encourages students to work on projects outside their home departments and in interdisciplinary groups. Our centralized program was successful in stimulating both wide participation and interdisciplinary work, and eventually even our most vocal critics were won over.

Establishing an advisory committee comprised of key faculty and administrators from across campus proved to be a crucial early strategy in garnering not just broad based support, but enthusiasm for the program. Among other things, this committee spent three years struggling with a universal definition of research that could be applied to projects in all disciplines.¹ As the committee reviewed student grant proposals, members of the group came to understand what constituted scholarship in each other’s disciplines. These insights have shaped the dialogue between disciplines, and in time both faculty and students have shown genuine appreciation and enthusiasm for research being conducted in other fields.

Bringing about change in the general culture of an institution is not easy. In hindsight, many things we did seem like small steps, but their cumulative effect is striking. For instance, we chose to fund undergraduate research by making grants directly to the students. Students write their own research proposals for Small Undergraduate Research Grants (SURG). Even in the sciences and engineering, where students will often join an established research lab and conduct research on a portion of a larger question of interest to their faculty advisors, students must define the portion of the question for which they will have intellectual ownership. In the humanities, social sciences and the arts, students more commonly propose a project of their own then find a faculty mentor who will provide guidance and support.

Granting funds directly to students was an important strategy in getting faculty involved. Even though the grants were small (SURG grants are typically $500), the infusion of funds makes the student contributions more credible to the faculty. From the start faculty mentors know that these students are committed to the work because they have made the effort to develop and submit a research proposal. And after students began bringing SURG funds into research, faculty are more likely to request funds for undergraduate researchers in research grants they submit. Faculty often gain in surprising ways from mentoring undergraduate research. Some faculty have reported that the ideas contributed by the undergraduates have taken their own research in new directions.

Another small step towards greater faculty participation grew out of our early efforts to spread the word to students about research opportunities. For several years we published a comprehensive Research Directory listing all faculty members at the university and their research interests. Those willing to work with undergraduates were highlighted in the early hard-copy volumes and in the searchable on-line directory we later established. After the first few years, as faculty took notice of those who were highlighted, more and more faculty indicated their desire to work with undergraduates. Publicizing that faculty mentored student research was already pervasive and well established in some departments helped to establish a new norm on campus. Soon, there was an implicit expectation that most, if not all, faculty were willing (and eager!) to work with undergraduates on research.

Figure 1: President Jared Cohon opens the “Meeting of the Minds.”

Initiating an annual, university wide symposium for the presentation of research and creative projects enhanced the visibility and value of student research activities among both faculty and students and further reinforced this new norm. While smaller research forums for the presentation of senior honors theses had already existed in some departments and colleges, the Meeting of the Minds symposium brings the university community together in a way few other educational or social events do. Each spring, the Meeting of the Minds takes over our large student center for a day of poster and oral presentations, performances, project demonstrations, and art exhibits. Faculty members attend this event to see the work of the students they have mentored as well as the work of students in other fields. As part of the symposium, many undergraduates participate in competitions sponsored by individual departments, honors societies and corporations, while faculty, alumni, and local business people serve as judges. In what is now a much-anticipated rite of spring, Meeting of the Minds showcases the work of 400 to 500 students while renewing both student and faculty interest in undergraduate research.

Our use of the RAIRE funds

RAIRE funds were used in two ways to further the integration of research and education both in the classroom and through the Undergraduate Research Initiative. First, we modified or initiated a number of courses in the sciences and engineering that expose students to unstructured problems, interdisciplinary approaches, and the core methodologies of those disciplines. For example, in the Mellon College of Sciences (MCS), we developed a new set of first year courses to help students develop essential skills, acquaint them with the faculty, and introduce them to the dynamics of investigative science. These courses include a general seminar, taught by the associate dean (the academic advisor for all first year science students), that focuses on the transition from high school to college and on science as an over-arching field. We also developed a series of stand-alone mini-courses taught by a variety of science faculty, each focusing on a particular sub-category of science such as particle physics, environmental chemistry, and the role of proteins in disease. These mini-courses integrate research and education by giving students the opportunity to study the lives, professional activities, and societal impacts of the work of real scientists.

Similarly, in the engineering college, Carnegie Institute of Technology (CIT), we developed a Rapid Design course for students majoring in mechanical or civil engineering. The course was designed to provide sophomores and juniors an opportunity early in their academic careers to study design without requiring a lot of prior knowledge. This course integrates research and education by allowing students to work on engineering research and design problems right in the classroom, using experimental technologies for the rapid design and manufacture of prototypes.

In our second use of the RAIRE funds, we implemented summer research fellowships for undergraduates. Although there have traditionally been summer REU programs in various disciplines, the Undergraduate Research Initiative did not previously offer a centralized program open to students in all fields. We made ten $3,000 awards each year to students in science and engineering. The RAIRE grant allowed us to leverage this funding to offer more summer fellowships to students in other disciplines as well. At the end of the RAIRE grant, the university picked up funding for this program.

Faculty talk about undergraduate research

Measuring the success of undergraduate research opportunities, whether in the classroom or through a formal program, can be difficult. After all, many of the desired outcomes - enthusiastic learning, career exploration, increased self-confidence and greater maturity within a discipline - are difficult to quantify. These outcomes can have multiple causes that are hard to separate, and the desired outcomes often do not become apparent until many years after the student has graduated. Nevertheless, the results of a simple evaluation we conducted during the period of the NSF-RAIRE grant indicate that both students and faculty benefit enormously from the experience.

During the summer of 1999, the Undergraduate Research Initiative funded 41 fellowships (10 through our RAIRE grant, 10 through a grant from the Intel Foundation, 10 through a grant from the Alcoa Foundation, and 11 through faculty cost-sharing contributions). Our Intel grant also included funds for an assessment of the program. In addition to measuring student impacts, we conducted both a brief e-mail survey and interviews with faculty. We hoped to learn the mentors’ impressions of the students with whom they worked and to determine if the experience of mentoring these students led to any changes in the faculty.

At the end of the summer fellowship period, we sent an e-mail survey to all 41 faculty advisors and received 32 completed surveys (a 78% response rate). The following spring, we conducted interviews with these same faculty members to better understand the benefits and challenges of our undergraduate research program. The comments of the mentors refected four distinct themes: undergraduate research as an effective teaching tool, the opportunities the formalized undergraduate research program provided for students, the development of a mentoring relationship and the impact mentoring had on the faculty member’s own work.

Undergraduate research as an effective teaching method

Because of the one-on-one nature of undergraduate research, it is often seen as an inefficient educational method when compared to large lecture courses in which one faculty member - and perhaps a few low-cost Tas - deliver information to very large groups of students. However, faculty that we surveyed quickly pointed out that effectiveness is more important than efficiency in education, and undergraduate research is one of the most effective ways to educate undergraduates.

Figure 2: Faculty learn about the student’s research.

For example, one professor said, “I believe that the SURG (Small Undergraduate Research Grant) program style of mentoring of undergraduates is one of the most effective ways to teach them how to do research.” Through their research, students learn “how to become a mature adult, how to contribute to a larger community – which is one of the lessons they certainly don’t learn in classes.” He compared the one-on-one mentoring relationship with Yoda’s teaching style in the movie, Star Wars. “Yoda didn’t teach to a class of 30, but Luke eventually learned his lessons. … We are training the Jedi knights and … there’s nothing sadder than a student who goes through four years at any university and doesn’t have any interaction with faculty other than classes.”

Another faculty member suggested that undergraduate research gives students “a sense of ownership of their project, which is very important. … that’s something they take with them, and that’s a very important thing to teach that you don’t get in the classroom.” A chemistry professor who has worked with a great number of undergraduate students over the years echoed this sentiment, saying, “The major reward to me has been to see many students take ownership of their project and to begin to grow into independent investigators. The SURG grants have been particularly welcome because they deeply involve the students in their projects from the very beginning.”

Reports by faculty of how well students had performed indicate that students excel in the undergraduate research environment. For example, over half (59%) of survey respondents reported that the quality of their student’s work was above average for an undergraduate; 47% reported that the quality was better than they had expected and 16% said that the work done was what they would expect from a graduate student. Despite being veteran classroom teachers with realistic expectations of student performance, these faculty members were often pleasantly surprised. It seems clear that participation in undergraduate research experience is an intense learning experience for undergraduates.

Opportunities for students who otherwise might not have them

Several faculty members pointed out that because the undergraduate research program is not a capstone experience, and does not require a student to have a certain GPA, students who might otherwise not take advantage of this type of experience feel encouraged to do so. One professor explained, “What I love about SURG is that it gets students into the process that might never get in the process: It is a path, a route, a doorway, that will get many of them engaged.” This respondent felt this was particularly important for women and students of color. For example, one faculty member reported that, “During the summer, Heather became more independent and confident about her research. As a sophomore, she has had limited laboratory experience and little practice at independent work. I sensed her gaining confidence in her laboratory skills….”Furthermore, getting students involved at all levels conveys the message “that doing research is part of the fabric of undergraduate life in a place like this, as opposed to something that [only] very geeky graduate students and a few super-nerds do.”

Another professor echoed this sentiment, saying that many times it was the students who “haven’t gotten all As in their courses” for whom “research has been a significant part of their time at Carnegie Mellon and in their preparation for what they did afterwards.” For these students, undergraduate research “made the difference in where they are today, whereas a lot of the superstar students, if they hadn’t done research, would’ve taken more courses and done very well….”

Figure 3: Student expains her research project to faculty member.

The nature of the mentoring relationship

Our faculty respondents talked about many aspects of the mentoring relationships they have formed with students through undergraduate research. The mentors enjoy seeing students grow, “watching them figure out what they want to do with their lives.” An English professor summed up the mentoring role, saying: “The relationships that I develop with students are just phenomenal. It’s just an intense teaching relationship, being a mentor and seeing somebody grow and develop as a scholar and become excited about something you’re excited about.”

In fact, 87% of the survey respondents felt that the students had grown from their summer research experience. One advisor said, “Chris has learnt to stand up for his own ideas, even if they don’t concur with mine (he is usually right).” Another advisor said, “Going to the conference and presenting her work has given Alice a very palpable excitement about the field … and academia.” A theater professor explained, “During the rehearsal process it was wonderful to see Russell grow from a somewhat tentative director to one who was increasingly self-assured.”

Some faculty commented that the mentoring relationship allowed them to help students think about life decisions outside of academics. For example, a professor of entertainment technology said: “I like the term ‘mentor’ because the best thing that happens in a SURG is you talk to them about stuff that isn’t about the research.” A physics professor explained that mentoring means giving students “advice on practical things” such as “how to apply for a summer job, how to go to grad school, what kinds of things are important and what kinds of things you can let go.”

Expanding faculty research horizons

Finally, a number of faculty members told us that their involvement with undergraduate research had actually affected their own research agendas. For example, an interdisciplinary research project designed to provide opportunities for undergraduates wound up leading to a whole new area of research for a physics professor: “We were originally thinking that we wanted to do something fun with undergraduates but nobody could afford to take the time to develop a totally separate area. It wound up being wildly successful and changed a lot of the research that we do.”

Clearly, faculty members believe in the mission and goals of the Undergraduate Research Initiative. Every faculty member we surveyed said they were ready and willing to advise students again in the future. Despite problems with the incentive and reward structures that remain to be addressed, faculty members from all colleges continue to participate in the program in large numbers each year. New faculty members enter a culture where students and faculty alike expect that they can, and will, work together in the research enterprise. Andrew Carnegie wrote at the turn of the last century in expressing his commitment to the founding of our institution, “My heart is in the work.” Today, through undergraduate research, students truly work at the heart of Carnegie Mellon.

The Institution

Carnegie Mellon University is a private research university of about 7,500 students and 3,000 faculty, research and administrative staff. The institution was founded in 1900 in Pittsburgh by industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie when he donated the funds to create Carnegie Technical Schools. Carnegie's vision was to open a vocational training school for the sons and daughters of working-class Pittsburghers. In 1912 the school was renamed Carnegie Institute of Technology. In 1967, Carnegie Tech merged with Mellon Institute of Research to form Carnegie Mellon University.

The university today consists of seven colleges and schools, the Carnegie Institute of Technology (engineering), the College of Fine Arts, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, the Mellon College of Science, the Graduate School of Industrial Administration, the School of Computer Science and the H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management.

Because of its emphasis on technical education and on solving real-world problems, Carnegie Mellon has a long history of engaging students in hands-on learning experiences. In the early 1980s, the Biological Sciences department made a strong commitment to encourage undergraduates to participate in faculty-sponsored research. This effort spread to other departments and in 1990 the campus-wide Undergraduate Research Initiative (URI) program was founded. The URI awarded grants to 8 students during its first semester. It currently funds between 175 and 250 students each year in all disciplines across campus.

Acknowledgements

The authors owe a debt to Barbara Lazarus for her vision, enthusiasm and persistence in establishing the Undergraduate Research Initiative and to Provost Paul Christiano for his early support. We also salute the supporters who have contributed time and money that has provided multiple opportunities for undergraduates. We gratefully acknowledge the RAIRE grant from the National Science Foundation that allowed us to expand our program. The leadership of Indira Nair, Vice Provost for Education, continues to guide our work.

Endnote

The definition that we eventually agreed upon and that we continue to use is: “Research, scholarly, or artistic activities that lead to the production of new knowledge; to increased problem solving capabilities, including design and analysis; to original critical or historical theory and interpretation; or to the production of art or artistic performance.”