CBE Life Sci Educ 7(1): 45-53 2008
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.07-08-0064
© 2008 American Society for Cell Biology
Bioengineering and Bioinformatics Summer Institutes: Meeting Modern Challenges in Undergraduate Summer Research
Peter J. Butler*,
Cheng Dong*,
Alan J. Snyder
,
A. Daniel Jones
,
, and
Erin D. Sheets
Departments of *Bioengineering and Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; and Departments of Surgery and Bioengineering, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033
Submitted August 24, 2007;
Accepted November 12, 2007
Monitoring Editor: James Gentile
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
Summer undergraduate research programs in science and engineering facilitate research progress for faculty and provide a close-ended research experience for students, which can prepare them for careers in industry, medicine, and academia. However, ensuring these outcomes is a challenge when the students arrive ill-prepared for substantive research or if projects are ill-defined or impractical for a typical 10-wk summer. We describe how the new Bioengineering and Bioinformatics Summer Institutes (BBSI), developed in response to a call for proposals by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), provide an impetus for the enhancement of traditional undergraduate research experiences with intense didactic training in particular skills and technologies. Such didactic components provide highly focused and qualified students for summer research with the goal of ensuring increased student satisfaction with research and mentor satisfaction with student productivity. As an example, we focus on our experiences with the Penn State Biomaterials and Bionanotechnology Summer Institute (PSU-BBSI), which trains undergraduates in core technologies in surface characterization, computational modeling, cell biology, and fabrication to prepare them for student-centered research projects in the role of materials in guiding cell biology.
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
Although summer research provides the best opportunities for undergraduates to engage in a substantive research project before graduate school, there continue to be some key challenges to achieving a successful summer experience. First, the short (typically 10 wk) summer period makes completing a meaningful project a challenge, particularly if the project involves open-ended research. In fact, most 10-wk programs have a week at the beginning devoted to orientation and a week at the end to symposia, presentations, or project summary reports, leaving 8 wk to learn about the "big picture" of the research, familiarize oneself with experimental methods, design experiments, conduct them, and analyze the data. Because of this arduous schedule, summer research programs, although invaluable tools to expose students to research, may have limited impact in increasing competency and confidence (Kardash, 2000). Thus, there may be an opportunity to design summer research programs that are more effective in recruiting, training, and retaining future scientists. Second, students often do not bring new skills to the research, which can be a challenge for the research mentor who devotes a substantial amount of time training students to do incomplete work for a short period of time (Kardash, 2000). Such a program can become discouraging for even the most altruistic faculty member when substantial time is invested in mentoring students to an unsatisfactory end, only to see that students leave without a successful research experience and perhaps with diminished prospects for graduate school. The use of graduate student mentors to assist in advising, at its best, can provide the graduate student with mentoring experience and provide the undergraduate researcher with an age-matched coscientist; but at its worst, the undergraduate students flounder for the summer, become discouraged, and merely add a line to their resumes. The question arises as to whether a program can be designed in such a way to ameliorate these problems and help students and faculty reach the goal of quality summer research.
|
MEETING THE CHALLENGES: BIOENGINEERING AND BIOINFORMATICS SUMMER INSTITUTES
|
|---|
The new national network of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics Summer Institute (BBSI) programs (see http://bbsi.eeicom.com) established by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) intends to accelerate bioengineering and bioinformatics education through intense didactic and hands-on training in advanced technologies and methodologies capable of addressing modern problems in biology, physiology, and health care. In general, the intent of the BBSI program is to foster a research experience that has an enhanced learning component beyond that of traditional REUs (research experience for undergraduates), which emphasize mentor–student pairing (Munshi et al., 2006). Responses to this call for proposals have resulted in 13 BBSIs with diverse approaches to interdisciplinary training in bioengineering or bioinformatics that attract students from the biological sciences, computer sciences, engineering, mathematics, and physical sciences (see http://bbsi.eeicom.com). Most of these programs incorporate didactic training of core competencies and individual research projects consistent with problem-based learning approaches and promote student–student and student–mentor interaction through research teams, social events, and scientific forums (see Table 1).
|
PEDAGOGY GUIDING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
|
|---|
These programs attempt to incorporate the best practices learned from pedagogy and research into existing summer undergraduate programs. For example, Frantz et al. (2006) compiled data documenting the efficacy of collaborative learning and focused instruction before embarking on research projects. Their studies suggested that both collaborative- and apprentice-type models of student development enhanced students' attitudes toward science and confidence with science skills and concepts, but only collaborative learning environments significantly enhanced students' ability to perform experiments, a skill of particular interest to faculty mentors (Frantz et al., 2006). This finding is consistent with consensus reached at the Whitaker Bioengineering Summit and summarized by Perreault et al. (2006), which identified best practices in engineering that focused on core competencies (or skills). These skills included engineering reasoning and problem solving, experimental design and data analysis, making measurements and interpreting data from biological systems, laboratory technique, communications, and maturity and responsibility.
Similarly, the consensus of participants from the 2004 National Academies Summer Institute on Undergraduate Education in Biology was that the best way to increase science competency is through active learning that includes enhanced student–faculty interaction, integrated tools for monitoring and encouraging student progress, and development of methods to accommodate diversity of backgrounds, learning styles, goals, genders, and ethnicities (Wood and Handelsman, 2004). In response to these needs, there has been excellent progress in tools to develop curriculum and programs that encourage excellence and competence in young scientists, including a focus on problem-based learning (Newstetter, 2006) and design of integrated training and assessment tools (Lemons and Griswold, 1998). As the skill set needed for success in science increases in sophistication and depth, there is a need to implement these pedagogical observations through carefully planned summer research programs for undergraduates. In general, when undergraduates engage in research, they are more likely to pursue advanced degrees and they feel more competent to engage in research.
These results and other outcomes of undergraduate research programs were compiled in a major survey conducted by SRI International and reported in Science by Russell et al. (2007). In this survey, conducted between 2003 and 2005, respondents indicated positive benefits of research experiences at the undergraduate level. Interestingly, that survey found that commonly used mechanisms of reinforcing skills learned, such as final reports, had little bearing on perceived positive outcomes by participants. Instead, attending conferences, mentoring other students, and authoring journal papers were activities cited as leading to positive outcomes and increased interest in a career in science. In addition, increasing the duration of research experiences and the variety of research activities also correlated with positive outcomes. Seymour et al. (2004) recently compiled a comprehensive survey of literature on undergraduate research program design. They found that undergraduate research programs could be grouped into retention programs, career promotion programs, and research apprenticeships. Retention programs are those that steer undergraduates toward science and engineering careers through positive research experience, which simulate the graduate research environment. Career promotion programs are ones in which the principal goal is recruitment, either into the field in general or to the institution in particular. Research apprenticeships are a model in which students incorporate mastery of concepts through research-based learning through discovery.
We suggest that the BBSI provides a distinct model, which we call instruction-enhanced research. Of course, this model shares successful aspects of the research apprenticeships, research-based learning, and monitoring of student progress, but fosters increased understanding and competence in research through an intense traditional didactic setting, such that research proceeds from a foundation of theoretical knowledge. In this way, the model is similar to one described by Frantz et al. (2006), in which 2 wk of didactic training precedes the research experience. Most BBSIs favor an even more extensive didactic component and are focused on areas of bioengineering and bioinformatics, in particular (Table 1). This model is similar to the lecture-lab environment of traditional science and engineering curricula with the significant difference in that research is open-ended and innovative. One example of this model is at the University of Pittsburgh, which trains students in the fundamental underpinnings, skills, and software, in molecular modeling followed by a research apprenticeship with a bioinformatics mentor (Munshi et al., 2006). The Penn State (PSU) program trains students in microscopy, surface characterization, and modeling, in order to equip them to enhance existing faculty mentor research at the interface of materials and cell biology. Other BBSI didactic approaches are listed in Table 1. Program details can be found using the URLs provided in the table.
The end goal of the BBSI program is to provide formal instruction to increase student competence and faculty satisfaction without sacrificing "essential components of undergraduate research" as outlined in Lopatto (2003). In that study, many of the faculty responses focused on the faculty perception of benefit for the students. Because the intent of programs is to enrich student experience and enhance skills in order to increase their awareness and qualifications for graduate-level research, the focus on student benefits is reasonable. However, in the face of other competing pressures (e.g., teaching, research, and service) some faculty find such altruism unsustainable and will not mentor undergraduates for the simple reason that "the effort you put in is greater than the benefit you get out." Thus, it is important to design programs that ensure faculty satisfaction with student performance.
|
PSU-BBSI: BIOENGINEERING OF CELLS AND MOLECULES AT SURFACES
|
|---|
Consistent with other BBSIs that designate a clear intellectual focus or theme, the PSU-BBSI aims to focus undergraduate research on the cellular and molecular underpinnings of the response of physiological systems to foreign materials (Figure 1). Traditionally, understanding of the fundamental aspects of cell behavior on this scale has not been accessible to the average researcher. However, new and readily accessible tools in cell biology are permitting novel interrogation of cellular processes; methods in quantitative and ultramicroscopy are permitting single-molecule investigations into cellular behavior on unprecedented length and time scales (Trache and Meininger, 2005; Becker et al., 2006; Gullapalli et al., 2007); computational methods in bioengineering are now well suited for developing models to summarize experimental data and predict biological phenomena on multiple scales (Alves et al., 2006; Ferko et al., 2006).
View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Concept map of BBSI training activities. Students exploring graduate work in bioengineering (either bioengineers or students from non-bio-related engineering majors, science, and math) are paired with faculty mentors in bioengineering, chemistry, engineering science, and medicine. Faculty are encouraged to explore ways in which workshop activities can be incorporated into student projects. Post-BBSI, students have enhanced their graduate applications and learned new bioengineering methodologies.
|
|
In addition, new materials, with controllable properties at the nanoscale, are being used to manipulate and control biological host responses at the cellular and molecular levels (Helmke and Minerick, 2006). This paradigm of cellular engineering, imaging, and modeling is unique to bioengineering and is opening up exciting possibilities for novel therapeutic interventions, diagnostic tools, and biomaterials. Thus, the PSU-BBSI has designated as its intellectual focus, "bioengineering of cells and molecules at surfaces" with an emphasis on training students in methods that address modern challenges at the material-biology interface. Faculty mentors at Penn State who work at this biology-materials interface and who are experts in cell and molecular biology, quantitative microscopy, and computational modeling, train students to tackle these challenges in the context of cutting-edge research (Table 2). Infrastructure enabling this focus includes an extensive array of core facilities from which to draw for workshop development (Table 3). These facilities include microscopy (atomic force microscopy [AFM], electron microscopy [EM], confocal, optical, and deconvolution microscopy), materials development and characterization, nanoscale manufacturing, and cyber-infrastructure. Our goal for the PSU-BBSI is to provide accelerated training in these areas and to mentor individual and team research projects to prepare undergraduate students to meet these challenges. To assist in implementing problem-based and instruction-enhanced research modalities, we have incorporated some simple tools, borrowed from management methods in industry, to help ensure that students have communicated with their mentors on project definition, have developed detailed components of project completion (deliverables), have enough time to complete a project, to learn new skills that will aid them in future research, and to provide mentor labs with a highly-trained workforce.
Students begin by identifying the key research goals, hypotheses, or design goals and establish specific aims. Students then document their work plan early in the summer using project-planning worksheets (Table 4) and Gantt charts (Figure 2), and in-house training on advanced technology occurs early to provide the student with a sense of competence and the researchers with a trained workforce. Gantt charts are a tool borrowed from management techniques in which tasks are organized, assigned, and designated to be completed at certain times. Progress of task completion is communicated continuously using Gantt chart software from http://ganttproject.biz/. Use of Gantt charts is a simple method to monitor student progress through the summer (Russell et al., 2007). In addition, seminars, advising sessions, and symposia help meet the interests of the students by mentoring them through uncharted waters of research, teaching them how to communicate their research findings, and encouraging them to think beyond their instruments and experiments to begin to shape their futures as researchers at the interface of cell biology and engineering. These program design strategies have helped us implement the best aspects of problem-based learning and have enabled us to balance student needs to complete a meaningful research project and faculty needs of assistance in mentoring and technology training.
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Development of Gantt chart for project implementation. Gantt charts are tools used in management and engineering to plot out project tasks and timelines. Free Gantt chart software (from http://ganttproject.biz/) was used to generate figure, which is a representative example of a Gantt chart submitted in conjunction with representative project plan outlined in Table 5.
|
|
|
ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS
|
|---|
The program was assessed internally yearly for student satisfaction with housing arrangements and food, workshops, research experience, and mentor–student interaction. Demographics of applicants and participants are shown in Table 5. Survey results for two representative years in which no students overlapped are shown in Figure 3. In contrast to 2007, during which workshops were held early and were actively integrated into research projects, in 2004 the workshops were spaced out over the summer and selected according to student interest, not research needs. Student satisfaction increased (became closer to 1) from 2004 to 2007, especially in the areas related to workshops and research experience. Anecdotal testimony from students and faculty (Table 6) also indicated that integration of workshops and research fostered more creativity in research and led to increased faculty satisfaction and the students' sense of project completion and success. In addition to local dissemination of research findings, BBSI students are encouraged to present their work in national meetings and in peer-reviewed publications as recommended by Russell et al. (2007). PSU-BBSI–sponsored research has resulted in more than 17 conference and peer-reviewed publications in the first 5 yr. Examples of peer-reviewed publications coauthored by a PSU-BBSI student are as follows: Paxon et al. (2004), Gaumond et al. (2004), Leyton-Mange et al. (2006), Liu et al. (2006), Lim et al. (2007), and Ferko et al. (2007). We point out that ours is a 2-yr program and that the evidence of benefits of a 2-yr program is found, in part, by the fact that five of six of these peer-reviewed publications feature second-year BBSI students. The BBSI program as a whole is undergoing a major evaluation by an independent research firm contracted by the NSF. Whether approaches outlined here and in other BBSIs have increased positive outcomes over traditional REUs remains to be seen. However, initial compilation of demographics (Table 5) and anecdotal evidence from students suggest that the BBSI will increase the number of nonbioengineers who consider applying skills from their quantitative disciplines to problems in biology and health care and that bioengineers will broaden the scope of problems they consider through exposure to methodologies not traditionally associated with bioengineering. In addition, comprehensive evaluation of the benefits of a 1- versus a 2-yr program are currently being evaluated.
View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. Student satisfaction survey. Students were asked to use Likert scale to state whether they agree with various statements regarding satisfaction with aspects of the program. 1, strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, disagree; and 4, strongly disagree. An average < 2 indicates general agreement or satisfaction and >2 indicates general disagreement or dissatisfaction. Results compared are from 2004 and 2007. In 2004 workshops existed but were not integrated into the research experience and were not given early in the summer, as they were in 2007. Representative data derive from separate pools of students.
|
|
|
SUMMARY: BBSI AS A MODEL FOR GUIDED PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING
|
|---|
In an effort to both broaden and deepen the scientific skills of a new workforce, the NSF and the NIBIB have called for the development of the BBSIs to train students in core technologies and methodologies in modern quantitative biology. The PSU-BBSI focuses its training in Biomaterials and Bionanotechnology, two core strengths at Penn State, using a combination of hands-on workshops, student-led seminars, and focused, guided research projects. This interdisciplinary program trains students in cutting-edge technology at the interface of traditional disciplines and increases intellectual diversity in bioengineering. Collectively the BBSIs have developed a wide variety of successful methodologies to train young scientists in highly advanced technologies that are playing an increasingly important role in advancing biology, physiology, and health care. Important goals for this article are to highlight the existence of the BBSIs and to disseminate new strategies for interdisciplinary undergraduate training, with pedagogical underpinnings that will lead to enhanced participation of students in bioengineering and quantitative cell biology research.
Much anecdotal evidence documenting student and faculty satisfaction substantiates the contention that programmatic design can help facilitate meaningful research experiences for students and faculty, while continual monitoring of areas of dissatisfaction ensures continual program improvement. In particular, increased training in technology, even if it borrows time from research, can be an excellent method to increase research productively and satisfaction of both faculty and students. As health care challenges continue to mount, there is an increasing need for a diverse pool of graduate students trained in bioengineering and cell biology methodologies. In response to this challenge, the BBSI program provides multifaceted approaches to undergraduate education resulting in highly trained students prepared for careers in quantitative methods in biology. In addition, the BBSI provides researchers with new avenues of investigation and new technologies in quantitative and analytical methods in biology and opens up for students new opportunities in the development of novel diagnostic and interventional tools in science, engineering, and medicine.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
The authors thank past and present program coordinators, Ana M. Butler, Karen M. Seitz, and Dianne McDonald for their insight and excellent organizational and administrative support. The PSU-BBSI program is supported by grants from the NIBIB and the NSF to C.D. (EEC 0234026) and to P.J.B. (EEC 0609053). Additional funding has been provided by the Materials Research Institute at The Pennsylvania State University.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Present address: Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 212 Biochemistry Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. 
Address correspondence to: Peter J. Butler (pbutler{at}psu.edu)
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
Alves, R., Antunes, F., and Salvador, A. (2006). Tools for kinetic modeling of biochemical networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 24(6), 667–672.[CrossRef][Medline]Becker, W., et al. (2006). Fluorescence lifetime images and correlation spectra obtained by multidimensional time-correlated single photon counting. Microsc. Res. Tech. 69(3), 186–195.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ferko, M. C., Bhatnagar, A., Garcia, M. B., and Butler, P. J. (2007). Finite-element stress analysis of a multicomponent model of sheared and focally-adhered endothelial cells. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 35(2), 208–223.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ferko, M. C., Patterson, B. W., and Butler, P. J. (2006). High-resolution solid modeling of biological samples imaged with 3D fluorescence microscopy. Microsc. Res. Tech. 69(8), 648–655.[CrossRef][Medline]
Frantz, K. J., DeHaan, R. L., Demetrikopoulos, M. K., and Carruth, L. L. (2006). Routes to research for novice undergraduate neuroscientists. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 5(2), 175–187.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Gaumond, R. P., Clement, R., Silva, R., and Sander, D. (2004). Estimation of neural energy in microelectrode signals. J. Neural Eng. 1(3), 127–134.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gullapalli, R. R, Tabouillot, T., Mathura, R., Dangaria, J., and Butler, P. J. (2007). Integrated multimodal microscopy, time resolved fluorescence, and optical-trap rheometry: toward single molecule mechanobiology. J. Biomed. Opt. 12(1, 014012.
Helmke, B. P., and Minerick, A. R. (2006). Designing a nano-interface in a microfluidic chip to probe living cells: challenges and perspectives. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103(17), 6419–6424.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Kardash, C. M (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. J. Educ. Psychol. 92(1), 191–201.[CrossRef]
Lemons, D. E., and Griswold, J. G. (1998). Defining the boundaries of physiological understanding: the benchmarks curriculum model. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 20(1), S35–S45.
Leyton-Mange, J., Yang, S., Hoskins, M. H., Kunz, R. F., Zahn, J. D., and Dong, C. (2006). Design of a side-view particle imaging velocimetry flow system for cell-substrate adhesion studies. J. Biomech. Eng. 128(2), 271–278.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lim, J. Y., Dreiss, A. D., Zhou, Z., Hansen, J. C., Siedlecki, C. A., Hengstebeck, R. W., Cheng, J., Winograd, N., and Donahue, H. J. (2007). The regulation of integrin-mediated osteoblast focal adhesion and focal adhesion kinase expression by nanoscale topography. Biomaterials 28(10), 1787–1797.[CrossRef][Medline]
Liu, Y., Kim, H. R., and Heikal, A. A. (2006). Structural basis of fluorescence fluctuation dynamics of green fluorescent proteins in acidic environments. J. Phys. Chem. B 110(47), 24138–24146.[Medline]
Lopatto, D. (2003). The essential features of undergraduate research 21. Council Undergraduate Res. Quart. March, 139–142.
Munshi, R., Coalson, R. D., Ermentrout, G. B., Madura, J. D., Meirovitch, H., Stiles, J. R., and Bahar, I. (2006). An introduction to simulation and visualization of biological systems at multiple scales: a summer training program for interdisciplinary research. Biotechnol. Prog 22(1), 179–185.[CrossRef][Medline]
Newstetter, W. C. (2006). Fostering integrative problem solving in biomedical engineering: the PBL approach. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 34(2), 217–225.[CrossRef][Medline]
Paxon, T. L., Brown, T. S., Lin, H. Y., Brancato, S. J., Roddy, E. S., Bevilacqua, P. C., and Ewing, A. G. (2004). Continuous monitoring of enzyme reactions on a microchip: application to catalytic RNA self-cleavage. Anal. Chem. 76(23), 6921–6927.[Medline]
Perreault, E. J., Litt, M., and Saterbak, A. (2006). Educational methods and best practices in BME laboratories. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 34(2), 209–216.[CrossRef][Medline]
Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., and McCullough, J. (2007). The pipeline benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science 316(5824), 548–549.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L, and Deantoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year study. Sci. Educ. 88(4), 493–534.[CrossRef]
Trache, A., and Meininger, G. A. (2005). Atomic force-multi-optical imaging integrated microscope for monitoring molecular dynamics in live cells. J. Biomed. Opt. 10(6), 064023.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wood, W. B., and Handelsman, J. (2004). Meeting report: the 2004 National Academies Summer Institute on Undergraduate Education in Biology. Cell Biol. Educ. 3(4), 215–217.[CrossRef][Medline]
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
