Article

Entering Research: A Course That Creates Community andStructure for Beginning Undergraduate Researchers in theSTEM DisciplinesNicholas Balster, Christine Pfund, Raelyn Rediske, and Janet Branchaw

University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706

Submitted October 5, 2009; Revised December 30, 2009; Accepted January 12, 2010Monitoring Editor: Julio F. Turrens

Undergraduate research experiences have been shown to enhance the educational experienceand retention of college students, especially those from underrepresented populations. However,many challenges still exist relative to building community among students navigating largeinstitutions. We developed a novel course called Entering Research that creates a learningcommunity to support beginning undergraduate researchers and is designed to parallel theEntering Mentoring course for graduate students, postdocs, and faculty serving as mentors ofundergraduate researchers. The course serves as a model that can be easily adapted for use acrossthe science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines using a readily avail-able facilitator’s manual. Course evaluations and rigorous assessment show that the EnteringResearch course helps students in many ways, including finding a mentor, understanding theirplace in a research community, and connecting their research to their course work in thebiological and physical sciences. Students in the course reported statistically significant gains intheir skills, knowledge, and confidence as researchers compared with a control group of stu-dents, who also were engaged in undergraduate research but not enrolled in this course. Inaddition, the faculty and staff members who served as facilitators of the Entering Research coursedescribed their experience as rewarding and one they would recommend to their colleagues.

INTRODUCTION

Working closely with an experienced researcher and engag-ing in the challenge and excitement of scientific discovery isoften a transformative experience for undergraduate stu-dents (McGee and Keller, 2007). The benefits of undergrad-uate research experiences are numerous, well documented,and include increases in research skills, productivity, andpreparation for postgraduate education (Kardash, 2000;Hathaway et al., 2002; Bauer and Bennett, 2003; Seymour etal., 2004; Hunter et al., 2007; Lopatto, 2007; Russell et al.,2007). Indeed, studies such as the Boyer Commission Reporton Educating Undergraduates in the Research Universityand the Teagle Report from the American Society for Bio-chemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) acknowledgedthe benefits of undergraduate research, and recommendedresearch-based learning as the standard model for college

education (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergradu-ates in the Research University, 1998; ASBMB, 2008). Morerecently, the National Academies Bio 2010 Report statedthat, “All students should be encouraged to pursue inde-pendent research as early as is practical in their education”(National Research Council, 2003). As a result of these andother studies, numerous colleges, universities, and fund-ing agencies have invested significantly in expanding un-dergraduate research opportunities (Boyd and Wesemann,2009).

Although the benefits of undergraduate research experi-ences are well known, students still face many challengeswhen beginning research and often lack the support theyneed to ensure success. Such challenges include 1) learninghow to identify and appropriately contact potential researchmentors, 2) transitioning from the classroom to a learningenvironment built around a research community, and 3) learn-ing how to integrate into the social structure of the researchcommunity. These challenges can be especially overwhelm-ing for those from nonacademic backgrounds, who may not

DOI: 10.1187/cbe.09–10–0073Address correspondence to: Janet Branchaw (branchaw@wisc.edu).

CBE—Life Sciences EducationVol. 9, 108–118, Summer 2010

108 © 2010 by The American Society for Cell Biology

be familiar with the culture of research (e.g., first-generationcollege students), and for underrepresented minority stu-dents, who may feel isolated or intimidated by the behav-ioral norms of the research environment (Brown, 2006; Boydand Wesemann, 2009). Importantly, undergraduate researchexperiences have been shown to be effective in recruitingand retaining these populations of students within the sci-ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) dis-ciplines, often leading to careers in research (Villarejo et al.,2008). Therefore, helping students overcome these chal-lenges is important in our efforts to diversify the scientificresearch workforce.

In this article, we describe the development, implementa-tion, and evaluation of a course for undergraduate studentscalled Entering Research that focuses on helping studentsnavigate the challenges of beginning research. This courseprovides a portal to research for undergraduate students, aswell as a supportive community of peers and experiencedresearchers as course facilitators. Students who participatein the course are expected to attend class (1 h/wk) in addi-tion to spending five to 15 h a week doing independentresearch with a mentor. In this 3-yr study (2006–2008), wefirst evaluated student self-assessment of their confidence,skills, and knowledge after completing one semester of En-tering Research. In addition, we compared students takingthis course with a control group also conducting undergrad-uate research, but not enrolled in Entering Research. Based onprevious work, we assumed most students would benefitfrom conducting undergraduate research, but hypothesizedthat their experience would be enhanced by coupling thisresearch experience with the supplemental course EnteringResearch. This enhancement would manifest itself in greaterconfidence, skills, and knowledge relative to when the stu-dents began the course and compared with a control group.

Development and Implementation of the EnteringResearch CourseLarge, public research institutions such as the University ofWisconsin–Madison (UW–Madison) serve thousands of un-dergraduate students. Although campuses, like UW–Madi-son, typically offer a handful of undergraduate researchprograms that serve 100–200 students, a support structurewith the capacity to serve all students does not exist. Con-sequently, the students who engage in undergraduateresearch tend to be those who are targeted by selectprograms, or those who already possess the confidence,skills, and knowledge they need to navigate a large re-search-focused university system on their own. The En-tering Research course was developed to address thesechallenges and, through dissemination to individual de-partments, support a larger number of students to engagein research experiences.

The primary goals of the Entering Research course are tocreate a supportive learning environment to introduce stu-dents to the culture of research, to teach students valuableskills needed to become effective researchers, and to allevi-ate some of the work of faculty and lab personnel associatedwith mentoring novice student researchers. The course isdesigned to help students find a research mentor, explorethe culture of research, write a research project proposal,and begin doing research. Students informally share their

research experiences and learn about the diversity of expe-riences available through their peers. The “content” of theworkshops comes from the students, and their engagementin the weekly, hour-long discussions is key. The coursefacilitator provides a framework for the discussions, rele-vant background reading materials, and structured assign-ments designed to help students develop positive relation-ships with their research mentors, define themselves as amember of the research community, and understand andcommunicate their research. The student learning objectivesfor the Entering Research course are presented in Figure 1 andthe course outline is presented in Figure 2. Each semesterconsists of 14 1-h weekly sessions, for which students earnone credit. The course is taught in several small sections offive to 10 students each.

The Entering Research course was developed using an it-erative approach of design, evaluation, and revision in part-nership with 13 faculty/staff members and two postdoctoralfellows from 10 different biological and physical sciencedepartments across three colleges at UW–Madison. Summa-tive student assessments coupled with facilitator feedbackwere used to develop a comprehensive facilitator’s manualcontaining the instructional materials for course implementa-tion, purposefully using a format that can be easily decon-structed and adapted for a range of settings (Branchaw et al.,2010).

In this study, we have focused on the first semester of theEntering Research course, which was taught every fall be-tween 2006 and 2008 and enrolled 83 undergraduate stu-dents in total. The course has gained popularity with 55students enrolled in fall 2009. The majority of participatingstudents (70%) were sophomores.

METHODS

At the beginning (pre) and end (post) of each fall semester(2006–2008), students enrolled in the Entering Researchcourse completed an online survey aimed at assessing stu-dent satisfaction and learning outcomes. In addition, thesestudents were asked to rank their confidence, skill, andknowledge as a researcher on a Likert scale, as well asrespond to a series of open-ended questions. The surveyswere modified from surveys used previously to evaluateundergraduate research experiences independently of thiscourse (Handelsman et al., 2005; Pfund et al., 2006), and theyincluded 14 questions pertaining to confidence, 14 questionspertaining to skill, and five questions pertaining to knowl-edge.

In addition, to determine the impact of the first semesterof the Entering Research course, we used a “static-group”design (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003). This design comparedthe students enrolled in the Entering Research course (alsoengaged in undergraduate research) with a group of similarundergraduate students (2008) who were not taking thissupplemental course, but who were likewise required toconduct undergraduate research as part of an introductorybiology course. The survey response rates for the EnteringResearch group and comparison group were 77% (64/83)and 39% (144/373), respectively. The respondents fromthe Entering Research group were 59% female and 22%were members of underrepresented ethnic groups. The

Novel Course, Entering Research

Vol. 9, Summer 2010 109

respondents from the introductory biology group were60% female and 4% were members of underrepresentedethnic groups.

The same postsurvey was administered to both groupsat the end of the semester. As articulated in Lapatto(2004), establishing a creditable control group is fraughtwith difficulties including the self-selective qualities ofthe institutions, personal motivations of the studentsthemselves, and the variation in amount and intensity ofone research experience to another. Because our studyexamined the effects of a supplemental course on under-graduate research and did not directly assess the under-graduate research experience itself, we avoided or wereable to control for many of these confounding factors. Thequantitative and qualitative responses from this compar-ison were combined and analyzed for reoccurring themesand significant differences.

Mean differences in the data from the Entering Researchstudents who responded to both the pre- and postsurveys,as well as the comparisons with the control group, were eachanalyzed using two-way analyses of variance. Each questionwas analyzed as a main effect along with academic year. Inaddition, all interactions between year and question wereassessed; if an interaction was significant, the main effectswere interpreted relative to year. If interactions were notsignificant, each question was assessed (and reported) betweenpre- and postassessments or between students enrolled or notenrolled (relative to postassessment comparisons) in theEntering Research course. All effects were considered sig-nificant at � � 0.05 by using SAS statistical software (SASInstitute, Cary, NC).

In addition to the quantitative analysis, students enrolledin the Entering Research course were asked to answer the

following open-ended questions regarding their first-semes-ter experience:

1. What aspects of this course have helped you most?2. Has this course helped you navigate your lab experience?

If so, how?3. Have your views on science or research changed over the

semester? If so, how?

We used a directed content analysis of these qualitative datato identify recurring themes (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005).

Lastly, the facilitators of the Entering Research course weresurveyed at the end of each semester (2006–2008). Seven ofthe 15 facilitators were women and all were Caucasian.Facilitators were asked to rate the value of 10 differentcourse components, the 14 topics discussed in the course, thecourse instructional materials including the facilitation ma-terials (Branchaw et al., 2010), as well as the facilitationexperience itself. This survey also was based on a surveyused previously to evaluate facilitator experience (Pfund etal., 2006).

RESULTS

Student Evaluation of the Entering Research CourseOverall, postexperience course evaluations revealed thatstudents valued the first semester of the Entering Researchcourse, because they rated all of the topics covered in thecourse as helpful to their learning (Figure 3). Learning aboutethics in research, small group discussions with their peers,and the process of developing a research project proposalwere rated as most helpful among students. Students ranked

Figure 1. The Entering Research course studentlearning objectives.

N. Balster et al.

CBE—Life Sciences Education110

web-based discussions and visiting peer laboratories lowestamong the 20 survey questions regarding course satisfac-tion: no question received an average score of not helpful.

After the qualitative data were compiled and analyzed,five reoccurring themes were identified. Each theme is pre-sented in Table 1, with the percentage of students whomentioned it, along with representative quotes from indi-vidual students.

Student Self-Assessment of Confidence, Skill, andKnowledge as a ResearcherConfidence, skill, and knowledge all significantly increasedamong students’ self-ratings (p � 0.001; Figure 4). The larg-est gains were seen in student knowledge at 22%, followedby skills (13%), and confidence (10%). When questions ineach category (confidence, skills, and knowledge) were ex-amined individually, significant gains also were found.Within the confidence category, all but two areas of confi-dence were self-rated as significant gains among students(p � 0.01; Figure 5). The largest gains in confidence includedwriting a basic science proposal; identifying scientific mis-conduct; and interacting with their peers, with only oneconfidence gain rated below the “high” level. When gains in

skill were assessed, all but two showed significant increasesamong students after completing the first semester of thiscourse (p � 0.01; Figure 6). The largest gains in skill weregeneral research skill and those related to their researchproject. Students’ ability to work collaboratively and presentscientific information did not change after the first semesterof the course. Finally, significant gains were likewise re-ported by students relative to all five questions pertaining totheir knowledge (p � 0.01; Figure 7). Knowledge of whatgraduate school was like and knowledge related to the ca-reers of science faculty showed the largest gains, althoughon average, all gains in knowledge jumped one rating levelwithin the 5-point scale by the end of the first semester.

Given that the benefits of undergraduate research are wellestablished (Seymour et al., 2004; Lopatto, 2007; Russell et al.,2007), the gains in confidence, skills, and knowledge re-ported by our students supported our assumption that moststudents would benefit from conducting undergraduate re-search and thus could be unrelated to participation in theEntering Research course. Therefore, we also tested whetherthe course had an impact beyond the research experience byexamining a comparison group of students who participatedin a semester-long independent research experience as partof a sophomore level introductory biology course. The ma-

Figure 2. Entering Research course outline.Course outlines for both semesters are pre-sented for reference. The beginning undergrad-uate research experience was investigated, soonly data from semester I are reported in thispaper. Instructional materials for both semes-ters are available in the Entering Research facili-tator’s manual (Branchaw et al., 2010).

Novel Course, Entering Research

Vol. 9, Summer 2010 111

jority of the self-reported changes in confidence, skill, andknowledge were similar between the Entering Research stu-dents and those of the introductory biology course. How-ever, eight self-assessments were rated significantly higherby students in the Entering Research course relative to theintroductory biology students (Figure 8).

Within the confidence category, students in the EnteringResearch course were significantly more confident in theirability to identify scientific misconduct (p � 0.01). In addi-

tion, students in the Entering Research course also reportedsignificantly higher confidence in their ability to make con-nections between their research experience and their biologyor physical sciences classroom experiences, in contrast withstudents engaged in undergraduate research as part of theintroductory biology course (p � 0.01). Within the skillscategory, there were three areas of significant differencebetween the two groups: developing a research project, con-ducting a research project, and analyzing data (p � 0.05).The two knowledge questions that show significant differ-ences between the two groups are those focused on whatgraduate school is like and the career paths of science fac-ulty; the Entering Research students self-assessments weresignificantly greater than those of the introductory biologystudents in both these areas (p � 0.01).

Facilitator Evaluation of the Entering ResearchCourseAlthough the purpose of partnering with faculty and stafffrom across disciplines was to ensure integration of thecourse into a variety of academic settings, we learnedthrough follow-up evaluations submitted by 14 of the 15course facilitators that their participation in the course alsoserved as a professional development opportunity. All re-spondent facilitators said they would facilitate the courseagain and that they would recommend this opportunity to acolleague. One facilitator noted the following:

“I enjoyed helping develop the course and the instruc-tional team; I particularly like sharing ideas and processingour experience with the team on a weekly basis [at instructormeetings]. In addition, I liked being able to discuss issuesand goals/expectations for research with this small group ofundergrads. It was particularly rewarding to coach studentswhen they were first trying to get into a lab. It was very clear

Figure 3. Student satisfaction with the En-tering Research course. Each bar represents themean and standard error of survey responsesfrom students who took the first semester ofEntering Research (2006–08; n � 64). Studentswere asked to report how helpful each of thetopics was to their learning about research ona scale of 1 through 4 (1 � Not Helpful; 2 �Somewhat Helpful; 3 � Helpful; 4 � VeryHelpful).

Figure 4. Student self-assessment of confidence, skill, and knowl-edge as a researcher. Averages of pre- and postsurvey results arepresented. Each bar represents the mean and standard error ofsurvey responses from students who took the first semesters ofEntering Research (2006–08; n � 64). Students were asked to reporttheir conficence, skill, or knowledge as a researcher on a scale of 1through 5 (1 � None; 2 � Not Very; 3 � Moderate; 4 � High; 5 �Very High). Different letters within a category (confidence, skills,knowledge) are significant at p � 0.001.

N. Balster et al.

CBE—Life Sciences Education112

that two of them would have given up and not pursued a labposition if it were not for (this course). Both are now con-tinuing on this semester in the same lab and enjoying theirexperience. That in itself is SUCCESS!!.”

The facilitators also found the course materials valuable(Branchaw et al., 2010). Seventy-one percent identified thecase studies and readings as valuable. Seventy-eight percentfound the assignments of great value. Finally, 93% indicatedthat the in-class discussions were valuable. When asked howfacilitating the first semester of the Entering Research courseimpacted their own mentoring philosophy, participants re-sponded with answers such as the following:

“I had not thought about how [undergraduates] approachfaculty for a position in a lab. Much of their frustration aboutnot getting into labs is due to poor application strategies.This is something I now try to pass on to the students Iadvise. I had not realized they needed so much advice andhelp in this area before facilitating this class.”

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Here, we describe the development, implementation, andstudy of a new course, Entering Research, aimed at helpingundergraduates better navigate the challenges of beginningresearch. We demonstrate that student participants findvalue in Entering Research and report that the course helpsthem in many ways including finding a mentor, understand-ing their place in a research community, and connectingtheir research to their course work in the biological andphysical sciences. We demonstrate that students who par-ticipate in mentored research have significant gains in theirskills, knowledge, and confidence. As noted, such self-re-ported gains were expected by virtue of the independentresearch experience. Therefore, we compared their gains to asimilar group of introductory biology students who partic-ipated in a semester-long independent research experience,but who were not enrolled in the course, to determine

Table 1. Student impressions from Entering Research course evaluations: coded themes and representative quotes

Theme % Including theme in response Representative quotes

Entering Research in-class discussions andcommunity of peers were valued bystudents

58 �The in-class discussions have been the mosthelpful when we can share our ideas andknowledge much like scientists do in anacademic and research setting.�

�Being able to discuss different situations withpeers who were going through the sameexperience made me feel much morecomfortable about entering a research situationfor the first time.�

Entering Research helped students learnhow to effectively communicate andinteract with their research mentorsand teams

41 �It helped me communicate with my mentor a lotbetter because I had to ask them questionsmany times for the (assignments), so we got toknow each other better.�

�It helped me realize that I was an importantfunctioning lab member of the team.�

�It made it much more clear to me whatexpectations I should have for the lab andwhat was expected of me.�

Entering Research helped students gain asophisticated understanding of theresearch process, community, andopportunities available to them

41 �I now realize that both (science and research)are a lot more complicated than I first thoughtand scientists/researchers put a lot of time andeffort in the work that they do . . .�

�I got a good grasp of what graduate school islike, a concept I was not entirely familiar withbefore.�

Entering Research helped students find aresearch mentor

30 �The research seminar helped me find a mentor. Idon’t think I would have if I had not taken thecourse.�

�I was clueless about how to start to even searchfor a mentor, and it was nice that the coursewas able to guide me through the process.�

Entering Research helped studentsunderstand their own research projects

27 ��the ability to discuss your research experiencewith those that were not involved directly withit was most helpful. It allowed me to reallymake sure that I understood what I was doingand what was going on.�

�Making the (research proposal) poster helpedme most because not only did it require me tofind out more about my own research, it alsomade me realize that I didn’t know as much asI thought I did.�

Novel Course, Entering Research

Vol. 9, Summer 2010 113

whether the gains could be attributed to the course. Wefound that eight of the self-assessments in a postsurvey wererated significantly higher by the Entering Research students,compared with the comparison group of students (Figure 8).

Benefits of the Entering Research CourseWithin the knowledge category, students in the first semes-ter of the Entering Research course reported higher confi-dence, compared with the introductory biology students, inmaking connections between their research experience andtheir biology or physical sciences classroom experiences.These data are aligned with qualitative research that iden-tified increases in the relevance of course work (Hunter et al.,2007) as well as increased satisfaction in drawing connec-tions between the classroom and laboratory research as self-reported benefits of the undergraduate research experience(Baum et al., 2006). Although students in the introductorybiology course also engaged in undergraduate research, theinformal discussion-based format of the Entering Researchcourse may explain this difference between groups. In theEntering Research course, students frequently discussedcourses they had in common, and the facilitators com-mented on how those courses related to their students’research projects. These discussions helped establish a com-munity that transcended the students’ individual researchprojects and built broader connections across disciplinaryboundaries. Moreover, these informal discussions were cou-pled with formal discussions of their research projects, furtherreinforcing shared meaning between classroom learning andresearch lab learning within a community of practice (Bockarie,

2002). Collectively, these enhanced connections may explainwhy undergraduate research students who do not partici-pate in a supporting course (e.g., Entering Research) valuedtheir research experience over their course work (Ward et al.,2005), and reported disconnection between their classroomand research learning experiences (Gafney, 2005). Thus, thegains in connectivity between research learning and class-room learning reported here suggest a valuable consequenceof including courses such as the Entering Research course intoundergraduate research programs, because it provides theopportunity to discuss research in small, safe, and facilitatedpeer groups.

Students enrolled in the Entering Research course re-ported higher skill levels in developing a research project,conducting a research project, and analyzing data relativeto students in the introductory biology course. Althoughthese are certainly skills encouraged in both courses, wespeculate that the higher gains reported by the EnteringResearch students may be attributed to frequent peer re-view and informal presentations of research progress re-quired in this course. In addition, multiple opportunitiesfor feedback, from idea to testable hypothesis generationto proposal construction, are also built into the EnteringResearch course. This finding concurs with other studiesexamining the benefits of structured undergraduate researchprograms (Baum et al., 2006). In particular, it aligns withprevious work showing that alumni who engaged in re-search as part of an organized program (e.g., presentedongoing work, wrote research proposals, and made oralpresentations) reported a significantly higher ability to carry

Figure 5. Student self-assessment of confidence as a researcher. Averages of pre- and postsurvey results for each confidence question arepresented. Each bar represents the mean and standard error of survey responses from students who took the first semester of EnteringResearch (2006–08; n � 64). Students were asked to report their confidence as a researcher on a scale of 1 through 5 (1 � None; 2 � Not Very;3 � Moderate; 4 � High; 5 � Very High). An asterisk indicates a significant difference at p � 0.01.

N. Balster et al.

CBE—Life Sciences Education114

out research than alumni who participated in research ontheir own, outside the context of a structured undergraduateresearch program (Bauer and Bennett, 2003). This supportsour hypothesis, that programs or courses such as EnteringResearch can augment the undergraduate research experi-ence and enhance skills and abilities.

Two knowledge questions showed significant differencesbetween the Entering Research course participants and intro-ductory biology students, i.e., what graduate school is likeand the career paths of science faculty. We attribute theseresults to the contact and guided conversations (assign-ments) that the Entering Research students had with theirfaculty and staff facilitators, all of whom were current orformerly active researchers with doctorate degrees. In addi-tion, one of the early assignments required students to in-terview their research mentor and write a biography in aneffort to build a stronger mentor–mentee relationship. Wepropose that the Entering Research assignments like this,which ensured frequent contact between students and re-search mentors, enhanced the students’ ability to under-stand the careers of graduate students and faculty, and willprobably impact their decision to pursue a research career.Although it is too early to assess the impact of the EnteringResearch course on student career decisions, planned lon-gitudinal studies will enhance our understanding of thelong-term impact of enhancing the undergraduate re-search experience.

Undergraduate Research Experience at a LargeResearch UniversityAs mentioned, the benefits of undergraduate research expe-riences are many and have been widely documented acrossmany institutions of higher learning, as many as 41 in oneparticular study (Lapatto, 2004). These educational gainsextend across gender and ethnicity and include increases inresearch skills and preparation for postgraduate education(Kardash, 2000; Hathaway et al., 2002; Bauer and Bennett,2003; Seymour et al., 2004; Hunter et al., 2007; Lopatto, 2007;Russell et al., 2007). The results of this study add to this bodyof research, as we show a supplemental course that supportsthe undergraduate research experience further increasedgains in skills, confidence, and knowledge. Moreover, pre-vious studies largely focused on upperclassmen or alumniwho participated in summer research at a range of institu-tions, many of which were liberal arts colleges. In contrast,the study described here is novel in its strategic focus onearly career students engaged in academic year-long re-search at a research extensive university.

Although improving, a significant challenge remains forearly undergraduate students at large, research extensiveinstitutions in finding a research mentor and getting estab-lished in a research lab (Baum et al., 2006), which the firstsemester of the Entering Research course was designed tosupport. Importantly, almost a third of the students en-rolled in the Entering Research course indicated that theywould not have pursued independent research without

Figure 6. Student self-assessment of skill as a researcher. Averages of pre- and postsurvey results for each skill question are presented. Eachbar represents the mean and standard error of survey responses from students who took the first semester of Entering Research (2006–08;n � 64). Students were asked to report their skill as a researcher on a scale of 1 through 5 (1 � None; 2 � Not Very; 3 � Moderate; 4 � High;5 � Very High). An asterisk indicates a significant difference at p � 0.01.

Novel Course, Entering Research

Vol. 9, Summer 2010 115

the support of the course. This result is particularly rele-vant as institutions attempt to find ways to increase andretain students interested in science careers. Indeed, manystudies have shown mentored research experience as es-sential to the recruitment and retention of students inscience (Nagda et al., 1998; Hathaway et al., 2002; Baum etal., 2006), especially underrepresented minorities andwomen who may not have the confidence or experience tonavigate the system. For example, a recent study examin-

ing the effects of a supplemental support program forwomen in the STEM disciplines found similar results tothe results reported here (Kahveci et al., 2006). Specifi-cally, the attitudes, performance, and retention of under-graduate women participating in the support and men-toring program were compared with similar students notenrolled in this additional program. Despite no significantdifference between the groups in academic potential,views, and interest to pursue science, a greater number of

Figure 7. Student self-assessment of knowledge as a researcher. Averages of pre- and postsurvey results for each knowledge question arepresented. Each bar represents the mean and standard error of survey responses from students who took the first semester of EnteringResearch (2006–08; n � 64). Students were asked to report their knowledge as a researcher on a scale of 1 through 5 (1 � None; 2 � Not Very;3 � Moderate; 4 � High; 5 � Very High). An asterisk indicates a significant difference at p � 0.01.

Figure 8. Areas of significant difference between Entering Research and a comparison group of students. Averages of postsurvey results arepresented. Each bar represents the mean and standard error of survey responses from students who took the first semester of EnteringResearch (2006–08) (n � 64) and from students who did an independent research experience as part of introductory biology (n � 144).Students were asked to report their confidence, skill, or knowledge as a researcher on a scale of 1 through 5 (1 � None; 2 � Not Very; 3 �Moderate; 4 � High; 5 � Very High). A single asterisk indicates a significant difference at p � 0.05; a double asterisk indicates a significantdifference at p � 0.01. All other areas of confidence, skills, and knowledge were not significantly different within our data set.

N. Balster et al.

CBE—Life Sciences Education116

women in the support program found research experi-ences and decided to remain in a STEM discipline aftertheir first year in college. Thus, it seems that a supportstructure, such as the Entering Research course is critical tothe success of undergraduates pursuing STEM disciplinesand research activities that enhance their experience.

Mentor–Mentee RelationshipAlthough undergraduate research experiences can offergreat benefits to all engaged, it is also true that they can bevery time-consuming and resource intensive for the men-tors. In addition, the large numbers of undergraduate stu-dents at public research universities like UW–Madison in-creases the difficulty to recruit sufficient numbers of facultymentors (Wood, 2003; Desai et al., 2008). The EnteringResearch course was developed with these challenges inmind. This course alleviates some of the responsibility ofmentoring by supporting and empowering students to ef-fectively work with their mentors, by leveraging the largenumbers of prefaculty (graduate student and postdoctoralfellow) mentors available at these types of institutions, andby aligning with an existing training program for under-graduate mentors (Pfund et al., 2006).

Using graduate students and postdoctoral fellows as men-tors of undergraduate research students can be a win-winsituation if done properly. These mentors are often able toincrease face-to-face time with undergraduate researchers,may be better able to relate to undergraduate students, andcan benefit from the practice of mentoring (Dolan and John-son, 2009). Moreover, these mentors can serve as liaisonsbetween undergraduate research projects and principal in-vestigators, because professors running large research pro-grams often have limited time to spend with each student.Thus, to support these mentors, the first semester of theEntering Research course was intentionally aligned with theWisconsin Mentoring Seminar, Entering Mentoring (Handels-man et al., 2005; Pfund et al., 2006) for graduate students,postdoctoral fellows, and faculty. Data show that strongmentor–mentee relationships are a cornerstone of successfulundergraduate research experiences (Shellito et al., 2001;McGee and Keller, 2007). Both the Entering Research andEntering Mentoring courses include activities that build theserelationships and provide both peer groups with opportu-nities to discuss challenges that arise in these relationships.Because these programs work in concert to enhance the closeworking relationships between mentors and students asthey pursue scientific research together, we propose thatcoupling these seminars will maximize the benefits of theexperience for both mentors and students, and we are cur-rently testing this hypothesis.

Value of Learning Communities to UndergraduateResearch ExperiencesIn addition to helping students establish positive relation-ships with their mentors, the Entering Research course createsa learning community where beginning researchers cansafely share their experiences and begin to identify them-selves as members of the research community. This long-stated goal of undergraduate research programs (Foertsch etal., 1997; Nagda et al., 1998) was met, because our results

showed students rating this aspect of the course as veryhelpful. This sense of community is especially important forthose who are new to the culture of research, such as first-generation college students, in large public universities suchas the UW–Madison. As large public universities seek toimprove their graduation rates (Bowen et al., 2009), findingways to help all students succeed is critical. Bauer andBennett (2003) show that alumni who participated in under-graduate research rated their educational experience morehighly than those who did not. They also rated their abilityto: speak effectively, act as leaders, analyze literature criti-cally, possess clear career goals and develop intellectualcuriosity significantly higher than those without a researchexperience. If a goal of higher education is to instill a broadrange of cognitive skills, as well as students’ satisfactionwith their educational experience, then providing supportfor students, especially those from underrepresentedgroups, to navigate their undergraduate research experienceis critical.

Entering Research represents one approach to supportingand enhancing the undergraduate research experience. Fu-ture work is aimed at studying the impact of the secondsemester of the Entering Research course, which helps stu-dents complete their research, present their findings in apublic venue, and write a minigrant proposing future work.Efforts are also being made to implement and evaluate thecourse at a variety of institutions and with diverse popula-tions of students.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank the Introductory Biology 152 staff for assistance in datacollection and Sumana Abeyratne for statistical assistance. Wethank all of the facilitators of the Entering Research course. We thankJo Handelsman for early conceptual contributions, the UW–Madi-son Center for Biology Education for the intellectual support andfreedom allowed their staff to develop the course, and the UW–Madison Institute for Cross-College Biology Education for the ad-ministrative support needed to pilot the course. This research wasfunded by National Science Foundation grant 0552806 (to J. B. andC. P.), a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professors grant (toJ. Handelsman), and the UW–Madison Institute for Cross-CollegeBiology Education.

REFERENCES

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (2008).Biochemistry/Molecular Biology and Liberal Education: A Reportto the Teagle Foundation. Bethesda, MD.

Bauer, K. W., and Bennett, J. S. (2003). Alumni perceptions used toassess undergraduate research experience. J. High. Educ. 74, 210–230.

Baum, M. M., Krider, E. S., and Moss, J. A. (2006). Accessibleresearch experiences: a new paradigm for in-lab chemical education.J. Chem. Educ. 83, 1784–1786.

Bockarie, A. (2002). The potential of Vygotsky’s contributions tounderstanding of cognitive apprenticeship as a process of develop-ment in adult vocational and technical education. J. Career Technol.Educ. 19, 47–66.

Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., and McPherson, M. S. (2009). Cross-ing the Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Uni-versities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Novel Course, Entering Research

Vol. 9, Summer 2010 117

Boyd, M. K., and Wesemann, J. L.(eds.) (2009). Broadening Partici-pation in Undergraduate Research: Fostering Excellence and En-hancing the Impact. Washington, DC: Council on UndergraduateResearch.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the ResearchUniversity (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blue-print for America’s Research Universities, Menlo Park, CA: Carne-gie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Branchaw, J. L., Rediske, R., and Pfund, C. (2010). Entering Re-search: Workshops for Students Beginning Research in Science—Facilitator’s Manual, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.

Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn’t no slang that can be said about thisstuff”: Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. J.Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 96–126.

Desai, K. V., Gatson, S. N., Stiles, T. W., Stewart, R. H., Laine, G. A.,and Quick, C. M. (2008). Integrating research and education atresearch-extensive universities with research-intensive communi-ties. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 32, 136–141.

Dolan, E., and Johnson, D. (2009). Towards a holistic view of un-dergraduate research experiences: an exploratory study of impacton graduate/ postdoctoral mentors. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9165-3.

Foertsch, J. A., Alexander, B. B., and Penberthy, D. L. (1997). Eval-uation of the UW-Madison’s summer undergraduate research pro-grams: Final report. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madi-son, LEAD Center.

Fraenkel, J. R., and Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to Design and Eval-uate Research in Education, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gafney, L. (2005). The role of the research mentor/teacher: studentand faculty views. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 34, 52–57.

Handelsman, J., Pfund, C., Miller Lauffer, S., and Maidl Pribbenow,C. (2005). Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Genera-tion of Scientists. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Hathaway, R. S., Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R. (2002). The rela-tionship of undergraduate research participation to graduate andprofessional education pursuit: an empirical study. J. Coll. Stud.Dev. 43, 614–663.

Hsieh, H.-F., and Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualita-tive content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277–1288.

Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scien-tist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, per-sonal, and professional development. Sci. Educ. 91, 36–74.

Kahveci, A., Southerland, S. A., and Gilmer, P. J. (2006). Retainingundergraduate women in science, mathematics, and engineering. J.Coll. Sci. Teach. 36, 34–38.

Kardash, C. M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate researchexperience: perceptions of undergraduate interns and their facultymentors. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 191–201.

Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences(SURE): first findings. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 270–277.

Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences supportscience career decisions and active learning. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6,297–306.

McGee, R., and Keller, J. L. (2007). Identifying future scientists:predicting persistence into research training. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6,316–331.

Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R., Jonides, J., Hippel, W. V., andLerner, J. S. (1998). Undergraduate student faculty research partner-ships affect student retention. Rev. High. Educ. 22, 55–72.

National Research Council (2003). Bio 2010, Transforming Under-graduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Washington DC:National Academies Press.

Pfund, C., Maidl Pribbenow, C., Branchaw, J., Miller Lauffer, S., andHandelsman, J. (2006). The merits of training mentors. Science 311,473–474.

Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., McCullough, J. (2007). The pipeline:benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science 316, 548–549.

Seymour, E. L., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S., and DeAntoni, T. (2004).Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergradu-ates: first findings from a three-year study. Sci. Educ 88, 493–594.

Shellito, C., Shea, K., Weissmann, G., Mueller-Solger, A., and Davis,W. (2001). Successful mentoring of undergraduate researchers: tipsfor creating positive student research experiences. J. Coll. Sci. Teach.30, 460–465.

Villarejo, M., Barlow, A.E.J., Kogan, D., Veazey, B. D., and Sweeney,J. K. (2008). Encouraging minority undergraduates to choose sciencecareers: career paths survey results. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 7, 394–409.

Ward, C., Bauer, K., and Bennet, J. (2005). Content analysis ofundergraduate student research evaluations. www.udel.edu/RAIRE/Content.pdf/ (accessed 10 September 2009).

Wood, W. B. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in thelife sciences at large research universities: a perspective on the BoyerCommission Report. Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 112–116.

N. Balster et al.

CBE—Life Sciences Education118