Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:47:18.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part V - Avenues for Developing Undergraduate Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2022

Edited by
Harald A. Mieg ,
Elizabeth Ambos ,
Angela Brew ,
Dominique Galli  and
Judith Lehmann
Harald A. Mieg
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Elizabeth Ambos
Affiliation:
Council on Undergraduate Research, Washington DC
Angela Brew
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
Dominique Galli
Affiliation:
Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis
Judith Lehmann
Affiliation:
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research , pp. 659 - 722
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Ambos, E. (2015). Promoting student engagement. In Dunfee, R. & Vaidya, A. (Eds.), Operationalizing stewards of place: Implementing regional engagement and economic development strategies (pp. 13–31). American Association of State Colleges and Universities. https://aascu.org/freepubs/OperationalizingStewardsofPlace.pdfGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. (2019). Fake news in science and education. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I., Lawrie, G., McLinn, , et al. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413.Google Scholar
Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brew, A., & Saunders, C. (2020). Making sense of research-based learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87, 102935.Google Scholar
Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for university teachers. Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, A. W., Hammons, J., Nolan, J., Dufek, S., & Wynn, M. (2019). The purpose of research: What undergraduate students say. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 3(1), 39–47.Google Scholar
Ceccaroni, L., & Piera, J. (Eds.). (2017). Analyzing the role of citizen science in modern research. IGI Global.Google Scholar
Cooke, D., & Thorme, T. (2011). A practical handbook for supporting community-based research with undergraduate students. Council on Undergraduate Research.Google Scholar
Crowe, M., & Brakke, D. (2019). Assessing undergraduate research experiences: An annotative bibliography. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 3(2), 21–30.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.Google Scholar
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. An Ernest L. Boyer project of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Grönlund, A., Bächtiger, A., & Setälä, M. (Eds.). (2014). Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2016). Students as partners: Reflections on a conceptual model. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 4(2), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, N. (Ed.). (2018). Course-based undergraduate research: Educational equity and high-impact practice. Stylus/Council on Undergraduate Research.Google Scholar
Hopf, H., Krief, A., Mehta, G., & Mathin, S. A. (2019). Fake science and the knowledge crisis: Ignorance can be fatal. Royal Society Open Science, 6, 190161. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudley, A. H. C., Dickter, C. L., & Franz, H. A. (2017). The indispensable guide to undergraduate research: Success in and beyond college. Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Inefuku, H. W. (2017). Globalization, open access, and the democratization of knowledge. EDUCAUSE Review, 52(4), 62–63.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mieg, H. A. (Ed.). (2019). Inquiry-based learning – Undergraduate research: The German multidisciplinary experience. Springer (open access). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14223-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mieg, H. A., & Evetts, J. (2018). Professionalism, science, and expert roles: A social perspective. In Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., Kozbelt, A., & Williams, A. M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2nd ed., pp. 127–148). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press.Google Scholar
Parnell, R., Berutich, L., Henn, A., & Koressel, N. (2014). The campus as a four-year undergraduate learning laboratory on sustainability: Linking facilities, operations, curriculum and community engagement. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 35(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
Scholz, R. W. (2013). Transdisciplinarity. In Mieg, H. A. & Töpfer, K. (Eds.), Institutional and social innovation for sustainable urban development (pp. 305–322). Earthscan.Google Scholar
Shanahan, J. O., Walkington, H., Ackley, E., Hall, E. E., & Stewart, K. A. (2017). Award-winning mentors see democratization as the future of undergraduate research. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 37(4), 4–11.Google Scholar
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Miller, P., & Moore, J. (Eds.). (2018). Excellence in mentoring undergraduate research. Council on Undergraduate Research.Google Scholar

References

Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I., et al. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barth, M., Lang, D. J., Luthardt, P., & Vilsmaier, U. (2017). Mapping a sustainable future: Community learning in dialogue at the science–society interface. International Review of Education, 63(6), 811–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute. (n.d.). INSPIRE program information. www.bcchr.ca/about-us/training-opportunities/undergraduate-medical-students/inspire-program/inspire-program (Retrieved in 2020).Google Scholar
Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching. Beyond the divide. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
British Conference on Undergraduate Research. (2019). What is undergraduate research? www.southwales.ac.uk/bcur19/Google Scholar
Brown, D. K., Smith, R. T., & Southcombe, M. (2017). Bridging boundaries. The Studio Christchurch five year retrospective exhibition. In Brown, D. K., Manfredini, M., McPherson, P., Pretty, A., Rieger, U., & Southcombe, M. (Eds.), Crossing boundaries. Reflections on applied collaborative architectural research (pp. 213–232). LetteraVentidue.Google Scholar
Brown, R. E., Reed, C. S., Bates, L. V., Knaggs, D., Casey, K. M., & Barnes, J. V. (2006). The transformative engagement process: Foundations and supports for university–community partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11(1), 9–23.Google Scholar
Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., & Kay, B. (2013). The role of transacademic interface managers in transformational sustainability research and education. Sustainability, 5(11), 4614–4636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantor, A., DeLauer, V., Martin, D., & Rogan, J. (2015). Training interdisciplinary “wicked problem” solvers: Applying lessons from HERO in community-based research experiences for undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 39(3), 407–419.Google Scholar
Carlisle, S. K., Gourd, K., Rajkhan, S., & Nitta, K. (2017). Assessing the impact of community-based learning on students: The community-based learning impact scale (CBLIS). Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education, 6, article 1.Google Scholar
Carson, S. (2010). Your creative brain. Seven steps to maximize imagination, productivity, and innovation in your life. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ciarrochi, J., & Godsell, C. (2006). Mindfulness-based emotional intelligence: Research and training. In Druskat, V. U., Mount, G., & Sala, F. (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups (pp. 21–52). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cobley, J. (2022). Why objects matter in higher education. College and Research Libraries, 83(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, C. (2018). Climate change and Christchurch in 2018. Undergraduate Research News Australasia, 14, 6.Google Scholar
Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR). (2020). Mission and vision. www.cur.org/who/organization/mission_and_vision/Google Scholar
Cowen, S. (2014). The inevitable city: The resurgence of New Orleans and the future of urban America. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Evans, D. R. (2010). The challenge of undergraduate research. Peer Review, 12(2), 31.Google Scholar
Finch, D. J., Hamilton, L. K., Baldwin, R., & Zehner, M. (2013). An exploratory study of factors affecting undergraduate employability. Education and Training, 55(7), 681–704.Google Scholar
Fournier, C. (2017). Critical thresholds: Traversing architectural pedagogy, research, and practice. In Brown, D. K., Manfredini, M., McPherson, P., Pretty, A., Rieger, U., & Southcombe, M. (Eds.), Crossing boundaries. Reflections on applied collaborative architectural research (pp. 7–13). LetteraVentidue.Google Scholar
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence. Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Crown Business.Google Scholar
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(Supp. 1), 25–43.Google Scholar
Millar, P., Thomson, C., Smithies, J., & Middendorf, J. (2019). The challenge, the project, and the politics: Lessons from six years of the UC CEISMIC Canterbury earthquakes digital archive. In Bouterey, S. & Marceau, L. E. (Eds.), Crisis and disaster in Japan and New Zealand. Actors, victims and ramifications (pp. 159–179). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nature. (2018). Editorial: The best research is produced when researchers and communities work together. Nature, 562, 7.Google Scholar
O’Steen, B., Perry, L., Cammock, P., Kingham, S., & Pawson, E. (2011). Engaging students and teachers through service-learning. In Coolbear, P. & Weir, K. (Eds.), Good Practice Publication Grants [eBook edition]. Ako Aotearoa.Google Scholar
Pawson, E. (2016). Classrooms without borders. New spaces and places of learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 40(1), 14–30.Google Scholar
Pawson, E., & Poskitt, M. (2019). Taking ownership: Active learning and student engagement. In Walkington, H., Hill, J., & Dyer, S. (Eds.), Handbook for teaching and learning in geography (pp. 329–341). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Porter, L. (Ed.) (2015). Partnerships of learning for planning education. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(3), 409–434.Google Scholar
Poskitt, M. (2017). Finding motivation and fun in undergraduate research. Undergraduate Research News Australasia, 12, 5.Google Scholar
Reardon, K. M. (2000). An experiential approach to creating an effective community–university partnership: The East St. Louis Action Research Project. Cityscape, 5(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
Sandberg, A. (2019). Omaha in the Anthropocene. Teaching global environmental history. Poster exhibited at the 3rd World Congress of Environmental History, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, 22–26 July.Google Scholar
Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage.Google Scholar
Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning. Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 226–251.Google Scholar
Stanford University. (n.d.). Community-based research. Haas Center for Public Service. https://haas.stanford.edu/community-based-research (Retrieved in 2020).Google Scholar
Tobias, J. K., Richmond, C. A., & Luginaah, I. (2013). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) with indigenous communities: Producing respectful and reciprocal research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulibarri, N., Cravens, A., Nabergoj, A. S., Kernbach, S., & Royalty, A. (Eds.) (2019). Creativity in research. Cultivate clarity, be innovative, and make progress in your research journey. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
University of British Columbia. (2019). Indigenous undergraduate research experience at XʷC̓IC̓ƏSƏM. https://research.ubc.ca/about-vpri/program-undergraduate-research-experience-call-proposals/pure-funding-recipients#6Google Scholar
Weiser, A., Hill, M., Picht, L., Prien-Ribcke, S., Lübcke, E., & Heudorfer, A. (2019). Forschendes Lernen an der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg: Das Leuphana Semester. In Reinmann, G., Lübcke, E., & Heudorfer, A. (Eds.) Forschendes Lernen in der Studieneingangsphase (pp. 193–208). Springer Fachmedien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, M. (2018). Make the most of your Work Learn experience, UBC Life blog. University of British Columbia. https://students.ubc.ca/ubclife/make-most-work-learn-experienceGoogle Scholar

References

Abbott, A. (2002). The disciplines and the future. In Brint, S. (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 205–230). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Blessinger, P. (2017). Transforming learning through student research. University World News. www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20170530085248669Google Scholar
Blessinger, P., & Hensel, N. (2020). Undergraduate research as a high-impact educational practice. In Hensel, N. & Blessinger, P. (Eds.), International perspectives on undergraduate research: Policy and practice (pp. 1–18). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Blessinger, P., Sengupta, E., & Makhanya, M. (2019). New higher education literacies for a sustainable future. University World News. www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20191017120317521Google Scholar
Boix Mansilla, V., & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215–237.Google Scholar
Byrne, E., Mullally, G., & Sage, C. (2016). Transdisciplinary perspectives on transitions to sustainability. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirsch-Weigand, A., Koch, F., Pinkelman, R. J., Awolin, M., Vogt, J., & Hampe, M. J. (2015). Looking beyond one’s own nose right from the start. Proceedings of the WEEF & ICL 2015 Conference. IEEE. www.weef2015.eu/Proceedings_WEEF2015/proceedings/papers/Contribution1221.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dirsch-Weigand, A., Pinkelman, R., Wehner, F. D., Vogt, J., & Hampe, M. J. (2018). Picking low hanging fruits – Integrating interdisciplinary learning in traditional engineering curricula by interdisciplinary project courses. In Auer, M. E. & Kim, K.-S. (Eds.), Engineering education for a smart society (pp. 97–106). Springer.Google Scholar
Elgren, T., & Hensel, N. (2006). Undergraduate research experiences: Synergies between scholarship and teaching. Peer Review, 8(1), 4–7.Google Scholar
Hill, W. L. (2013). Interdisciplinary perspectives and the liberal arts. In Chopp, R., Frost, S., & Weiss, D. H. (Eds.), Remaking college: Innovation and the liberal arts (pp. 85–95). Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jaschik, S. (2015, September 10). Undisciplining knowledge. [Interview with Graff, H. J.] Inside Higher Education. www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/10/author-discusses-new-book-interdisciplinarityGoogle Scholar
Kinkead, J. (2003). Learning through Inquiry: An overview of undergraduate research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003(93), 5–18.Google Scholar
Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Klein, J. T. (2005). Integrative learning and interdisciplinary studies. Peer Review, 7(4), 8–10.Google Scholar
Koch, F., Dirsch-Weigand, A., Awolin, M., Pinkelman, R. J., & Hampe, M. J. (2017). Motivating first year university students by interdisciplinary study projects. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1193126Google Scholar
Larson, E. L., Landers, T. F., & Begg, M. D. (2011). Building interdisciplinary research models: A didactic course to prepare interdisciplinary scholars and faculty. Clinical and Translational Science, 4(1), 38–41.Google Scholar
Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Abell, S. K. & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
Mieg, H. A., Endlicher, W., & Köhler, H. (2008). Four types of knowledge integration management in interdisciplinary research on cities and the environment. Cities and the Environment, 1(1). https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol1/iss1/6/Google Scholar
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research (p. 2). National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Newell, W. H. (2007). The role of interdisciplinary studies in the liberal arts. Liberal Arts Online, 7(1). www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/lao-7-1-interdisciplinary-edGoogle Scholar
NRC National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Öberg, G. (2009). Facilitating interdisciplinary work: Using quality assessment to create common ground. Higher Education, 57(4), 405–415.Google Scholar
Oughton, E., & Bracken, L. (2009). Interdisciplinary research: Framing and reframing. Area, 41(4), 385–394.Google Scholar
Repko, A. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (pp. 22–25). SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Rhoten, D., Mansilla, V. B., Chun, M., & Klein, J. T. (2006). Interdisciplinary education at liberal arts institutions. Teagle Foundation White Paper. The Teagle Foundation.Google Scholar
Ryser, L., Halseth, G., & Thien, D. (2009). Strategies and intervening factors influencing student social interaction and experiential learning in an interdisciplinary research team. Research in Higher Education, 50(3), 248–267.Google Scholar
Sengupta, E., & Blessinger, P. (2020). Undergraduate research from three Asian countries: Re-looking at its benefits and challenges in an Asian context. International perspective in undergraduate research. In Hensel, N. & Blessinger, P. (Eds.), International perspectives on undergraduate research: Policy and practice (pp. 115–130). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shrimpton, B., & Astbury, B. (2011). Motivations for doing interdisciplinary research: Results from an Australian qualitative study. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(1), 195–206.Google Scholar
Tripp, B., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2019). A framework to guide undergraduate education in interdisciplinary science. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 18(2), es3.Google Scholar
Ülkü, M. A., Karkowski, A. M., & Lahm, T. D. (2018). Perspectives on interdisciplinary undergraduate research. Educational Studies, 44(3), 247–263.Google Scholar
Van den Besselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2001). Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators. 8th Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 705–716). ISSI.Google Scholar
Wolf, S., & Hampe, M. (2006). How to provide first-year students with a really good start to their study program. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference. American Society for Engineering Education. https://peer.asee.org/how-to-provide-first-year-students-with-a-really-good-start-into-their-study-programGoogle Scholar
Woodzicka, J. A., Ford, T. E., Caudill, A., & Ohanmamooreni, A. (2015). A successful model of collaborative undergraduate research: A multi-faculty, multi-project, multi-institution team approach. Teaching Psychology, 42(1), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314549711Google Scholar

References

Baldwin, S., Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2018). Online course design in higher education: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends, 62(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528–017-0215-zGoogle Scholar
Bates, T. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education. Routledge.Google Scholar
Becker, S., & Otto, D. (2019). Digital learning and sustainable development. In Leal Filho, W. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education (pp. 1–10). Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_374-1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 126–150. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477Google Scholar
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., & Tamim, R. M. (2018). Gauging the effectiveness of educational technology integration in education: What the best-quality meta-analyses tell us. In Spector, M. J., Lockee, B. B., & Childress, M. D. (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–25). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_109–2Google Scholar
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528–013-9077-3Google Scholar
Bettinger, E. P., Fox, L., Loeb, S., & Taylor, E. S. (2017). Virtual classrooms: How online college courses affect student success. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2855–2875. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151193Google Scholar
Bond, M., Marín, V. I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Digital transformation in German higher education: Student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(article 48). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239–018-0130-1Google Scholar
Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In Spector, M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77–87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.Google Scholar
De Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Pedaste, M., & Zacharia, Z. (2018). Simulations, games, and modeling tools for learning. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 256–266). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572Google Scholar
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239–017-0087-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends, 57(6), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528–013-0698-1Google Scholar
Gaber, J. (2007). Simulating planning: SimCity as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X07305791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaebel, M., Zhang, T., Bunescu, L., & Stoeber, H. (2018). Trends 2018: Learning and teaching in the European Higher Education Area. European University Association.Google Scholar
He, Y., Lu, J., Huang, H., He, S., Ma, N., Sha, Z., Sun, Y., & Li, X. (2019). The effects of flipped classrooms on undergraduate pharmaceutical marketing learning: A clustered randomized controlled study. PLOS ONE, 14(4), e0214624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214624Google Scholar
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Higher Education Academy. www.academia.edu/download/33402294/DevelopingUndergraduate_Final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of “useful” digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567–1579. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946Google Scholar
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R. (2015). Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: Exploring patterns of use and “usefulness.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1034424Google Scholar
Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: A meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909–018-1144-zGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. F. (2015). Digital natives and other myths. In Henderson, M. & Romeo, G. (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies. Big issues and critical questions (pp. 11–22 M4-Citavi). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons, 59(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerres, M. (2018). Mediendidaktik. In De Gruyter Studium (5th ed.). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kerres, M., & de Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165032000165653Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001Google Scholar
Koltay, T., Špiranec, S., & Karvalics, L. Z. (2015). The shift of information literacy towards research 2.0. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACALIB.2014.11.001Google Scholar
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of computer based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50, 524–544.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. I. (2014). The pedagogical benefits and pitfalls of virtual tools for teaching and learning laboratory practices in the biological sciences. The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
Martin, B. E., & Mahaffy, P. G. (2013). Using visualizations of the science behind climate change to change the climate of science teaching. In Suits, J. P. & Sanger, M. J. (Eds.), Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in chemistry courses (pp. 411–440). American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/doi:10.1021/bk-2013-1142.ch017Google Scholar
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Bakia, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.Google Scholar
Moore, M. (2003). Handbook of distance education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Otto, D. (2018). Using virtual mobility and digital storytelling in blended learning: Analyzing students’ experiences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.471657Google Scholar
Otto, D., & Becker, S. (2018). E-Learning and sustainable development. In Leal Filho, W. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0_211Google Scholar
Otto, D., Bollmann, A., Becker, S., & Sander, K. (2018). It’s the learning, stupid! Discussing the role of learning outcomes in MOOCs. Open Learning, 33(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1486183Google Scholar
Ozay, S. B. (2012). The dimensions of research in undergraduate learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.641009Google Scholar
Rasheed, R., Kamsin, A., Abdullah, N., Zakari, A., & Haruna, K. (2019). A systematic mapping study of the empirical MOOC literature. IEEE Access, 7, 124809–124827. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2938561Google Scholar
Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Joint Research Centre (JRC). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770Google Scholar
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2012). Instructional design (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022Google Scholar
Tømte, C. E., Fossland, T., Aamodt, P. O., & Degn, L. (2019). Digitalization in higher education: Mapping institutional approaches for teaching and learning. Quality in Higher Education, 25(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1603611Google Scholar
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2019). Learning management systems: An overview (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_248–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, D. (2015). The MOOC misstep and the open education infrastructure. In Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 3–11). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Bartz, J. (Ed.) (2019). Public | private. An exhibition of the Q-Kolleg at the Winckelmann-Institut. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. https://doi.org/10.18452/20022Google Scholar
Bender, C., Wright, D., & Lopatto, D. (2009). Students’ self-reported changes in intercultural knowledge and competence associated with three undergraduate science experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 307–321. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v18i1.268Google Scholar
Brew, A. (2012). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642844Google Scholar
Brew, A., & Jewell, E. (2012). Enhancing quality learning through experiences of research-based learning: Implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 17(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.586461Google Scholar
Brooks, C. F., & Pitts, M. J. (2016). Communication and identity management in a globally-connected classroom: An online international and intercultural learning experience. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 9(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2016.1120849Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (2002). Suggestions for teaching international students more effectively. Learning and teaching briefing papers series, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Oxford Brookes University. http://oxfordbrookes.academia.edu/JudeCarroll/Papers/616498/Suggestions_for_teaching_international_students_more_effectivelyGoogle Scholar
College of Saint Benedict & Saint John’s University. (2020). China: Summer science research at Southwest University. Retrieved June 5, 2020, from www.csbsju.edu/global/find-an-education-abroad-program/short-term/globalfellowshipprogram/china-research-internship-at-swuGoogle Scholar
Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR). (2020). Mission and vision. www.cur.org/who/organization/mission/Google Scholar
Crose, B. (2011). Internationalization of the higher education classroom: Strategies to facilitate intercultural learning and academic success. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 388–395. www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE1056.pdfGoogle Scholar
Deicke, W., & Reinhardt, A. (2017). Connecting archaeology students with research across national borders: The Q- Kolleg at the Humboldt University, Berlin and the University of Nottingham, UK. Vignette of practice. In Fung, D. (Ed.), A connected curriculum for higher education (pp. 50–51). UCL Press.Google Scholar
Deicke, W., Gess, C., & Rueß, J. (2014). Increasing student’s research interest through research-based learning at Humboldt-University. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 35(1), 27–33.Google Scholar
Doyle, M. (1991). A brief history of the Council on Undergraduate Research: The early years. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 12(2), 17–23.Google Scholar
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2003). Understanding student learning. In Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (Eds.), A handbook for teaching & learning in higher education. Enhancing academic practice (2nd ed., pp. 9–25). Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
Gilardi, S., Lozza, E. (2009). Inquiry-based learning and undergraduates’ professional identity development: Assessment of a field research-based course. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755–009-9109-0Google Scholar
Gosman, R., & Ahern-Rindell, A. (2018, May 30). Holding history in our hands: Guest opinion. The Oregonian Online. www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2018/05/holding_history_in_our_hands_g.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hautala, J., & Schmidt, S. (2019). Learning across distances: An international collaborative learning project between Berlin and Turku. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 43(3), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1599331Google Scholar
Hranitz, J. M., Barthell, J. F., & Radke, W. J. (2012). A NSF–REU program with International Undergraduate Research as a Setting for Transformative Learning. Pre-ISSOTL Seminar, Undergraduate Research and Change in Higher Education: A Scholarly Discussion. Hamilton, Canada. www.cur.org/assets/1/7/ISSOTLHranitzJM.pdfGoogle Scholar
Huber, L. (2019). Reflection. In Mieg, H. A. (Ed.), Inquiry-based learning – Undergraduate research: The German multidisciplinary experience (pp. 81–90). Springer (open access). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14223-0Google Scholar
Jimenez, A., Boehe, D. M., Taras, V., & Caprar, D. V. (2017). Working across boundaries: Current and future perspectives on global virtual teams. Journal of International Management, 23(4), 341–349.Google Scholar
Killingworth, B., Xue, Y., & Liu, Y. (2016). Factors influencing knowledge sharing among global virtual teams. Team Performance Management, 22(5/6), 284–300. www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/TPM-10-2015-0042/full/htmlGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(1), JCMC814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.xGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, M. L., Figueroa, C. M., Aleanzi, M., Olsen, K. W., Iglesias, A. A., & Ballicora, M. A. (2010). Bi-national and interdisciplinary course in enzyme engineering. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(6), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20438Google Scholar
Light, C., Fegley, M., & Stamp, N. (2019). Training program for research educators of sequential course-based undergraduate research experiences. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 366(13), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnz165Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., & Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347(6222), 1261757. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261757Google Scholar
Müller, M. (2017). Digital discourse analysis. LitLab pamphlet #5. www.digitalhumanitiescooperation.de/wpcontent/uploads/2019/08/p05_mueller_eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.jve.1Google Scholar
Teekens, H. (2003). The requirement to develop specific skills for teaching in an intercultural setting. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315302250192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessels, I., Gess, C., & Deicke, W. (2019). Competence development through inquiry-based learning. In Mieg, H. A. (Ed.), Inquiry-based learning – Undergraduate research: The German multidisciplinary experience (pp. 59–69). Springer (open access). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14223-0Google Scholar
Wessels, I., Rueß, J., Gess, C., Deicke, W., & Ziegler, M. (2020). Is research-based learning effective? Evidence from a pre–post analysis in the social sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1739014Google Scholar
Zupanc, G. K. H. (2012). Undergraduate research and inquiry-based learning: The revitalization of the Humboldtian ideals. Bioscience Education, 19(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.11120/beej.2012.19000011Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×