Prev: Establishing a Social Science Undergraduate Research Program		Next: Involving Faculty at Research Universities in Undergraduate Research
		CUR Home               Printable Version

From Engineering to English: Encouraging Undergraduate Research Across the Disciplines 
 
T. C. Werner, Florence B. Sherwood Professor of Physical Sciences
Chistina E. Sorum, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty
 
Union College
Schenectady, NY 12308
 
 
With the support of funding from federal programs and industry, the ethos of undergraduate participation in research was established among many college science faculty by the mid 1970s. At Union College, the number of students initiated into Sigma Xi increased by four-fold over the period 1953-78. However, outside of the sciences there were not as many opportunities, although in 1959 the social science division at Union instituted a two-term senior research thesis requirement. Then, in the late 1970s and late1980s, two events occurred on the national level that, coupled with decisions made at Union during the same period, produced significant changes in the local perceptions of undergraduate research. 
 
The Impact of the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) 
 
In 1978 a group of science faculty at liberal arts colleges, concerned over the lack of a national voice for undergraduate research in the sciences at these institutions, founded the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR). Over the past two decades, CUR has been quite effective in convincing NSF to fund scientific equipment purchases at liberal arts colleges, establishing NSF, NIH and CUR-funded summer research opportunities, and providing a national forum for undergraduate research in the sciences. When CUR invited colleges to provide financial support for a national office in 1989, Union was among the first to respond. 
 
The Internal Education Foundation (IEF) and Faculty Research Fund (FRF) at Union
 
During the same period, several programs were initiated at Union that expanded opportunities for student research. In 1978, the College established an Internal Education Foundation (IEF) whose purpose was to “… stimulate and support curricular enhancement, efforts at educational innovation and scholarly pursuits at the College.” Currently, IEF annually distributes a total of $100,000 equally between faculty-initiated curriculum proposals and student-initiated research proposals. Of the 100 proposals received from students each year, about 90% are funded for an average grant of just over $600. Students may use these grants for research supplies and small equipment, to pay human subjects used in their research, and for research-related travel. IEF has become an effective catalyst for the promotion of faculty-mentored student research and scholarly activity. More recently, IEF has supported the College’s expanded participation in NCUR and funded summer research stipends for students. 
 
The Faculty Research Fund (FRF) was a response to the increasing expectations for scholarly activity at liberal arts colleges that occurred in this same period. FRF typically awards about 30 faculty grants per year, with an average grant of about $1700. At present, the combination of IEF and FRF programs supports much of the research enterprise in all disciplines at the College, and a large fraction of this support involves faculty-mentored student research and scholarly activity.
 
Union and NCUR^®
 
Then, in 1987, the first National Conference on Undergraduate Research (NCUR) took place at the University of North Carolina (Asheville). Unlike CUR, which focuses primarily on undergraduate research in the sciences at liberal arts colleges, NCUR promotes undergraduate scholarly and creative activity in all academic disciplines at colleges and universities. When a Union physics professor and his research student came across an announcement for the NCUR undergraduate research conference, the student applied for IEF funding from the College, and, as a consequence, 18 Union students traveled to Asheville in April, 1987 to attend the first National Conference on Undergraduate Research. More than 20 Union students attended the next two NCURs. 
 
Because of its long-standing support of undergraduate research in the sciences and the emerging emphasis on senior theses in the social sciences, in 1990 Union College offered in-house support to NCUR by agreeing to host the conference after the designated host site had to pull out due to administrative changes. By hosting the conference a second time in 1995 and making it an important part of its bicentennial celebration, Union made clear that undergraduate research had become a defining aspect of the Union curriculum. Now in its 15^th year, NCUR has become a national celebration of undergraduate research that draws over 2000 participants from more than 250 colleges and universities to its annual event.¹
 
Because NCUR’s goal of promoting undergraduate research and scholarly activity in all academic disciplines resonated strongly with many Union faculty and administrators, Union has made an extraordinary commitment to NCUR participation for its students and to NCUR itself. Union has sent an average of more than 40 students a year to NCUR events, more than any other institution. Three Union faculty members have served on the NCUR Board of Governors, and two have served as Board chair. The NCUR Home Base and web site ( http://www.ncur.org/ ) reside at Union College. The NCUR/Lancy Initiative that provides summer research stipends for students in all disciplines at selected colleges and universities is administered through Union College.

Figure 1: Union NCUR Participation by Division, 1987-2001

Figure 1 shows a comparison of the percent of students attending NCUR from the College’s four divisions (Humanities, Social Sciences, Science and Math, Engineering). Before 1990, when the College first hosted NCUR, participation was heavily weighted toward the sciences. Since 1990, the distribution of student NCUR participation is comparable to the distribution of students by division at the College. It is worth noting that this redistribution does not come as a result of sending fewer science and math students to NCUR; it is due instead to increasing participation by students in social sciences, humanities and engineering.
 
All 20 of Union’s academic departments have sent students to NCUR. Table 1 lists those departments that have sent more than 20 students over the period 1987-2001. Note that science, non-science and engineering departments are all well represented.

 
NCUR involvement was not, however, the beginning of undergraduate research outside of the sciences at Union. As mentioned above, the social science departments have required senior theses since the 1960s. What NCUR involvement did accomplish was to push undergraduate research and scholarly activity from the periphery to the center of the curriculum for both science and non-science disciplines. First, by including social sciences and humanities, NCUR led to a recognition and reevaluation of the definition of undergraduate research on campus. Second, more science students as well a non-science students were able to make presentations of their scholarly work outside of the College and their own departments. More importantly, NCUR participation has provided both students and faculty mentors with a meaningful outcome for the research endeavor and, thereby, a richer intellectual experience. Abstracts for NCUR are internally evaluated by a committee of representative faculty, under the direction of the dean of undergraduate studies. Faculty enthusiasm for NCUR participation is reflected in the fact that 30-50% more abstracts are submitted internally for NCUR than are endorsed for submission to the NCUR host site.
 
The Charles P. Steinmetz Symposium
 
In 1991 President Roger Hull asked the faculty to establish the Charles Proteus Steinmetz Symposium, which was intended to be an internal version of NCUR. The symposium name was chosen to honor Charles Steinmetz, an eminent GE scientist of the early 20^th century and the founder of Union’s electrical engineering program. At the first Symposium in 1991, about 125 students presented their scholarly work in oral, poster, exhibit or performance formats. The event was held on a Friday afternoon in the spring term when classes were cancelled to encourage student attendance. The 1993 strategic plan for the College established the goal of having 200 hundred student participants at Steinmetz by 1995-96. This goal was exceeded, and Symposium participation has now grown to about 300, which is 15% of Union’s undergraduate population. To accommodate this growth, the event has expanded to a full day on Friday (all classes are cancelled - an administrative decision at first resisted by some but now fully accepted) and half of Saturday. 

Figure 2: Senior chemistry major, Jamie Iannacone, presents a poster at an American Chemical Society meeting in New Orleans.

 
In the last few years, the Symposium has been combined with Prize Day at Union, which is held at the end of the Symposium on Saturday. Both events are scheduled for Mother’s Day weekend, which means that many parents choose to attend. On Friday evening, all student participants, their parents, and faculty mentors attend a banquet, which is followed by a concert by the College orchestra. At the most recent Steinmetz Symposium, 163 students gave oral or poster presentations, 102 participated in choir, orchestra, jazz ensemble and dance performances, and 42 exhibited their artwork. Students from all four of the College’s divisions were involved in the proportions of their divisional representation at the College. More than any other academic event at the College, the Steinmetz Symposium symbolizes Union’s emphasis on the importance of undergraduate research and scholarly activity in its curriculum. Many at the College consider it to be the intellectual high point of the academic year. Furthermore, it provides a clear example of the administration’s value of student research activities and the faculty’s enthusiasm for undergraduate research.

Figure 3: A dance performance at the Steinmetz Symposium

 
Summer undergraduate research support at Union
 
Until the mid 1980s, opportunities for summer support for undergraduate research at Union existed only for students who worked with science faculty members having external funding. Many faculty who were strong advocates of student research were convinced that students from other disciplines could also receive substantial benefit from such experiences. As a consequence, in 1986, a group of science faculty members convinced the College administration to offer summer research opportunities in all disciplines using internal funding. Eighteen students were supported in the summer of 1986, all with IEF funding. Funding from this source continued until 1992, when a line item was added to the College budget specifically for support of summer research stipends. In order to accommodate the rapidly growing interest in these opportunities, the College sought and received funding for summer stipends from a variety of sources, including foundations (NSF, Dana, Hughes, Surdna, Merck, Schiff, Pew) companies (Pfizer, Glaxo-Welcome) and individuals. Science faculty who administered this program encouraged campus-wide participation by making deliberate efforts to include students and faculty from non-science disciplines. Over the past three years, about 70 students per summer have received stipends for faculty-mentored research, which meets the goal set in the College’s strategic plan of 1993. Since the summer program began in 1986, the percent of student participation by division is reasonably close to the actual student distribution by division seen in Figure 1.
 
Undergraduate research opportunities from Union’s NSF-AIRE Award
 
Union’s NSF-AIRE grant has enabled the College to initiate two programs that further enhance undergraduate research. The first program funds summer research opportunities for some of our best students early in their undergraduate careers. Unusually talented and motivated first-year students are invited to become Scholars in our honors program, which requires a sophomore research project. Eighteen of these Scholars who are majoring in science or engineering have received summer research funds from our NSF-AIRE after their first or second year at Union. Support includes stipends for both the student and the faculty mentor and some modest funding for research supplies. We believe that providing this formative experience early in these students’ education will enhance not only their senior research endeavors but also their entire intellectual experience. For example, this opportunity was a key factor in the awarding of prestigious Goldwater Fellowships to two of the 18 NSF-AIRE funded Scholars.
 
The second initiative combines Union’s emphases on undergraduate research with its long-standing emphasis on terms abroad by creating mini-term abroad experiences with a research component. Students enroll in one of the intense courses that are offered for a minimum of three weeks during the summer or during the break between Union’s fall and winter terms. The first two of these courses - a physics mini-term at the University of Palermo in Italy and a tropical ecology mini-term in Panama - were first offered in the summer of 2001 and a third mini-term in Greece (geology) was offered the following fall. 
 
Students who went to Greece were required to have at least on course in geology and an expressed interest in archaeology. The professors in charge of the mini-term worked with the Director of International Study to select the student participants. Prior to setting off, the students were introduced to the geology and archeology of the volcanic island Santorini (Thera), where they spent most of the term. Each student worked on one of three projects: investigating the composition of the walls of a quarry, studying the xenolith inclusions in the ash flow, or examining the stream channels cut through the ash flow. They collected data for analysis and prepared final repots. One of the projects resulted in a publication co-authored by two faculty and two students.
 
The innovations described above have created a culture of undergraduate research that has permeated the curriculum and, as recently described in Union’s Middle States Accreditation Review, has had a transforming effect for many students. Some examples illustrate this point. Over 60% of Union students do a senior thesis or project. Science faculty have introduced research experiences into several upper level courses, such as Advanced Organic Chemistry (a class project on host/guest chemistry) and Quantitative Analysis (group projects involving the analysis of local streams in collaboration with Trout Unlimited^®.)² Chemistry students, on their own initiative, have established an undergraduate research conference for local college chemistry students, called the Robert A. Laudise Symposium. The Symposium, which is organized and run by the students, has been held for the past four years.
 
Student feedback from NCUR and Steinmetz participation has been highly positive, as these students illustrate. Ahnya Mendes (Womens’s Studies,’96) stated that she was happy to present because “it was such a prestigious thing to do.” Saima Hussai (Sociology, ’02), who reported on her research project during a term abroad in Brazil, said “It was a wonderful experience for me. Presenting helps students be better researchers because they have to be prepared to defend their work.” Roger Noyes (English, 00) indicated that “the whole experience inspired me to attend graduate school.” Jen Jakubowski (Chemistry, ’01) reported that she has “nothing but positive things to say about Steinmetz … I presented original choreography in dance for four years and also presented my senior thesis project in chemistry.”
 
Undergraduate research plays a central role in our two honors programs. The Union College Scholars Program offers a selected group of 60 entering first year students the opportunity to create an enriched curriculum that includes the opportunity for doing individual research with a faculty member during the sophomore year. The Seward Interdisciplinary Fellows, who are selected at the end of the Fall term of their sophomore year, must create an interdisciplinary minor that includes a faculty supervised independent project that explores important ideas from a variety of perspectives. Both programs, which are open to students in all disciplines at the College, are consistent with the institution’s emphasis on undergraduate scholarly activity and are therefore internally funded. 
 
What we have learned
 
Providing faculty incentives: The establishment of IEF and FRF has clearly provided a strong boost for faculty-directed undergraduate research at Union. But other incentives must be offered to faculty if undergraduate research is to become an important component of an institution’s culture. At Union, the following incentives support and encourage faculty mentorship. Both advising undergraduate research students and publishing with students are given considerable weight in reappointment, tenure, promotion and merit decisions; this policy is made clear to junior faculty. Faculty activity sheets, which are filled out each year by all faculty, are designed to highlight these activities. Faculty can receive teaching credit for directing undergraduate research if their departments are willing to offer larger introductory sections (~35 students). For departments that choose this option, their faculty can receive a one-course teaching credit (out of a six-course or 24-hour load) if they direct four students during two of Union’s three 10-week terms. A maximum of two course credits of the required six can be earned per year for directing undergraduate research. This is the route that the social science departments have chosen, which accounts for the relatively high numbers of social science students who are involved in faculty mentored research and participate in NCUR, and Steinmetz. These teaching credits are distributed equally among all those who qualify in a given department.
 
Lab and lecture hours are counted equally in determining teaching loads in the sciences. Thus, a 4-hour lab or a 4-hour lecture each count as one course of the six-course load. The main effect of this is that science faculty normally have only one course (lecture plus lab) preparation in a term, which allows for more faculty effort to be directed toward mentoring student researchers. 
 
Understanding the nature of research and creative activities: We are aware that different disciplines have different perspectives on what is meant by the term undergraduate research and on how research is carried out. The strong collaborative interactions between a faculty member and a student researcher that are typical in the sciences are not typical in the social sciences or in the humanities. We try to address this though our Committee on Teaching, which holds periodic faculty discussions about pedagogical issues. For example, a recent session organized by this committee focused on the topic of advising senior theses. Moreover, we recognize, in faculty evaluations and funding decisions, that student research outcomes can have a variety of forms, including senior theses, research papers in upper level courses and creative activities, such as dance choreography and original poetry. 
 
Finally, there will always be a subset of faculty, mostly outside of the sciences, who view work with undergraduates as detrimental to their own scholarly development. This is due to both the lack of a collaborative ethic in these disciplines and the increasing scholarly expectations of faculty hired at colleges like Union over the past three decades. In spite of administrative, faculty, and student support for undergraduate research, there are still those who question both its value for undergraduates and the validity of calling senior independent work research. By including all the disciplines in NCUR and in funding support, the College has gone a long way to overcome this response, but some faculty in our Classics department and in Modern Languages, for example, still question the ability of a student to conduct research - which they define as original work - because the students have not mastered the languages. Because research in these areas has traditionally being identified as the product of the individual researcher’s discussion of a primary text, it does not seem possible for students to work as co-authors. 
 
Institutions must be sensitive to the opinions and needs of these faculty members. It is much better to convert a few of these individuals to the benefits of undergraduate research mentoring with gentle peer-pressure than to create staunch opponents by a more heavy-handed approach.
 
The value of undergraduate research symposia: Undergraduate research symposia, whether it be NCUR, an in-house symposium like the Steinmetz, or those that are part of a professional meeting, provide students with what some call “exploitable learning opportunities.” A trivial example of such an learning opportunity is a review session held the night before an exam; students are primed to learn exam material during the session because the exam in their immediate future provides a focusing event. Similarly, a public presentation at a research symposium provides a focusing event for the student researcher. Students want to do well in this environment and their faculty mentors want them to succeed. As a consequence, these presentations become unparalleled chances for students to develop critical thinking and communication skills. In our experience, students gain much more pride and ownership of their work in preparing for these public presentations than they do in writing a thesis. 
 
Assessment of Undergraduate Research at Union
 
In preparing for its Middle States Accreditation review during the 1999-2000 academic year, the College undertook an assessment of its undergraduate research efforts (the instruments we used can be found in the Appendix). We surveyed departments, individual faculty, current students, and alumni from three graduating classes in the past decade. The results were, on the whole, quite gratifying and reinforce the idea that undergraduate research can be a transformative experience. About 98% (n = 114, 65% response rate) of faculty surveyed believe that undergraduate research contributes or strongly contributes to student intellectual life and 85% believe that it contributes to their own intellectual life. Nearly 80% of faculty in all disciplines were satisfied or very satisfied with mentoring undergraduate research students. A higher percentage of faculty in science and engineering departments (40%) felt that mentoring undergraduate research strongly contributes to their intellectual life than did faculty in social sciences and humanities (28%). This is consistent with the fact that over 40% of science and engineering faculty anticipated a scholarly publication or presentation as an outcome of their work with students, but less than 20% of social science and humanities anticipated this outcome. This probably reflects the fact that faculty in the sciences and engineering are more able to involve students in their own scholarly activities than are faculty in social sciences and humanities. 
 
When seniors were surveyed (n = 98, 20% response rate), 81% responded that the research experience enhanced critical thinking. Equally interestingly, 93% reported that the experience increased their “sense of independence” and 80% said it “made me proud.”
 
Perhaps even more significant than the student responses are those of alumni, who have a broader perspective. The survey of alumni (n = 154, 37% response rate) suggests that undergraduate research contributes powerfully to our goal of creating a “lifelong commitment to truth and joy in learning.” The first piece of evidence is the testimony of the alumni themselves - 90% reported that their experience increased their “desire to further their knowledge and develop their skills.” The second piece of evidence is that 66% of respondents have either completed an advanced degree or are in the process of completing an advanced degree. This is an impressive statistic given the fact that in most recent years, the percent of graduating seniors who intend to enter a graduate program after graduation is between 30 and 35 percent. Furthermore, 61% of the alumni termed their experience as either “my single most rewarding experience as an undergraduate” or as “one of my most rewarding experiences as an undergraduate.” With regard to the skills and abilities (defined as the capacity to appear in public with confidence, to speak and write well, to work independently, and the ability to see a project through) the percent of those responding who said that undergraduate research contributed to the improvement of these skills varied from a high of 93% (the ability to see a project through) to a low of 83 (skill in speaking).
 
While such numerical data are persuasive, it is the individual experiences of students and faculty that really speak to the value of undergraduate research. There is the excellent science student whose thesis work is the culmination of an outstanding academic career, thereby assuring her acceptance into a top graduate program. Or the English major who decides to attend graduate school because of his interaction with a dynamic faculty mentor. But, perhaps most poignant and special, is the marginal student, who does not intend to enter graduate or professional school, but who finally blossoms during the research experience. All of these examples happen too frequently to be accidental.
 
Enhancing the Undergraduate Research Experience 
 
On the basis of this feedback, the Union College is currently exploring ways to extend the undergraduate research experience to more students, while ensuring that increasing the number of students does not lead to a reduction in the quality of the experience. This is a challenging goal, given the commitment of institutional resources and faculty time that undergraduate research requires, especially when all disciplines are involved. For example, about a third of all faculty at Union mentor a student researcher in the summer. Most of these faculty members receive no stipend for these efforts. To expand this number significantly, especially outside of the sciences, will probably require that faculty receive some compensation. Furthermore, in recognition of the increased pressures on faculty to be both productive scholars and to participate in the co-curricular life of their students, faculty teaching loads and leave opportunities must be reconsidered. 
 
To help address this problem, our recently-approved strategic plan calls for the addition of 20 new faculty positions, which is about a 10% increase in faculty size. In addition, the plan has a goal of raising an endowment of six million dollars “to enable students through in-depth study to develop the ability to work independently and achieve expertise through internship and research opportunities.” These opportunities explicitly include the thesis in the liberal arts, research in the sciences, and senior design projects in engineering, independent study, summer research and internships. The endowment will also fund increased opportunities for students to present their work with faculty at professional meetings.
 
In 1992, the Board of Trustees at Union approved a mission statement for the institution that states “……the College believes that the close relationship between its faculty and students motivates students to learn, as manifested most clearly in undergraduate research and other forms of independent study.” This statement has been a guiding principal at Union for decades and has become the keystone upon which the Union educational experience is based. We are committed to providing these same opportunities to future generations of Union students.
 
 
The Institution
 
Union is an independent, coeducational residential liberal arts college with about 2000 students and 195 full time faculty. Founded in 1795, Union was the first college to be chartered in New York State, to offer a bachelor’s degree in science and mathematics (1822), and the first to establish an engineering degree program within the context of the liberal arts (1845). The current student body is drawn from 40 states and 20 countries. Approximately 48% are women. The departments of the college are divided into four divisions: humanities, social sciences, sciences, and engineering. About 23% of the students major in the disciplines in the humanities, 44% in the social sciences, 19% in the sciences including computer science and mathematics, and 11% in engineering. In addition to undergraduate research, the College emphasizes study abroad; approximately 65% of Union students take advantage of this opportunity. Generally a third of Union graduates go to graduate or professional school immediately after graduation while the rest go directly into jobs in the fields of finance, education, health and human services, research and science. The National Research Council ranks Union in the top three percent of approximately 1,500 liberal arts institutions in the percentage of its graduates who go on to earn PhDs in the sciences, while it ranks in the top third of in this category among the Oberlin group of 50 institutions.
 
The prime mover in establishing undergraduate research at Union was Edward Ellery, who joined the Union faculty in 1904 as professor of chemistry. Ellery was committed to research; he served for 18 years as the national treasurer of Sigma Xi and for two years as its president and was undoubtedly influenced by his close friendship with Willis Whitney, the first director of the GE R&D Center in Schenectady. Ellery’s vision led to the creation of a major in chemistry that required a year of senior research. But Ellery soon found himself too busy with administrative work, both at the College and in his roles with Sigma Xi , to mentor student researchers. As a consequence, in 1923 the department hired Charles Hurd, a fresh Ph.D. from Clark University, to direct the research component of the chemistry curriculum. Over the next 36 years, Hurd became a renowned expert on silica gel chemistry through his work with undergraduates, which produced 34 papers in first-rate journals during this period.³ Most of these publications had undergraduate co-authors. Hurd was a rarity but not a singularity; science faculty (mostly chemists) at other liberal arts colleges, including Oberlin, also engaged in active research efforts with their students during this period. 
 
The close association between chemistry and emerging industries may explain why chemistry led the way in promoting undergraduate research at the national level. The prominence of chemistry in this endeavor is reflected in the sources of funding that arose to support these efforts. In 1946, Research Corporation, established by chemist-inventor F. G. Cottrell, became the first external funding source for undergraduate research in chemistry. The Petroleum Research Fund, formed as a Trust by several oil companies in 1944, followed suit in 1955, and by the early 70s, a third private foundation, the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, named for brothers who were chemists and inventors, also began funding chemistry research at the college level. In a post-Sputnik reaction, the National Science Foundation began its Undergraduate Research Program (URP) for all the sciences in 1963, increasing the variety of opportunities for research with undergraduates. Union College had been a beneficiary of these funding sources in its efforts to promote research by undergraduate students. 
 
 
Acknowledgements
 
The authors would like to thank NSF for the AIRE Award, CUR and NCUR for the support of undergraduate research and the following individuals at Union College for supplying information used in the chapter: Ellen Fladger, Kathy Hopper, Judy Ludwig, Kimmo Rosenthal, George Shaw and Peter Tobiessen.
 
 
Endnotes

1. T.C. Werner, R.L. Lichter and T.R. Krugh, “The National Conferences on Undergraduate Research (NCUR®): Conference History and the Role of Chemistry”, J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 691-694.
    
2. T.C. Werner, P. Tobiessen and K. Lou, “The Water Project”, Anal. Chem. 73, 84A-87A (2001)
    
3. W. J. Hagan, Jr., “Charles Hurd and Colloid Chemistry at Union College, 1923-59”, J.Chem.Educ. 68, 191-195 (1988).

Appendix: Assessment Instruments
 
Middle States Surveys for Faculty: This survey was prepared by Middle States subcommittee on Undergraduate Research, Tom Werner, chair.
 
SURVEY IV - UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH
 
What is meant by student “research” in your discipline? In what way(s) is it manifested?
Does participation in UR affect the intellectual life of the student participant?
      _____ Strongly Detracts 
      _____Slightly Detracts 
      _____Has No Effect 
      _____Slightly Contributes 
      _____Strongly Contributes
      In what ways?
 
Does participation in UR affect the intellectual life of the faculty mentor?
      _____ Strongly Detracts 
      _____Slightly Detracts 
      _____Has No Effect 
      _____Slightly Contributes 
      _____Strongly Contributes
      In what ways?

Do you see any “downside” to Union’s emphasis on student creative and scholarly activity?
      _____ Yes  _____ No
      Explain:
 
Are sufficient resources/infrastructure in place at Union to ensure success of UR?
      _____ Not nearly enough.
      _____ Not quite enough.
      _____ Enough.
      _____ Somewhat too much.
      _____ Way too much
 
What additional resources/infrastructure are needed? Or what should be cut back?
 
In what ways do members of your department prepare students to do research and creative activity?
 
To what extent do you agree with the following statement?
“Elements of student research and creative (‘inquiry-based learning’) should be introduced or developed in lower level courses.”
      _____ Agree strongly.
      _____ Agree somewhat.
      _____ Noncommittal.
      _____ Disagree somewhat.
      _____ Disagree strongly.
 
Rate your satisfaction with your role as mentor for undergraduate creative and scholarly activity.
      _____Very satisfied.
      _____ Satisfied.
      _____ Noncommittal.
      _____ Somewhat unsatisfied.
      _____ Very unsatisfied.
 
Estimate the percentage of students you mentor for research that fall in the following categories (pleases consider “area of expertise” as a larger category within which you have a “specialty”) (enter in percents for each, total should = 100%):
      _____% Project topic is outside my areas of expertise.
      _____% Project topic is within area of expertise but outside of specialty.
      _____% Project topic is directly related to scholarly specialty.
      _____% Project is directly related to scholarly area and result should lead to a presentation or publication.
      _____% I do not mentor student research.
 
Rate your level of satisfaction with the experiences in Question 9.
      _____ Very Satisfied.
      _____ Satisfied.
      _____ Noncommittal.
      _____ Somewhat unsatisfied.
      _____ Very unsatisfied.
 
On average, for a given term when you direct undergraduate scholarship, how many hours PER STUDENT PER WEEK do you spend monitoring undergraduate scholarly and creative activities? ____________ hours
 
Any other comments?
 
 
Alumni Questionnaire
Middle states Self-Study
Undergraduate Research and creative Projects
February 4,1999
 
1. What was your major: _______________________________________________
2. What was you year of graduation? _____________________________________
3. Please indicate any graduate work with degree completed, if any______________
4. What is your current occupation? ______________________________________
5. Did you study abroad while at Union? Yes______ No_______
6. Where did you do your “presentation(s)?” (Check all that apply)
      Steinmetz __________ NCUR __________ Other __________
 
The followiing questions apply to the presentation of the project that you regard as the most significant of any projects you undertook as an undergraduate.
 
7. Which of the following forms did your “presentation” take? (Please circle one)
      Presenting a paper
      Poster session
      Exhibition
      Performance
      Other (please specify) ____________________________________________

8. On which of the following was your “presentation” based. (Please circle one)
      “Voluntary” independent project/thesis
      Required senior project/thesis
      Work in a seminar or other course
      Research in Summer or in Winter break
      Other (please specify) ____________________________________________

9. Did your “presentation” result in any of the following: (check all that apply)
Publication in a professional journal or conference proceeding with (Please circle one)
      faculty co-author(s)__________
      without faculty co-author(s)__________
      Presentation at a professional conference______________________________
      Publication in a student journal _____________________________________
      Exhibition open to “the public” _____________________________________
      Performance open to “the public” ___________________________________
      Other (please specity) ____________________________________________
 
10. Please assess your experience in undergraduate research or creativity by indicating which of the following best describes that experience.
  a. Not an especially valuable experience_________________________________
      A worthwhile experience __________________________________________
      One of my most rewarding experiences as an undergraduate ______________
      My single most rewarding experience as an undergraduate _______________
 
11. Indicate whether your experience in undergraduate research or creative activity contributed to improvement in any of the following (check as many as apply)
Ability to appear in public with confidence
Yes __________ No __________ Not Applicable __________
b. Skill in speaking Yes __________ No __________ NA ________
c. Skill in writing Yes __________ No __________ NA ________
Ability to see a project through from beginning to completion
Yes __________ No __________ NA __________
f. Self-confidence Yes __________ No __________ NA ________
g. Desire to further your knowledge and develop your skills
Yes __________ No __________ NA __________
h. Willingness to tackle the unfamiliar Yes _______No________NA______
i. Desire to be “a life-long” learner Yes __________No __________NA______
 
Survey of Student Response to Scholarly Activities Outside the Classroom
 
Did the opportunity for undergraduate research or independent scholarship or performance influence your decision to matriculate at Union? Circle YES or NO
 
At what stage did you decide to do undergraduate research?
      Before entering __________
      Freshman year __________
      Sophomore year __________
      Junior year __________
      Senior year __________
      Never __________
 
If you did do research, scholarship or independent performance or visual arts indicate who influenced that decision.
      Academic advisor __________
      Faculty other than advisor __________
      Student peers __________
      Your own decision __________
 
Have you participated in any of the following?
      a. Independent research __________
      b. Voluntary honors or senior thesis __________
      c. Mandatory thesis __________
      d. Summer scholarship __________
      e. Winter break scholarship __________
      f. Performance or Visual arts outside of classroom __________
 
If you circled any of the above activities respond to the following questions (a-d). If you “did not” circle any of the activities skip to part e.
 
a. Rate the following “abilities” from such activities according to a 1-5 scale with 1 indicating absolutely not a result of the activity to 5 indicating a very important result of the activity.
1. Ability to think creatively. __________
2. Ability to think critically. __________
3. Ability to investigate a matter using research sources, e.g., library.__________
4. Ability to express thoughts in writing. __________
5. Ability to express thoughts verbally. __________
6. Ability to investigate a matter you find rewarding or interesting__________
7. Ability to present your ideas publicly. __________
8. Ability to understand to reach a deeper understanding of concepts.__________
 
Rate the following broad-based or practical results from such activities with 1 indicating it had strongly negative impact, 3 indicating no impact and 5 a strongly positive impact.
1. Affected the direction of my post-graduate path, e.g., career path or postgraduate education path. __________
2. Affected my relationship with the supervising faculty. __________
3. Affected my self-confidence. __________
4. Affected my interest in intellectual activities. __________
5. Affected my feelings about my educational experience at Union College. __________
 
Rate the following statements from 1 indicating strongly disagree to 5 indicating strongly agree.
1. The activity (activities) was (were) a worthwhile experience. __________
2. The activity (activities) was (were) useful for improving a variety of intellectual skills._______
3. The activity (activities) provided an opportunity for me to explore an area I wanted to explore.____________
4. The activity (activities) provided an opportunity to cover material not covered in any depth in my classes. __________
5. The activity (activities) gave me the sense that I can work independently. __________
6. The activity (activities) made me proud. __________
 
Compare your research experience(s) with your experience in upper level classes in the same area and indicate which experience (research or upper level class) was more beneficial on the following concerns.
  RESEARCH                         CLASS
      Information about the field
      Understanding the importance of
      The field
      Improving writing skills
      Improving library and information
      gathering skills
      Understanding research
      Critical thinking
      Problem solving
      Appreciating the historical forces in the field
      Seeing the relationship between the 
      field of study and other fields
 
Rate the following possible reasons for not having engaged in the above activities. A rating of 1 indicates it was not the reason, 3 indicates may have been a contributing reason and 5 indicates most definitely the reason.
 
1. My out-of-class schedule was too demanding to permit such an experience.__________
 
If this was the case indicate which of the following may have taken up time.
a. Athletic activities b. Job c. organizational activity, e.g., student gov’t. d. home responsibilities, commuting made it difficult.
2. I had no particular area of interest, I wanted to explore. __________
3. My academic schedule did not permit a chance to such a project. __________
4. There was no faculty member I could find to work with me. __________
5. No salary connected with activity. __________
6. Not required for major. __________
 
If you did any of the activities listed in question 4 (a-d) above, please rate the following Union resources on a 1-5 scale (5 being the best) or use NA if not applicable.
a. archival material __________
b. library journals and books __________
c. department journals and books __________
d. computing facilities __________
e. laboratory facilities __________
f. financial support (ex. IEF and summer fellowships) __________
g. interlibrary loan __________
h. other (specify) __________
 
 
 

Prev     Top     Next

Table of Contents

Copyright © 2003 Council on Undergraduate Research. All rights reserved.