Supporting STEM transfer students through cross-institutional undergraduate research experiences

Abstract

The impact and benefits of undergraduate research experiences (URE) in the first two years of post-secondary education have been well documented. Early exposure to research experiences is effective in recruitment, diversity and persistence in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degree programs, particularly among underrepresented minority students. The Summer Undergraduate Research Experience Course (SUREC) presented in this paper is a cross-institutional collaboration between a two-year college (2YC) and a four-year college (4YC), designed to expose 2YC transfer students to a rigorous 12-week URE focused on geosciences. Findings from the program evaluation indicate the SUREC increased transfer student’s STEM knowledge and skills, science identity, and self-efficacy. Twenty of the twenty-four SUREC participants, representing underrepresented and majority students alike, transferred to a 4YC to continue in geosciences or in a related STEM field within two-years of the URE. A strong cross-institutional collaboration that combined academic, financial, and mentoring support was key to enhancing transfer students’ URE experiences. Leveraging teaching and research expertise of 2YC adjuncts as emerging academics and educators was a hallmark of this program.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2021.2005510

Keywords:

• STEM transfer students
• Undergraduate Research Experience (URE)
• cross-institutional collaboration
• adjunct faculty

Introduction

Purpose

This paper describes an undergraduate summer research course in geosciences developed through a cross-institutional collaboration to support student transfers from two-year colleges (2YC) to four-year colleges (4YC). The project allows second-year 2YC students to conduct guided scientific research at a 4YC. This is a twelve week, 3-credit course where students work in groups of four to develop hypotheses, collect and analyze data, conduct peer review, draw conclusions, and formally present findings. This project’s concept can be replicated at other 2YCs and 4YCs to help transfer students succeed at 4YCs. The paper also presents analysis of data collected in student surveys that demonstrate the effectiveness of the overall project and its implications for transfer students. This study aims to contribute to the ongoing inquiry in identifying best practices of undergraduate research experiences (UREs) in the first two years of undergraduate education.

Undergraduate research in the first two years

Traditionally, UREs are limited to the junior or senior years (Russell et al., 2007). This delay in getting students engaged in research puts them at a disadvantage when “making decisions about their future without knowing what scientists actually do, and without experiencing the considerable joys associated with making an original scientific discovery” (Reinen et al., 2006, p. 109). The impact and advantages of UREs in the first two years have been well documented in recent studies (Brownell & Kloser, 2015; Hanauer & Dolan, 2014; Litzinger et al., 2011; Russell et al., 2015). Supporting this, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2012) highlighted the importance of undergraduate research in improving undergraduate STEM education during the first two years of college. Early exposure to research experiences has shown to be effective in the recruitment of students, improved retention and diversity and persistence in degree programs, motivation for students to learn and increase self-efficacy, improved attitudes and values about science, and overall increased student success (Cerveny, 2015; National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2015).

Students’ success in UREs is determined by the support mechanisms in place. Macrosystem elements such as institutional bridge programs, faculty mentorship, peer support, and community development have been shown to contribute to student success in UREs (Wolfe & Riggs, 2017). Mentoring, in particular, is a critical component of a URE (NAS, 2017). Both formal mentoring that is structured and informal mentoring that develops naturally over time has shown to be effective in UREs (Johnson, 2002; Johnson & Ridley, 2004). Mentoring of underrepresented students has been shown to boost minority students’ prospects of attending graduate school and pursuing a career in STEM research (Thiry & Laursen, 2011).

Focus on UREs is part of a broader initiative to strengthen and extend participation in undergraduate STEM education (NAS, 2017). UREs are a mechanism to provide access to underrepresented groups who are less likely to stay in STEM fields, such as minorities, women, and first-generation students (Bangera & Brownell, 2014; Lopatto, 2004). Supporting this initiative, the National Research Council (NRC, 2011) recommends undergraduate research at 2YCs to facilitate and increase transfer rates to 4YCs for underrepresented students. While many 4YCs have started incorporating research practice into introductory sections of their curriculum (NAS, 2017), students from underrepresented groups are more likely to begin their undergraduate education at 2YCs where such opportunities are limited. Among all undergraduates in 2018, 57% of Native Americans, 52% of Hispanics, 42% of African Americans, 39% of Asian/Pacific Islanders, 29% of first generation, and 20% of people with disabilities were enrolled in a community college (AACC, 2020). Importantly, even though community colleges offer a diverse student body greater access to postsecondary education, transfer rates remain low (Packard et al., 2011). For example, in 2019 only 30% of all 2YC students transferred to a 4YC (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2020). In geosciences, numerous factors, including age, high school math preparation, having taken an Earth science course in high school, the number of science courses taken at the 2YC, student–faculty interaction, and faculty and academic advisors discussing physical science careers were identified as predictors of higher transfer intent (Wolfe, 2018).

Given the role of UREs in improving student participation and retention in STEM, it is critical to provide research opportunities to 2YC students. Such early exposure to UREs may contribute to increasing STEM student transfer rates and four-year degree completion rates, thus contributing to diversifying the STEM workforce (Higgins, 2013; Horsch et al., 2012; Rodenbusch et al., 2016). In addition, providing UREs via cross-institutional collaborations create a pathway for 2YC students to be exposed to a 4YC environment and build relationships with 4YC faculty and students (Gamage et al., 2020). Furthermore, collaborative UREs may ease some of the well-known institutional barriers to transfer students, such as lack of academic advising, insufficient transfer guidance, lack of articulation agreements between institutions, lack of faculty involvement, and lack of transfer student orientation at 4YCs (Dowd, 2012; Eggleston & Laana, 2001; Hagedorn et al., 2008; Packard et al., 2011; Townsend & Wilson, 2006; Wang, 2020; Wyner et al., 2016). Recent examples that demonstrate proven best practices for integrating research into the first two years of undergraduate geoscience courses include: (a) the first-semester undergraduate research experience at Calvin College where geology majors serve as mentors for first-year students (Van Dijk, 2015), (b) high-impact projects for early undergraduate students at Central Wyoming College (Smaglik, 2015), and (c) learning geology by researching other students’ conceptions of geology at Community College of Rhode Island (Kortz, 2015).

Challenges to undergraduate research at 2YCs

Despite the obvious advantages of UREs, community college faculty carry heavy teaching obligations and have limited resources (e.g., capital and facilities), which limit their capacity to provide research experiences for students in their first two years of higher education (Hewlett, 2009; Langley, 2015; Perez, 2003). In addition, systemic factors, such as lack of institutional support, lack of faculty reward, and lack of faculty motivation, further constrain the development of UREs at 2YCs (NAS, 2017). Moreover, these barriers are particularly acute for adjunct or part-time faculty who wish to initiate UREs in their classroom.

At 2YCs, adjunct faculty represent over half of all faculty (Hurlburt & McGarrah, 2016) and function as an integral part of community college education (Wallin, 2004). With adequate support and encouragement from the institution, adjunct faculty may be better positioned to facilitate UREs given their more flexible teaching obligations and their expertise in the field of study. For example, adjunct faculty who are also practicing professionals bring a “real-world perspective” to the classroom and provide a “link between the community and the college” (Wallin, 2004, p. 377). While adjunct faculty are a valuable untapped resource for developing UREs, they may encounter challenges such as job insecurity and time constraints limiting their participation in UREs. Developing strong collaborations between community colleges and research universities is one strategy for overcoming resource constraints and expanding opportunities for second-year community college students (Elgin et al., 2016; NAS, 2015; PCAST, 2012). The URE project presented here provides an example of such collaborative efforts between a 2YC and a nearby 4YC that was led by an adjunct faculty at the 2YC.

Summer undergraduate research experience course (SUREC)

To date, few cross-institutional collaborations in geosciences have been implemented at 2YCs (e.g. Bruno et al., 2016; Kortz et al., 2020). Indeed, most 2YC undergraduate research projects are developed within the institution, because cross-institutional collaborations take more time and effort to initiate and develop (NAS, 2017). In addition, cross-institutional collaborations may be hampered further by the geographical proximity of the two institutions. This paper describes an innovative initiative that overcomes some of these challenges by leveraging expertise and facilities at a leading 4YC and a nearby large 2YC in the Southwest United States.

The SUREC program explicitly targeted transfer students with a strong interest in geoscience or related STEM fields who have had some exposure to STEM at the college level. The development of the SUREC program was initiated by an adjunct faculty at the 2YC after observing her students’ increased inquisitiveness and excitement when conducting simple research activities focused on scientific ocean drilling. The SUREC program is a step forward to integrating scientific ocean drilling research into the 2YC undergraduate curriculum, where such exposure is scarce. The program content was structured around the scientific ocean drilling expertise of 2YC and 4YC faculty with an emphasis on skills development for transfer students.

The SUREC program incorporated targeted academic, financial, and mentoring supports that prior work has demonstrated to be crucial for students to develop a science identity and self-efficacy (Gándara, 1999). Because the 2YC lacked the facilities and resources to undertake scientific ocean drilling research, establishing a partnership with the 4YC was critical to the success of this program. Faculty from both institutions collaborated for 2–3 weeks every fall and spring semester to develop the program and recruit students. In the summer, the faculty spent 12 weeks guiding and mentoring students.

Prior to the implementation of the program, the 2YC faculty initiated and formed an articulation agreement for SUREC with the collaborating 4YC and a few other nearby 4YCs ensuring students’ research credits could be transferred. The 2YC-4YC partnership enabled 2YC students to take advantage of state-of-the-art facilities and expertise in scientific ocean drilling and to experience the college environment at a 4YC. In addition, the partnership applied for and was awarded a national grant to fund the SUREC program for three years.

SUREC program goals and student learning outcomes

The SUREC program goals fall within the three broad categories of goals identified in the NAS (2017) report for students participating in UREs: (a) increasing retention and persistence of students in STEM, (b) promoting STEM disciplinary knowledge and practices, and (c) integrating students into STEM culture. The SUREC student learning outcomes focused on both students’ knowledge/skills and affective outcomes as these are tightly linked to student retention (Byars-Winston et al., 2015; Chemers et al., 2011) in STEM. Upon completion of the SUREC program, students were expected to be able to explain the nature of the oceanic crust and its relationship to Earth processes; be able to apply knowledge to a real situation; learn skills and techniques used in geosciences laboratories; improve data analysis skills and data interpretation; improve ability to communicate research results; engage with scientific literature and databases; and to be committed to a STEM career. The SUREC program goals and student learning outcomes are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Project goals and evaluation data sources.

SUREC Goals	Evaluation Data Source
To promote student understanding of science as an inquiry	Undergraduate Research Student Self‐Assessment (URSSA) survey
To provide cutting edge undergraduate research experiences during the second year	Project records (review of student hypotheses/posters)
To attract and retain undergraduate students in geosciences	Institutional research data (number of geoscience majors)
To increase transfer rates of ACC geology students to four-year institutions	Institutional research data (number and percentage of geoscience majors transferring to four‐year institutions)
To become part of a learning community, including building strong student relationships within a cohort	URSSA survey
To boost academic self-efficacy and commitment
SUREC Student Learning Objectives	Evaluation Data Source
Broad knowledge of the nature of the oceanic crust and its relationship to the Earth processes	URSSA survey and Faculty assessment of student performance, according to a rubric developed in the first semester of the grant. Faculty assessment occurs in weeks 3, 6, 9, and 12 of SUREC.
Ability to apply knowledge to a real situation (application of theory)
Skills and lab techniques necessary to the research
Ability to interpret results/data
Ability to use scientific literature and databases
Improved oral communication skills
Commitment to a STEM career

Methods

Setting and study population

The setting of the two partner institutions were in an urban city in Central Texas that were in close proximity to one another. The 2YC serves more than 40,000 students and over 1000 students enroll in geoscience courses each year. The 4YC is a public university serving over 50,000 students with a strong geoscience program. The SUREC program targeted students enrolled in their second year at the 2YC who intend to transfer to a 4YC.

Among the 24 students that were selected for the program, 48% were male and 52% were female. The ethnic distribution was 46% White, 33% Hispanic, 13% Asian, 4% American Indian, and 4% Middle Eastern. The selected students reflected the ethnic and gender diversity of the 2YC in similar proportions. Twenty nine percent (29%) of all participants were first generation college students. The intended majors, as stated in student applications, were 38% engineering, 29% geology, 17% environmental sciences, 8% physics, 4% psychology, 4% general studies in science. The age of the applicants varied from 20 to 37 years. All participants reported working 20 to 40 hours per week. Nearly half of the participants (43%) reported they were from a low-income home. Students indicated their mother’s education level as, 13% not a high school graduate, 26% high school graduate, 26% some college, 30% bachelor’s degree and 4% graduate or professional degree. For father’s education level, students indicated 9% not a high school graduate, 26% high school graduate, 30% some college, 22% bachelor’s degree and 13% graduate or professional degree.

During the 12-week program, students worked in groups of four and spent 12 hours per week (twice a week- 6 hours each day) engaging in authentic research. Following an introduction to scientific ocean drilling, research topics were carefully selected to focus on a question of interest to students, allowing for the development of at least one research hypothesis, and be able to investigate a research question within the constraints of the program. Students were encouraged to propose research ideas and were grouped based on their research interests. Student research experiences were also tailored to challenge students without losing their interest or creating discouragement. For instance, students were trained and guided by the faculty in general laboratory techniques such as brine solution preparation, dilution series, standards preparation, micro-filtering, and pipetting, as well as on a variety of instrumentation such as pH meters, conductivity meters, zeta-sizers, and permeameters to increase students’ comfort level with new techniques and their ability to apply them to their research. Studies have suggested that students involved in excessively ambitious UREs or research projects with lack of structure, have led to a loss of confidence or a loss of interest in their STEM careers (Harsh et al., 2011; Thiry & Laursen, 2011). Student research topics fell under a broad category of physical and chemical properties of rocks and sediments (Table 2).

Table 2. A summary of weekly course activities including examples of student research projects.

Week 1	Activities Orientation and Training: a day long workshop outlining the program goals, expectations, introduction to faculty-student mentoring, a tour of the lab, setting up a schedule for safety training, and training on the use of specific laboratory equipment. Students were assigned to one of three research groups based on their preferences. Below are examples of research projects. Analyzing variations in grain size distribution as function of depositional setting from a series of cores Hypothesis: More distal settings (farther from sediment source) result in smaller grain sizes and narrower grain size distributions. Methods: Analysis of existing data from Ocean Drilling Program (ODP)/IODP databases; laboratory measurements on samples from offshore Japan and Alaska using settling columns. Investigating the relationship between clay-sized fraction and permeability in marine sediments Hypothesis: Permeability in marine sediments is a function of the amount of clay-sized grains present Methods: Laboratory measurements of gas permeability on analog mixtures of glass beads; analysis of data from ODP/IODP databases. Reactivity of minerals in different brine compositions. Hypothesis: Clay rich minerals will interact with ions in brine solutions more than pure minerals such as sandstone and carbonates Methods: Pure carbonate, pure sandstone, and clay-rich sediments will be equilibrated in different brine solutions. Ion chromatography will be applied to evaluate before and after ion composition of the brine solution.
Week 2	Introduction to the scientific method: formulating a testable hypothesis, selecting an appropriate experimental method, analytical methods, setting research goals, benchmarks and timelines, and accessing scientific literature Introduction to experimental design: defining the independent and dependent variables, selecting appropriate standards, and documentation in the laboratory notebook Training on the use of laboratory equipment and sample preparation
Week 3	Analysis of experimental data: spreadsheets and graphs, standard curves construction, and statistical error analysis Lab experiments and data collection begins
Week 4	Introduction to science communication: structure of the formal research paper and designing conference-style research poster
Week 5	Data collection and analysis continues
Week 6	Preparation of research abstract
Week 7-11	Complete data acquisition and analysis Begin working on research poster
Week 12	Poster presentations: (1) summer poster symposium at the 4YC and (2) at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) virtual poster session

Detailed course schedule is available in Supplementary material Table S2.

Participant recruitment

SUREC program was offered to twelve selected undergraduate students each summer for two consecutive years. From the applicant pool, students were evaluated according to a rubric (Supplementary material Table S1) based on a combination of academic performance as determined by transcript evaluation, letters of recommendation, and students’ personal essays. In their personal essays, students described their interest in scientific research, particularly as it relates to educational achievement while overcoming obstacles such as economic, social, or educational challenges.

In order to optimize the recruitment of students from underrepresented groups, STEM faculty at the 2YC were asked to reach out to individual students that showed an interest in science. As noted by Cerveny (2015, p.2), “an invitation to participate in research sends a message to students that they belong in this field or discipline” and is a “non-remedial approach to student retention.” In addition, the program was advertised through the geology department website, flyers, student email, and faculty communication in geoscience and other STEM classes. For the application, we intentionally chose an overall GPA cutoff of 2.5 allowing more students interested in STEM to participate in the program. During the application process, we noted that many students were delaying submitting the required letters of recommendation. After contacting the students, we discovered that many of them were apprehensive about requesting letters of recommendation from faculty members, afraid that the faculty members would decline, as most students had only taken one course with the faculty member and had not yet developed a positive rapport. We addressed this issue by advising students on how to request a faculty letter of recommendation and accepting one letter from a student’s employer.

In total, we received 50 applications in 2017 and 66 applications in 2018. Finalists were selected from a shortlist of applicants who were invited for an interview with the three faculty members. Selected students received a stipend of $2500 which was determined based on 2YC’s institutional policies, allowing students to take time off from employment obligations so they could focus on their research. Research shows that “financial incentives are most effective in reducing attrition among low-income and minority students when combined with academic support” (NAS, 2011). In addition to the stipend, students also received a full tuition waiver for the 3-credit course including nonresident and lab fees.

The selected students were registered in SUREC at the 2YC by the registrar during the normal registration period for the summer. SUREC participants were issued a student ID from the 4YC for the duration of the program to access 4YC facilities and services such as science labs, computers and libraries. All participants resided within a 20-mile radius of the 4YC and had access to free public transportation through the 4YC.

Instructional materials and procedure

The SUREC program began with an orientation that included a warm welcome by the department chair, faculty and staff at the 4YC. Students also received a guided tour of the 4YC, an introduction to laboratories and facilities, and completed laboratory safety training during the orientation week. Students were also introduced to the one-on-one faculty-student mentoring – a critical component of the program to assist students by tracking their progress in the program and providing guidance on students’ future education plans. Prior to the start of the SUREC program, the faculty received mentoring training to develop effective mentoring relationships with students. Mentor training resources can be found at https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-science-of-effective-mentoring-in-stemm and https://cimerproject.org/

During week one, students also met with a transfer counselor from the 4YC to learn about the transfer process, course requirements and education programs available at the 4YC. End of week one, students had an opportunity to learn about potential research topics and provide their preferences from most to least preferred to the faculty. Students were assigned to one of three research groups based on their preferences. Research group assignments also considered student personality and educational traits.

In the following five weeks students were introduced and trained on laboratory equipment and procedures; data analysis and interpretation; and science communication. From week six to eleven, students worked on their research abstracts and posters while completing their research. At this point, some students requested additional access to laboratories outside their allocated time to conduct supplemental analysis or to complete lab work. In week twelve, students presented their research in a conference-style poster at the department’s summer poster symposium and submitted video recorded poster presentations to the American Geophysical Union (AGU) virtual poster session. Student research posters are available in supplementary material Figures S1–S6. Students weekly URE activities are summarized in Table 2.

Group meetings were held once a week throughout the program. During the group meetings, students presented and discussed their project’s experimental design, challenges with instrumentation and experiments, data and data analysis, and identified goals for the following weeks. The group meetings provided an opportunity for students to explain their research in their own words and reflect on their research experience. Students in each group took turns presenting at the group meetings, which offered opportunities to practice their presentation skills and become more familiar with their research. When students are encouraged to reflect on their learning, they have a greater chance of building deeper and well-conditioned knowledge (Litzinger et al., 2011).

In addition to the group research projects, each student completed several graded assignments during the 12-week program. The assignments gave an additional opportunity to measure student’s level of understanding of the research process, ability to design a research project, quantitative skills, data analysis skills and written communication skills. Geoscience graduates are expected to have strong quantitative skills; be able to think critically and solve complex issues; work in teams within and across disciplines; visualize the world in 3D (and 4D); work with uncertainty, incomplete data, and non-uniqueness; use deductive and inductive reasoning; interpret on the basis of indirect observations; and communicate effectively (Mosher et al., 2014). These skills are best developed through frequent exposure and practice throughout a course or curriculum (Mosher et al., 2014; Wenner et al., 2009).

The first graded assignment’s final product was to write an abstract, which required students to read, comprehend and reflect on STEM literature. For this assignment, students were asked to read a scientific paper without its abstract, identify the key components of the research, and produce an abstract for the paper. The abstract was then peer reviewed, and students revised their abstracts based on peer feedback. Abstracts were next reviewed by faculty who offered additional feedback, which resulted in a second student revision. This exercise allowed students to make their thinking visible and incorporate new knowledge during the revisions. Similarly, for the hypothesis development assignment, students were given a section of a research proposal. Based on the background information provided, students were asked to develop two hypotheses and identify specific ways to test each. This exercise was administered toward the end of the program when students were more familiar with developing and testing hypotheses. The third graded assignment targeted students’ quantitative and data analysis skills. Students were given a set of physical and chemical data from various sources to analyze. Students were asked to sort, calculate specific parameters, plot, and interpret the data. Ideas for quantitative and data analysis assignments, such as the ones used here, can be found at https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/mathstatmodels/geo_excel.html

Students also maintained a lab notebook that was assessed by faculty every third week. Students were encouraged to maintain a well-documented lab book with raw data and results, as well as details on technical issues and limitations related to their projects. Every third week, students met with each of the three faculty individually to discuss their progress in the program, their application process for transfer, and future plans. Generally, these sessions lasted anywhere from 30 minutes to one hour depending on individual student’s needs. In addition to these formal mentoring sessions, students received informal mentoring throughout the program. The three faculty members alternated between the laboratories and the student lounge, where students informally socialize with their peers and faculty. The informal interactions made the research experience different from classroom experiences providing additional opportunities for faculty-student interaction.

During the twelve-week program, four guest speakers were invited to expose students to graduate school and career opportunities available in the geosciences. The speakers represented geosciences/petroleum engineering faculty, undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral students from the 4YC, and industrial partners. Additionally, these lectures provided students with an opportunity to broaden their network by meeting new people from a range of different career levels.

Evaluation methods

Evaluation of the SUREC occurred during 2017 and 2018 and utilized the following three data sources: (a) a self-administered Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) survey (Hunter et al., 2009), (b) instructor evaluations, and (c) institutional data on student demographics, enrollment, and retention. Table 1 presents where the three data sources intersect with the specific SUREC program goals and targeted SUREC student learning objectives.

URSSA surveys

The URSSA self-administered survey was programmed using Qualtrics, a web-survey platform. The survey was administered during the 2017 and 2018 course years, and 100% of participants completed the survey. This survey utilized both contemporaneous and retroactive question items about student experiences and orientations to measure changes resulting from their involvement in undergraduate research. Ten questions from the URSSA were used to evaluate students relative to the program goals and objectives (Table 3). The questions were centered on students’ experience as a scientist, skills learned, personal gains, changes in students’ attitude and behavior, students’ future goals and effectiveness of mentorship. The survey instruments are available in Supplementary material Table S3.

Table 3. A. Student’s declared or intend to declare major

Item	Yes	Maybe	No
	%	%	%
Have you declared a major (or do you intend to declare a major) in a science, technology, engineering, or math field?	96	4	0

B. Student Gains in Thinking and Working like a Scientist

Item	No gain	A little gain	Moderate gain	Good gain	Great gain
	%	%	%	%	%
Identifying limitations of research methods and designs	0	0	0	33	67
Problem solving in general	0	0	4	33	63
Understanding the relevance of research to my course work	0	0	9	30	61

C. Student Personal Gains Related to Research Work

Item	No gain	A little gain	Moderate gain	Good gain	Great gain
	%	%	%	%	%
Understanding what everyday research work is like	0	0	0	33	67
Overall college experience	0	0	17	25	58
Confidence in my ability to do well in future science courses	0	0	4	42	54
Developing patience with the slow pace of research	0	4	4	38	54
Taking greater care in conducting procedures in the lab or field	0	4	0	42	54

D. Student Gains in Skills

Item	No gain	A little gain	Moderate gain	Good gain	Great gain
	%	%	%	%	%
Preparing a scientific poster	0	0	4	17	79
Using statistics to analyze data*	0	0	0	33	67
Conducting database or internet searches	0	4	17	25	54
Conducting observations in the lab or field	0	0	8	38	54
Managing my time	0	4	17	25	54
Writing scientific reports or papers	0	0	17	29	54

E. Student Opinions about Research Experience

Item	None	A little	Some	A fair amount	A great deal
	%	%	%	%	%
Feel responsible for the project	0	0	12	21	67
Think creatively about the project	0	0	21	21	58
Feel like a scientist	0	4	13	29	54
Work extra hours because you were excited about the research	0	0	17	31	52

F. Influence of Research Experience on Future Plans

Item	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree
	%	%	%	%
Doing research clarified for me which field of study I want to pursue.	0	21	33	46
My research experience has prepared me to transfer from a 2-year to a 4-year institution.	0	8	46	46
Doing research confirmed my interest in my field of study.	0	4	54	42
My research experience has prepared me for a job.	0	4	63	33

G. Influence of Research Experience on Likelihood of Pursuing Academic or Career Plans

Item	Not more likely	A little more likely	Somewhat more likely	Much more likely	Extremely more likely	Not applicable
	%	%	%	%	%	%
Complete your bachelor’s degree in science, mathematics or engineering?	8	0	13	17	63	0
Transfer to a 4-year institution?	0	0	13	13	54	21
Enroll in a masters program in science, mathematics or engineering?	8	4	21	29	38	0
Work in a science lab?	4	4	17	38	38	0

H. Extent to which Mentorship Helped Achieve Personal Goals

Item	%
To a great extent	78
To some extent	22
Not at all	0

I. How Mentoring Has Helped Achieve Personal Goals

Item	%
Successfully completing the SUREC program	42
Time management	29
Transferring to a 4-year college	13
Other	15

*Only included in 2018 survey. The Complete URSSA survey data is available in Supplementary material Table S5.

The student responses for the Likert-scale questions were analyzed and interpreted using summary statistics. In addition, three open-ended questions were used to capture additional data that was not included in the survey. Student responses for the open-ended questions were reviewed by two research members to establish emergent themes. For this research, a theme is defined as “an element that occurs frequently in a text or describes a unique experience that gets at the essence of the phenomenon under inquiry’’ (Jones et al., 2006, p. 89).

Instructor evaluations

For each course year, three instructors assessed students in one-on-one sessions using a standardized rubric at the three, six, nine, and twelve-week points of the SUREC course (Supplementary Table S4). The rubric assessed students on the following: safety; time management; weekly meeting participation; creativity, initiative, and literature; lab work (skills, techniques, results, data interpretation, and lab notebook); oral presentation/communication skills, teamwork and graded assignments. On week twelve, oral presentation and communication skills were assessed individually when students formally presented their research posters to the three faculty prior to the poster symposium. For all evaluation items, instructors assigned scores indicating that the students’ performance was unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, or excellent (Supplementary Table S4). To determine the overall trend in student competencies across the four assessment periods, the rubric scores were converted to percentages using the following steps. Because there were four competency levels, we set the highest score (maximum points allowed) at 100% or “excellent” and the lowest score (0 points) at 64% or “unsatisfactory”. Four competency levels were established: excellent (100–89%), good (88–77%), satisfactory (76–65%) and unsatisfactory (<65%). During both 2017 and 2018 program years, instructors assessed 100% of participating students. In addition, students were also assessed based on their individual graded assignments. All assignments were graded using rubrics that were developed to assess student’s level of proficiency of the topic.

Table 4. Instructor assessments.

Assessment area	Week 3	Week 6	Week 9	Week12
	%	%	%	%
Lab work	69	82	97	*
Oral presentation	74	69	72	92
Creativity, initiative, literature	85	83	92	*
Teamwork	86	85	86	94
Safety	100	100	100	100
Time management	78	94	98	98
Weekly meeting	100	100	100	100

Percentages represent average scores. Excellent (100–89%), good (88–77%), satisfactory (76–65%) and unsatisfactory (<65%) *Lab work and Creativity, initiative & literature were not assessed in Week 12 as students have already completed these tasks by Week 9.

Institutional data on student demographics, enrollment, and retention

Lastly, the 2YC’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness & Accountability provided data for both 2017 and 2018 cohorts on demographics, enrollment, retention and transfer data.

Validity and reliability

The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded URSSA survey was developed to allow comparability between different undergraduate research sites within or across institutions (Groves et al., 2004; Blair et al., 2013). The small number of student responses to the open-ended questions (n = 38) were independently coded to the established themes with 100% agreement between the two research members. Data from the instructor evaluations was also found to be valid and reliable. Individual scores assigned to each student by the three faculty members were within ±10% of one another, indicating agreement. Additionally, much of the data collected through instructor evaluations aligned with the findings of the URSSA, thus further supporting validity.

Results

The results are presented in the following order—student experience in undergraduate research based on URSSA survey data, instructor evaluations and institutional data. Responses were evaluated from all 24 students who participated in the SUREC program. Data from the 2017 and 2018 cohorts were grouped together to create a sufficient population size for the analysis.

Student experiences in undergraduate research based on URSSA survey

By the end of the 12-week long program, all SUREC students either had declared or intended to declare a STEM major. Of all students, 42% declared a major in the geosciences while 25% indicated they may choose geoscience as their major. Those who did not choose geoscience as their major indicated they had declared a major in one of the following STEM fields – biology, ecology, engineering (petroleum, mechanical, chemical), and park management (Table 3A)

The vast majority of SUREC students made good or great gains in all areas of thinking and working like a scientist: application of knowledge to research work (Table 3B). SUREC students made the strongest gains in identifying the limitations of research methods and designs (67% “great gain”), problem solving (63%) and understanding the relevance to my course (61%). The survey also asked students to rate their personal gains related to research work (Table 3C). Students indicated that they gained the most in understanding what everyday research work is like (67% “great gain”), confidence in my ability to do well in future science courses (54%), developing patience with the slow pace of research (54%) and taking greater care in conducting procedures in the lab or field (54%). A majority of the 2018 cohort (58%) indicated their overall college experience at the 4YC during the SUREC program as one of the strongest gains during their research experience. This survey question was designed to measure students’ broad experiences at the 4YC as either positive or negative. In addition, this survey question was not included in the 2017 survey.

To understand what skills students learned during the research experience, a multivariable question was used in the survey (Table 3D). Students rated their greatest gains in the following skills: preparing a scientific poster (79% “great gain”), writing scientific reports or papers (54%), conducting observations in the lab or field (54%), conducting database or internet searches (54%) and managing their time (54%). A majority of the 2018 cohort (67%) also rated conducting data analysis as one of their “greatest gains” in skills learned during their research experience. This survey question was not included in the 2017 survey.

The next multivariable question asked about students’ overall research experience and about any changes in their attitude or behaviors as a researcher (Table 3E). Two-thirds of the students (67%) indicated that they felt responsible for the project “a great deal”, and over half of the students (58%) marked that they thought creatively about the project a great deal. Over half of the students noted that they felt like a scientist (54%) and worked extra hours because they were excited about the research (52%). Students also indicated that they felt as part of a scientific community (29% “a great deal,” 46% “a fair amount,” and 21% “some”) and when asked about other gains from the SUREC research experience, several mentioned the relationships they made with other students and with their professors.

The students were given several statements about the influence of the SUREC experience on their future plans and asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements (Table 3F). The majority of the SUREC students (96%) agreed or strongly agreed that doing research confirmed their field of study and that doing research has prepared them for a job. Ninety-two percent (92%) agreed or strongly agreed that the research experience has prepared them to transfer from a two-year to a four-year institution. Over three‐quarters (79%) agreed or strongly agreed that doing research helped clarify which field of study they want to pursue. Students also indicated their research experience influenced their future plans most strongly in the following ways (Table 3G): complete a STEM bachelor’s degree (80% “extremely more likely” or “much more likely”), work in a science lab (76%), transfer to a four‐year institution (67%), and enroll in a STEM Master’s program (67%).

When asked about mentoring (Table 3H & 3I), seventy-eight percent (78%) of SUREC participants indicated mentoring helped them achieve their personal goals to a great extent while 22% indicated mentoring helped them to “some extent” to achieve their personal goals. Mentoring helped 42% of the students successfully complete the SUREC program, 29% improve their time management, and 13% transfer to a four-year college. The 15% who chose “other” acknowledged how mentoring helped them develop skills (75%) and build self-confidence (25%). One student, for example explained, “…. mentors in the program gave great advice on how to achieve my goal of transferring to a four-year school and how I could improve my scientific writing, public speaking, as well as the importance of confidence in your research.” Another student elaborated “At some points throughout the program, there was a small understanding of what steps to take in order to effectively start researching. However, with the guide of my mentors, they made it possible for me to pursue my own individual research and accumulate knowledge to a point where I did not expect to learn that in the 12-weeks”.

The common elements that emerged from the analysis of open-end comments included: student development of skills and career aspirations: boosting self-confidence, being part of a research community and holistic experience of URE. In the survey, when asked in an open-ended question about how the research experience influenced students’ thinking about their future career and graduate school plans, 57% of the students explained that the experience helped clarify their career plans. As one student stated, “I did consider doing a general geology degree, but decided that I wanted to make a career working with fluids. Hydrology seemed to be a good balance between that and my aspirations for environmental work.” Another student shared, “this research project influenced me pursuing a geophysics major along with my math degree.”

In many cases (24%), research was the driving force for continuing to pursue a higher degree in STEM. As one student reflected, “At first, I was not comfortable with the idea of doing research, I thought I was not prepared for this. But now that it’s done, I feel sure of myself. I’m even considering doing a Ph.D. if I have the opportunity.” Other students expressed similar sentiments highlighting how skills development increased their confidence in STEM – “The SUREC program tested my ability to think critically and logically, which gave me confidence that I can be successful in grad school.”; “It made me put much more consideration into a degree past my bachelors, while also helping me feel more prepared in my future career choice.”

Several students (9%) further highlighted that the research experience improved their self‐confidence and belonging in STEM. As one student explained, “Three professors taking the time the guide us and trusting us with their lab equipment made me feel worthy of being a part of the science community. I also learned that I can trust others when working in a group toward a common goal.” Another student expressed, “Personally, this gave me a boost of self-confidence. This has given me a head start in doing research at. This experience has really opened more opportunities for me.”

The final survey question allowed students to reflect on “other gains from doing research” that were not mentioned in the survey. Only ten participants responded to this question. Half of the participant (50%) reiterated how the URE boosted their self-confidence and how they benefited from mentoring. Twenty percent of the participants acknowledged that the research experience provided them a holistic approach to doing science. According to one student, “I learned how to think scientifically, what truly happens in a lab, how to deal with experimental errors and how to deal with time constraints. It taught me science costs money, and the longer you’re experiment the more it’ll cost.” Another student elaborated, “This program really distinguished for me what researching is and how beneficial it is to connect these ideas to real world applications. It has strictly encouraged me to indulge in reaching out to other sources for background research rather than using my own institution as a source for my career.”

The research setting provided students (30%) an opportunity to connect with professors and peers, allowing them to be part of the research community. As one student explained, “I earned new friends and contacts throughout the whole research experience.” Another student expressed the importance of interaction between faculty and students as “I think one important gain that was not mentioned, is developing one’s ability to interact with the professors. Some people might not be used to working, while under the supervision of a professor. This prevents them from effectively communicating with the professor.”

Instructor evaluations

Student skills were in the excellent, good or satisfactory range during all four assessment periods and in most cases, average skill assessments increased over time, though safety and weekly meeting participation were at 100% at all assessment points (Table 4). For lab work; oral presentation/communication skills; creativity, initiative, and literature; and teamwork, the students’ scores improved from “satisfactory” to “excellent ‘‘ over the four assessment periods. All students earned 100% or “excellent” in all four assessments of safety, indicating that they wore personal protective equipment at all times in the lab and followed instructions carefully. Time management skills were rated very highly throughout the four assessment periods. For “excellent” time management, students showed evidence of time management planning, spent a minimum of 12 hours per week on their project, and met all target deadlines on-time. All of the students earned 100% or “excellent” in all four assessments of the weekly meeting participation, indicating that they attended and willingly participated.

Individual graded assignments: Individual student grades indicated slight variations in their performances. Overall, all students met the expected learning outcomes for each of the three graded assignments – abstract writing, hypothesis development and data analysis.

Institutional data

Of the 24 SUREC students over the two summers, 20 (83%) have transferred to four‐year institutions with STEM majors within 24 months of completing the program. Eight students (40%) remained in geosciences, while five (25%) transferred to environmental sciences and/or ecology, another five students (25%) transferred to mechanical engineering and two students (10%) transferred to biology and chemistry respectively. Among the transfer students 37% were White, 29% Hispanic, 13% Asian, and 4% Middle Eastern. Of the total transfer students, 46% were female and 38% were male. At the time of this publication, the remaining four students (17%) have either applied or are planning to apply to a four-year institution. Three (13%) of these students are white and one (4%) is Hispanic.

Discussion

While undergraduate research has been widely embedded in undergraduate education, research programs and published data that focused on community college students, particularly those who are majoring in the geosciences, are scarce in the extant literature. Our findings from both student self-assessment survey data and instructor evaluations reveal that the student learning outcomes and goals set for the SUREC program were met in both years. The present paper, therefore, provides a framework for faculty and administrators at both 2YCs and 4YCs to develop collaborative research programs that support transfer students in STEM. The following discussion is organized into three themes addressing the main goals of the SUREC program. In addition, consideration of the important roles of institutional support and adjunct faculty, are also discussed.

Promoting student understanding of science as inquiry

Analysis of evaluation data collected throughout two years of the SUREC program demonstrated that SUREC students largely broadened their disciplinary knowledge and application of knowledge through understanding the relevance of research to course work, understanding research methods and designs, and through problem solving. A majority of the students also indicated their research experience helped them to interpret results and data. The graded spread sheet assignment further provided evidence that students developed skills to perform calculations, conduct basic statistical analyses and interpret data. Also evident in student written comments was students’ increased confidence in analyzing data. The instructor evaluations indicated that students moved from passive observation to mastering skills and lab techniques necessary to the research during the course of the program. Thus, students’ average scores increased with time as they became more familiar with the research process, and more independent in their research activities as they deepened their intellectual engagement. Our results are consistent with previous findings that suggest UREs allow students to develop deeper and robust knowledge (Litzinger et al., 2011), increased ability to analyze data (Junge et al., 2010) and troubleshoot research problems (Bauer & Bennett, 2003; Hunter et al., 2007).

In addition to the outcomes listed above, students also demonstrated improvements in their ability to use scientific literature and databases. Instructor evaluations supported these outcomes by indicating that a majority of students had increases in their creativity, innovation, and use of literature. Similarly, students also showed that they improved their oral communication skills during the research experience. Instructor evaluations on weekly group meetings indicated that students were well prepared to discuss STEM concepts and their findings by the time they presented their final research posters. Weekly group meetings provided a regular opportunity for students not only to develop presentation skills but also to think and reflect about their research activities, thus providing an opportunity for metacognitive reflection. Many of the skills students developed during the URE were identified as key skills that geoscience graduates need to develop for future geoscience and graduate careers (Mosher et al., 2014). Our findings were supported by previous UREs reported in the literature. Students who participated in UREs have shown cognitive growth in a wide range of practices, such as critical thinking; problem solving, research skills, communication skills and reflection on one’s work (Brownell & Kloser, 2015; Junge et al., 2010; Kardash, 2000; Litzinger et al., 2011; Lopatto, 2004).

Becoming part of a learning community, boosting self-efficacy and persistence

The SUREC participants saw themselves as part of a science community and wanted to continue their education in geosciences or related STEM fields. These observations suggest that UREs are capable of developing science identity and self-efficacy in the first two years in the 2YC student population. Previous work supports the idea that students’ experience as a researcher in URE’s can provide assurance of a STEM career path (Auchincloss et al., 2014). As students noted, working in small groups allowed them to develop a community of learners. Learning communities allow students to provide feedback without feeling uncomfortable making mistakes or feeling anxious (Kortz & van der Hoeven Kraft, 2016). Further, research experience increases the effectiveness of student-centered learning while improving knowledge retention and providing both cognitive and social support (Hunter et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 1998, 2007; National Research Council & Kober, 2015). The many benefits of developing a community of learners are essential for student success and persistence (Barnett, 2011; Tinto, 1997).

SUREC students also indicated their increased ownership of their research projects as well as an increased interest and commitment to STEM. The activities surveyed in the study indicated that the research experience contributed to students’ affirmation of their career plans as research scientists in STEM. A majority of students felt like a scientist, felt responsible for the project, and worked extra hours because they were excited about the research. Students increased interest and feeling like a scientist made them invest more time and effort into their projects than they may have otherwise. In addition, students noted in their written comments, interactions with faculty members and how faculty members believed they were capable of handling lab equipment and conducting research boosted their self-confidence and self-belonging in STEM.

A majority of students indicated mentoring helped them achieve their personal goals in multiple ways including successfully completing the program, transferring to a 4YC, developing research skills, and increasing self-confidence. By having multiple faculty mentors, students had an option to reach out for guidance and support. According to our observations, students approached the 2YC faculty mostly when they had personal issues and the 4YC faculty for research and career guidance. At the time of the preparation of this manuscript, students have continued to reach out to all three faculty for career advice and recommendation letters. Providing dedicated faculty time for mentoring throughout the 12-week program may have contributed to developing long-term relationships with the students. Previous work has also shown that developing close relationships with faculty members help students achieve recognition by others as well as confirm their interest to continue into graduate studies (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Laursen et al., 2010).

Students’ increased commitment to a STEM career was strongly evident in the self-assessment survey data where 80% of students indicated that they are more likely to complete a STEM bachelor’s degree as a consequence of participating in the SUREC program. As noted in student written comments, they developed greater interest in applying for graduate school in a STEM field. Also evident from student comments was that some students wanted to apply for graduate school and some wanted to work in lab environments. This further suggests that URE activities helped students develop their professional identity: one that would ultimately lead them to continue student and career development in STEM. Our findings confirm that exposure to the research experience is paramount to the encouragement of undergraduates’ persistence in STEM at 2YCs. Well-designed UREs that expand students’ disciplinary knowledge and sense of belonging have been shown to increase student retention and persistence in STEM (NAS, 2017).

Supporting transfers

The total number of students transferred (83%) within two years of completing the program confirms students’ commitment to a STEM career. Of those transferred, 40% continued as geoscience majors, a 11% increase from the intended geology majors at the beginning of the SUREC program. Most notably, all twenty transfer students remained in STEM, further confirming their commitment to STEM. The overall demographics of transfer students indicate that female students were more successful in transferring within two years of the URE compared to male students. Although there were more White students in the URE than Hispanic students, overall Hispanic students did better in transferring compared to White students within two years. These findings are encouraging to further promote geoscience UREs among underrepresented groups at 2YCs. The findings also suggest that designing geoscience UREs that highlight the importance of laboratory work in research such as in SUREC, may also help recruiting students from underrepresented groups. Traditionally, geosciences have been marketed as a field science that underrepresented students would perceive negatively (Sherman-Morris & McNeal, 2016).

Our findings also indicate that the timing of the URE is critical for transfer students. Students who transferred within two years of the SUREC program had completed a majority of their prerequisites prior to the URE. These students were able to capitalize on the opportunity to talk to transfer counselors and faculty at the 4YC. Transfer students also obtained letters of recommendation from the three URE faculty to support their applications. We noted that a few students that were unable to apply for transfer immediately following the URE had not yet taken calculus – a transfer prerequisite for many STEM majors. When asked, students indicated it was their lack of confidence in quantitative skills that led them to postpone taking calculus. This was a topic that students commonly discussed during the mentoring sessions. In particular, one student who previously thought he would not pass calculus was ready to give up pursuing a STEM major. This student ended up enrolling in calculus and transferring to a 4YC after the SUREC program. Two of the students who did not transfer cited family and financial barriers as reasons for the delay in transferring.

Institutional support and adjunct faculty

While certain elements of UREs can be easily integrated into existing courses without a complete overhaul (Scott et al., 2020), developing cross institutional collaborative UREs like the SUREC program can be challenging for individual faculty as it requires institutional support. Our experience from the present study revealed that finding collaborators at 4YCs and finding resources – particularly financial support to provide URE student stipends – are two main barriers to developing and sustaining collaborative UREs. Involving 2YC administrators to establish long term collaborations with local 4YCs and locating resources will reduce some of the barriers in developing UREs at 2YCs (M. Smith, personal communication, March 12, 2021).

The involvement of adjunct faculty in the development of UREs at 2YCs is another crucial factor. The limited number of full-time faculty at 2YCs, generally tasked with heavy teaching loads, may not always be available to participate in UREs. On the other hand, the large adjunct faculty pool at 2YCs can be a good source to engage in UREs. Many adjunct faculty bring professional working experience to the classroom (Wallin, 2004). This provides a unique opportunity for adjuncts to develop UREs based on their work and teaching expertise and existing networks. Two-year colleges must consider strategies to promote UREs by providing adjunct faculty with stipends and professional development opportunities, as research is not required at 2YCs. Institutionalizing UREs at 2YCs to better support adjunct faculty buy-in may broaden research opportunities for 2YC students to facilitate a richer experience of STEM. To this end, future UREs may benefit by surveying adjunct faculty at 2YCs to learn more about their opinions of UREs, more generally, as well as individual motivations and barriers to participation.

Limitations

There are several limitations to the analyses of survey data, and in turn, conclusions drawn in this paper. First, with exception of the instructor evaluations, the data used are self-reported and subject to response bias or social desirability, which could result in an unknown degree of measurement error. Second, the study did not include a comparison group due to logistical issues associated with administering the survey to students outside the SUREC program. Therefore, the self-reported survey responses could be skewed given the participants’ desire to be in the program, which restricts the generalizability of our findings. Third, the relatively small sample size may not necessarily apply across all 2YC student populations. Thus, similar programs across STEM fields need to be facilitated in order to strengthen the conclusions made in the research presented here. Fourth, due to limitations in institutional tracking data, we were unable to compare how effective the SUREC program was in increasing transfers in geosciences and related STEM fields compared to previous years. For example, the institutional data do not include information on student majors at the 4YC. This makes it difficult to track how many 2YC students transfer to a specific program. Lastly, the study did not extend beyond the SUREC program, so we were not able to track students’ progress and success after they transferred to a 4YC. Future research would do well to conduct follow-up interviews with students toward the end of their undergraduate career to assess progress and future plans.

Implications

Our purpose in the SUREC project is to identify student experiences that increase geoscience persistence and support student transfers that can be used to develop effective collaborative UREs. Findings of this study contribute to a growing body of knowledge on UREs designed for supporting community college transfer students that can be adapted at other institutions. Our results indicate that collaborative UREs that combine academic support, financial support, and mentoring can increase persistence in geoscience and related STEM fields, as well as offer support to underrepresented and minority students who plan on transferring to a 4YC. By thoughtfully structuring the URE, students can be exposed to a rigorous research experience that develop content knowledge and skills, science identity, and self-efficacy while experiencing the 4YC environment.

The success of this URE program is attributed to both the targeted transfer student population and key program features that enhanced transfer student experiences. By focusing on transfer students with an interest in geosciences/STEM, we were able to design a URE that supports students with the tools needed to acquire both academic and practical knowledge leading to successful transfer to a 4YC. There were three key program features that allowed the program to be successful: cross-institutional collaboration, adjunct buy-in, and funding. Achieving a strong cross-institutional collaboration requires aligning faculty research interests and faculty stewardship for undergraduate student learning across institutions. For this project, 2YC and 4YC faculty had similar research background in scientific oceanic drilling, which could be an advantage for building a strong collaboration. However, faculty with different research backgrounds and skill sets could collaborate on a successful URE program. Illustrating this possibility, Kortz et al. (2020) demonstrates a productive URE collaboration between 4YC faculty with expertise in field-based research with 2YC faculty who brought expertise in leading UREs with introductory level students. In addition, it was also important for the two institutions to be close in proximity and for the 4YC to have adequate lab space to accommodate the 2YC students.

Grant funding was another key component contributing to the success of this program. This funding was used to cover student stipends, tuition fee, faculty and staff salaries and lab supplies. Indeed, an effective recruitment plan that includes financial support is essential for bolstering participation from the underrepresented student population. However, sustainability of URE programs cannot rely exclusively off grant funding. One solution to this issue would be to build collaborations with 4YC faculty who already have funding for 2YC student research and connect them with 2YC faculty and students to develop a collaborative URE. Another, more structural, solution is to develop institutional support. Doing so would require institutions to engage macrosystems within universities in order to leverage existing human and financial resources (Wolfe & Riggs, 2017). University leadership can help develop cross-institutional collaborations and encourage “a culture of measurement (qualitative and quantitative), accountability, and reward, and importantly allow time for results to appear” (Wolfe & Riggs, 2017, pp. 589). Through the sharing of administrative and academic resources (e.g. research equipment, libraries) among universities, overall expenses may be reduced (NAS, 2017).

Institutional support that funds and rewards participation in UREs could also play an important role for adjunct buy-in. Adjunct faculty aided to the program’s success by drawing on their teaching and research expertise and existing ties with 4YC colleagues. However, adjuncts are often appointed on a semester-by-semester basis and are not guaranteed continuous employment. This is one hurdle that departments and institutions must overcome in order to promote UREs among adjuncts. Committing to routinely offer URE courses; providing professional development and funding to develop UREs; and establishing a liaison to assist in identifying 4YC collaborators may help incentivize adjunct buy-in. Thus, the ability of URE programs to sustain year after year requires mechanisms for combating adjunct turnover.

In closing, the findings presented here demonstrate that a holistic mentoring and advising program that addresses specific needs of transfer students is key to motivating and helping students achieve their STEM career goals. Particularly having faculty mentors from both 2YC and 4YC institutions was a novel feature of this program and future collaborative UREs should assess the effectiveness of multi-institutional mentors and mentoring relationships for a deeper understanding. UREs rarely assess mentors or mentoring relationships and therefore, little is known about the exact roles that are related with specific outcomes among student populations (Lunsford et al., 2017). The URE described here was successful in supporting transfer students through building a strong cross-institutional collaboration, easing financial burden associated with commitment to the program, and drawing on the teaching and research expertise of adjunct faculty as emerging academics and educators.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the students who took part in the research and thoughtfully reflected on their research experiences. We also thank Bob Blodgett and Kristen St. John for their guidance during the development of this project and Candiya Mann for her discussions and suggestions on the evaluation methods. Comments by two anonymous reviewers, and the editors, significantly improved the clarity of the manuscript.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation’s Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) grant 1600177. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.