---
id: "edwards-2024-irec"
title: "An inclusive Research and Education Community (iREC) model to facilitate undergraduate science education reform"
authors:
  - "Denise L. Monti"
  - "Julia C. Gill"
  - "Tamarah L. Adair"
  - "Sandra D. Adams"
  - "Yesmi Patricia Ahumada-Santos"
  - "Isabel Amaya"
  - "Kirk Anders"
  - "Justin R. Anderson"
  - "Mauricio S. Antunes"
  - "Mary Ayuk"
  - "Frederick Baliraine"
  - "Tonya C. Bates"
  - "Andrea R. Beyer"
  - "Suparna Bhalla"
  - "Tejas Bouklas"
  - "Sharon K. Bullock"
  - "Kristen A. Butela"
  - "Christine Byrum"
  - "Steven M. Caruso"
  - "Rebecca Chong"
  - "Hui-Min Chung"
  - "Stephanie B. Conant"
  - "Brett Condon"
  - "Katie E. Crump"
  - "Tom D'Elia"
  - "Megan K. Dennis"
  - "Linda C. DeVeaux"
  - "Lautaro Diacovich"
  - "Arturo Diaz"
  - "Iain Duffy"
  - "Dustin Edwards"
  - "Patricia C. Fallest-Strobl"
  - "Ann Findley"
  - "Matthew R. Fisher"
  - "Marie P. Fogarty"
  - "Victoria Jane Frost"
  - "Maria D. Gainey"
  - "Courtney S. Galle"
  - "Bryan Gibb"
  - "Urszula Golebiewska"
  - "Hugo Gramajo"
  - "Anna S. Grinath"
  - "Jennifer Guerrero"
  - "Nancy Guild"
  - "Kathryn E. Gunn"
  - "Susan Gurney"
  - "Lee E. Hughes"
  - "Pradeepa Jayachandran"
  - "Kristen Johnson"
  - "Allison Johnson"
  - "Alison E. Kanak"
  - "Michelle L. Kanther"
  - "Rodney A. King"
  - "Kathryn Kohl"
  - "Julia Lee-Soety"
  - "Lynn O. Lewis"
  - "Heather Lindberg"
  - "Jaclyn A. Madden"
  - "Breonna J. Martin"
  - "Matthew D. Mastropaolo"
  - "Sean McClory"
  - "Evan C. Merkhofer"
  - "Julie A. Merkle"
  - "Jon Mitchell"
  - "María Alejandra Mussi"
  - "Fernando Nieto"
  - "Jillian Nissen"
  - "Imade Yolanda Nsa"
  - "Mary G. O'Donnell"
  - "R. Deborah Overath"
  - "Shallee T. Page"
  - "Andrea Panagakis"
  - "Jesús Ricardo Parra Unda"
  - "Michelle B. Pass"
  - "Tiara Perez Morales"
  - "Nick T. Peters"
  - "Ruth Plymale"
  - "Richard Pollenz"
  - "Nathan S. Reyna"
  - "Claire A. Rinehart"
  - "Jessica Rocheleau"
  - "John S. Rombold"
  - "Ombeline Rossier"
  - "Adam D. Rudner"
  - "Elizabeth E. Rueschhoff"
  - "Christopher D. Shaffer"
  - "Mary Ann V. Smith"
  - "Amy B. Sprenkle"
  - "C. Nicole Sunnen"
  - "Michael A. Thomas"
  - "Michelle M. Tigges"
  - "Deborah Tobiason"
  - "Sara Sybesma Tolsma"
  - "Julie Torruellas Garcia"
  - "Peter Uetz"
  - "Edwin Vazquez"
  - "Catherine M. Ward"
  - "Vassie C. Ware"
  - "Jacqueline M. Washington"
  - "Matthew J. Waterman"
  - "Daniel E. Westholm"
  - "Keith A. Wheaton"
  - "Simon J. White"
  - "Elizabeth C. Williams"
  - "Daniel C. Williams"
  - "Ellen M. Wisner"
  - "William H. Biederman"
  - "Steven G. Cresawn"
  - "Danielle M. Heller"
  - "Deborah Jacobs-Sera"
  - "Daniel A. Russell"
  - "Graham F. Hatfull"
  - "David J. Asai"
  - "David I. Hanauer"
  - "Mark J. Graham"
  - "Viknesh Sivanathan"
venue: "Frontiers in Education"
year: 2024
date: "2024-08-21"
doi: "10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318"
url: "/research/publications/10-3389-feduc-2024-1442318/"
pdf: "/research/publications/10-3389-feduc-2024-1442318/dustin-edwards-10-3389-feduc-2024-1442318.pdf"
pmc: "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11649309/"
openAccess: true
license: "cc-by"
citedBy: 1
citedBySource: "OpenAlex, read 2026-09-12"
---
# An inclusive Research and Education Community (iREC) model to facilitate undergraduate science education reform

How the SEA-PHAGES faculty community adopts and improves research courses over time, from interviews with over 100 members.

## Abstract

Over the last two decades, there have been numerous initiatives to improve undergraduate student outcomes in STEM. One model for scalable reform is the inclusive Research Education Community (iREC). In an iREC, STEM faculty from colleges and universities across the nation are supported to adopt and sustainably implement course-based research – a form of science pedagogy that enhances student learning and persistence in science. In this study, we used pathway modeling to develop a qualitative description that explicates the HHMI Science Education Alliance (SEA) iREC as a model for facilitating the successful adoption and continued advancement of new curricular content and pedagogy. In particular, outcomes that faculty realize through their participation in the SEA iREC were identified, organized by time, and functionally linked. The resulting pathway model was then revised and refined based on several rounds of feedback from over 100 faculty members in the SEA iREC who participated in the study. Our results show that in an iREC, STEM faculty organized as a long-standing community of practice leverage one another, outside expertise, and data to adopt, implement, and iteratively advance their pedagogy. The opportunity to collaborate in this manner and, additionally, to be recognized for pedagogical contributions sustainably engages STEM faculty in the advancement of their pedagogy. Here, we present a detailed pathway model of SEA that, together with underpinning features of an iREC identified in this study, offers a framework to facilitate transformations in undergraduate science education.

## Full text

Machine-extracted from the PDF linked above. It carries the artifacts that come with reading a typeset two-column page: running heads, figure captions in the flow of the prose, and words broken across line ends. The abstract above is the registry's deposit and is the authoritative text.

Frontiers in Education 01 frontiersin.org
An inclusive Research and
Education Community (iREC)
model to facilitate undergraduate
science education reform
Denise L. Monti 1, Julia C. Gill 2, Tamarah L. Adair 3,
Sandra D. Adams 4, Yesmi Patricia Ahumada-Santos 5,
Isabel Amaya 6, Kirk Anders 7, Justin R. Anderson 8,
Mauricio S. Antunes 9, Mary Ayuk 10, Frederick Baliraine 11,
Tonya C. Bates 12, Andrea R. Beyer 13, Suparna Bhalla 14,
Tejas Bouklas 15, Sharon K. Bullock 12, Kristen A. Butela 16,
Christine Byrum 17, Steven M. Caruso 18, Rebecca Chong 19,
Hui-Min Chung 20, Stephanie B. Conant 21, Brett Condon 22,
Katie E. Crump 23, Tom D'Elia 24, Megan K. Dennis 25,
Linda C. DeVeaux 26, Lautaro Diacovich 27, Arturo Diaz 28,
Iain Duffy 29, Dustin Edwards 30, Patricia C. Fallest-Strobl 31,
Ann Findley 32, Matthew R. Fisher 33, Marie P. Fogarty 34,
Victoria Jane Frost 35, Maria D. Gainey 36, Courtney S. Galle 37,
Bryan Gibb 38, Urszula Golebiewska 39, Hugo Gramajo 27,
Anna S. Grinath 40, Jennifer Guerrero 41, Nancy Guild 42,
Kathryn E. Gunn 43, Susan Gurney 44, Lee E. Hughes 9,
Pradeepa Jayachandran 45, Kristen Johnson 46, Allison Johnson 47,
Alison E. Kanak 48, Michelle L. Kanther 49, Rodney A. King 50,
Kathryn Kohl 35, Julia Lee-Soety 51, Lynn O. Lewis 52,
Heather Lindberg 53, Jaclyn A. Madden 54, Breonna J. Martin 54,
Matthew D. Mastropaolo 31, Sean McClory 55,
Evan C. Merkhofer 14, Julie A. Merkle 56, Jon Mitchell 57,
María Alejandra Mussi 27, Fernando Nieto 58, Jillian Nissen 58,
Imade Yolanda Nsa 59, Mary G. O'Donnell 60,
R. Deborah Overath 61, Shallee T. Page 62, Andrea Panagakis 63,
Jesús Ricardo Parra Unda 5, Michelle B. Pass 12,
Tiara Perez Morales 64, Nick T. Peters 65, Ruth Plymale 66,
Richard Pollenz 67, Nathan S. Reyna 66, Claire A. Rinehart 50,
Jessica Rocheleau 68, John S. Rombold 69, Ombeline Rossier 70,
Adam D. Rudner 71, Elizabeth E. Rueschhoff 72,
Christopher D. Shaffer 73, Mary Ann V. Smith 74, Amy B. Sprenkle 75,
C. Nicole Sunnen 51, Michael A. Thomas 40, Michelle M. Tigges 76,
Deborah Tobiason 77, Sara Sybesma Tolsma 78,
Julie Torruellas Garcia 23, Peter Uetz 47, Edwin Vazquez 79,
Catherine M. Ward 80, Vassie C. Ware 81,
Jacqueline M. Washington 82, Matthew J. Waterman 83,
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Xiang Hu,
Renmin University of China, China
REVIEWED BY
Sasithep Pitiporntapin,
Kasetsart University, Thailand
Spencer A. Benson,
Education Innovations International, LLC,
United States
*CORRESPONDENCE
Mark J. Graham
mark.graham@yale.edu
Viknesh Sivanathan
sivanathanv@hhmi.org
RECEIVED 01 June 2024
ACCEPTED 25 July 2024
PUBLISHED 21 August 2024
CITATION
Monti DL, Gill JC, Adair TL, Adams SD,
Ahumada-Santos YP, Amaya I, Anders K,
Anderson JR, Antunes MS, Ayuk M, Baliraine F,
Bates TC, Beyer AR, Bhalla S, Bouklas T,
Bullock SK, Butela KA, Byrum C, Caruso SM,
Chong R, Chung H-M, Conant SB, Condon B,
Crump KE, D'Elia T, Dennis MK, DeVeaux LC,
Diacovich L, Diaz A, Duffy I, Edwards D,
Fallest-Strobl PC, Findley A, Fisher MR,
Fogarty MP, Frost VJ, Gainey MD, Galle CS,
Gibb B, Golebiewska U, Gramajo H,
Grinath AS, Guerrero J, Guild N, Gunn KE,
Gurney S, Hughes LE, Jayachandran P,
Johnson K, Johnson A, Kanak AE, Kanther ML,
King RA, Kohl K, Lee-Soety J, Lewis LO,
Lindberg H, Madden JA, Martin BJ,
Mastropaolo MD, McClory S, Merkhofer EC,
Merkle JA, Mitchell J, Mussi MA, Nieto F,
Nissen J, Nsa IY, O'Donnell MG, Overath RD,
Page ST, Panagakis A, Parra Unda JR, Pass MB,
Perez Morales T, Peters NT, Plymale R,
Pollenz R, Reyna NS, Rinehart CA,
Rocheleau J, Rombold JS, Rossier O,
Rudner AD, Rueschhoff EE, Shaffer CD,
Smith MAV, Sprenkle AB, Sunnen CN,
Thomas MA, Tigges MM, Tobiason D,
Tolsma SS, Torruellas Garcia J, Uetz P,
Vazquez E, Ward CM, Ware VC,
Washington JM, Waterman MJ, Westholm DE,
Wheaton KA, White SJ, Williams EC,
Williams DC, Wisner EM, Biederman WH,
Cresawn SG, Heller DM, Jacobs-Sera D,
Russell DA, Hatfull GF, Asai DJ, Hanauer DI,
Graham MJ and Sivanathan V (2024) An
inclusive Research and Education Community
(iREC) model to facilitate undergraduate
science education reform.
Front. Educ. 9:1442318.
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Monti, Gill, Adair, Adams,
Ahumada-Santos, Amaya, Anders, Anderson,
Antunes, Ayuk, Baliraine, Bates, Beyer, Bhalla,
Bouklas, Bullock, Butela, Byrum, Caruso,
Chong, Chung, Conant, Condon, Crump,
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 21 August 2024
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 02 frontiersin.org
Daniel E. Westholm 84, Keith A. Wheaton 85, Simon J. White 86,
Elizabeth C. Williams 87, Daniel C. Williams 88, Ellen M. Wisner 12,
William H. Biederman 89, Steven G. Cresawn 90,
Danielle M. Heller 89, Deborah Jacobs-Sera 16, Daniel A. Russell 16,
Graham F. Hatfull 16, David J. Asai 89, David I. Hanauer 91,
Mark J. Graham 92* and Viknesh Sivanathan 89*
1 Hicks Honors College, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, United States, 2 Metropolitan
Policy Department, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, United States, 3 Department of Biology,
Baylor University, Waco, TX, United States, 4 Biology Department, Montclair State University, Montclair,
NJ, United States, 5 Facultad de Ciencias Químico Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa,
Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico, 6 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan
Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States, 7 Biology Department, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA,
United States, 8 Department of Biological Sciences, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, IN,
United States, 9 Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, United
States, 10 Department of Biology, Howard University, Washington, DC, United States, 11 Department of
Biology and Kinesiology, LeTourneau University, Longview, TX, United States, 12 Department of
Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, United States,
13 Department of Biology, Virginia State University, Petersburg, VA, United States, 14 Department of
Natural Sciences, Mount Saint Mary College, Newburgh, NY, United States, 15 Department of
Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los
Angeles, CA, United States, 16 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
PA, United States, 17 Department of Biology, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, United States,
18 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United
States, 19 School of Life Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, United States,
20 Department of Biology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL, United States, 21 Department of
Biology, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, United States, 22 Department of Biomedical Sciences,
Rocky Vista University - Montana College of Osteopathic Medicine, Billings, MT, United States,
23 Department of Biological Sciences, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, United States,
24 Department of Biology, Indian River State College, Fort Pierce, FL, United States, 25 Department of
Biology, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY, United States, 26 Biology Department, New Mexico Institute
of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM, United States, 27 Departamento de Microbiología Básica,
Facultad de Ciencias Bioquímicas y Farmacéuticas-UNR, Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina, 28 Department
of Biology, La Sierra University, Riverside, CA, United States, 29 Department of Natural Science, Saint
Leo University, Saint Leo, FL, United States, 30 Department of Biological Sciences, Tarleton State
University, Stephenville, TX, United States, 31 Department of Mathematics and Sciences, Neumann
University, Aston Township, PA, United States, 32 Department of Biology, School of Sciences, University
of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, LA, United States, 33 Biology Department, Oregon Coast Community
College, Newport, OR, United States, 34 Department of Science and Math, Durham Tech, Durham, NC,
United States, 35 Department of Biology, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC, United States,
36 Department of Chemistry and Physics, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, United States,
37 Department of Biology, South Texas College, McAllen, TX, United States, 38 Department of Biological
and Chemical Sciences, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, NY, United States,
39 Department of Biological Sciences and Geology, Queensborough Community College, Bayside, NY,
United States, 40 Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, United
States, 41 Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX,
United States, 42 Department of Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of
Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States, 43 Department of Science, Mount St. Mary's University,
Emmitsburg, MD, United States, 44 School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United
Kingdom, 45 Department of Basic and Clinical Sciences, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health
Sciences, Albany, NY, United States, 46 Department of Life Sciences, University of New Hampshire at
Manchester, Manchester, NH, United States, 47 Center for Biological Data Science, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States, 48 Department of Biology, University of
North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA, United States, 49 Department of Biology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn
Mawr, PA, United States, 50 Department of Biology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY,
United States, 51 Department of Biology, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA, United States,
52 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, VA, United
States, 53 Department of Biology, Virginia Western Community College, Roanoke, VA, United States,
54 Life Sciences Department, Harford Community College, Bel-Air, MD, United States, 55 Department of
Integrated Science, Business and Technology, La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA, United States,
56 Department of Biology, University of Evansville, Evansville, IN, United States, 57 Department of
Science and Mathematics, Northern State University, Aberdeen, SD, United States, 58 Department of
Biological Sciences, SUNY Old Westbury, Old Westbury, NY, United States, 59 Department of
Microbiology, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria, 60 Department of Biology, Thiel College, Greenville,
PA, United States, 61 Department of Mathematics and Sciences, Texas Southmost College, Brownsville,
TX, United States, 62 College of Health and Natural Sciences, Franklin Pierce University, Rindge, NH,
United States, 63 STEM Academy, Salish Kootenai College, Pablo, MT, United States, 64 Department of
Biological Sciences, Benedictine University, Lisle, IL, United States, 65 Department of Plant Pathology,
Entomology, and Microbiology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States, 66 Department of
Biology, Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR, United States, 67 Department of Molecular
Biosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States, 68 Department of Biology, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA, United States, 69 Salish Sea Research Institute, Northwest
Indian College, Bellingham, WA, United States, 70 University Paris-Saclay, CEA, CNRS, Institute for
Integrative Biology of the Cell (I2BC), Université Paris-Saclay, Saint Aubin, France, 71 Ottawa Institute of
D’Elia, Dennis, DeVeaux, Diacovich, Diaz,
Duffy, Edwards, Fallest-Strobl, Findley, Fisher,
Fogarty, Frost, Gainey, Galle, Gibb,
Golebiewska, Gramajo, Grinath, Guerrero,
Guild, Gunn, Gurney, Hughes, Jayachandran,
Johnson, Johnson, Kanak, Kanther, King,
Kohl, Lee-Soety, Lewis, Lindberg, Madden,
Martin, Mastropaolo, McClory, Merkhofer,
Merkle, Mitchell, Mussi, Nieto, Nissen, Nsa,
O’Donnell, Overath, Page, Panagakis, Parra
Unda, Pass, Perez Morales, Peters, Plymale,
Pollenz, Reyna, Rinehart, Rocheleau,
Rombold, Rossier, Rudner, Rueschhoff,
Shaffer, Smith, Sprenkle, Sunnen, Thomas,
Tigges, Tobiason, Tolsma, Torruellas Garcia,
Uetz, Vazquez, Ward, Ware, Washington,
Waterman, Westholm, Wheaton, White,
Williams, Williams, Wisner, Biederman,
Cresawn, Heller, Jacobs-Sera, Russell, Hatfull,
Asai, Hanauer, Graham and Sivanathan. This is
an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction
is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 03 frontiersin.org
Systems Biology and Department of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 72 School of Natural Sciences, Indiana University Southeast, New Albany,
IN, United States, 73 Department of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United
States, 74 Department of Biology, Penn State Schuylkill, Schuylkill Haven, PA, United States,
75 Department of Biology, Salem State University, Salem, MA, United States, 76 Department of Chemistry
and Biochemistry, Minnesota State University Moorhead, Moorhead, MN, United States, 77 Department
of Biology, Carthage College, Kenosha, WI, United States, 78 Department of Biology, Northwestern
College, Orange City, IA, United States, 79 Biology Department, University of Puerto Rico at Cayey,
Cayey, PR, United States, 80 Department of Biological Sciences, Durham Technical Community
College, Durham, NC, United States, 81 Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA, United States, 82 Department of Biology and Chemistry, Alliance University, New York,
NY, United States, 83 Biology Department, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA, United States,
84 Department of Biology, The College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, MN, United States, 85 Department of
Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immununology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada,
86 Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States,
87 Department of Translational and Molecular Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada,
88 Department of Biology, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, United States, 89 Center for the
Advancement of Science Leadership and Culture, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase,
MD, United States, 90 Department of Biology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, United
States, 91 Department of English, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA, United States, 92 STEM
Program Evaluation and Research Lab (STEM-PERL), Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States
Over the last two decades, there have been numerous initiatives to improve
undergraduate student outcomes in STEM. One model for scalable reform is
the inclusive Research Education Community (iREC). In an iREC, STEM faculty
from colleges and universities across the nation are supported to adopt and
sustainably implement course-based research – a form of science pedagogy
that enhances student learning and persistence in science. In this study, we used
pathway modeling to develop a qualitative description that explicates the HHMI
Science Education Alliance (SEA) iREC as a model for facilitating the successful
adoption and continued advancement of new curricular content and pedagogy.
In particular, outcomes that faculty realize through their participation in the SEA
iREC were identified, organized by time, and functionally linked. The resulting
pathway model was then revised and refined based on several rounds of feedback
from over 100 faculty members in the SEA iREC who participated in the study.
Our results show that in an iREC, STEM faculty organized as a long-standing
community of practice leverage one another, outside expertise, and data to
adopt, implement, and iteratively advance their pedagogy. The opportunity to
collaborate in this manner and, additionally, to be recognized for pedagogical
contributions sustainably engages STEM faculty in the advancement of their
pedagogy. Here, we present a detailed pathway model of SEA that, together
with underpinning features of an iREC identified in this study, offers a framework
to facilitate transformations in undergraduate science education.
KEYWORDS
Science Education Alliance, inclusive Research and Education Community, pathway
modeling, course-based research experience, STEM faculty development
Introduction
Longstanding calls for transformation in undergraduate science
education highlight the continued rate at which students are leaving
the sciences for other disciplines, as well as the high number of
students not being prepared to enter modern STEM careers [Brewer
and Smith, 2011; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST), 2012]. Consequently, and for nearly two
decades now, there has been significant investment in initiatives of
various forms to support STEM faculty in the adoption and
implementation of updated curricular content and evidence-based
teaching practices in the undergraduate science classroom
(Handelsman et al., 2007; Pfund et al., 2009; Vasaly et al., 2014; Smith,
2015). Despite a large cross-section of the STEM community
coalescing around the curricula and pedagogical changes necessary
for transformation (National Research Council, 2003; Brewer and
Smith, 2011; Graham et al., 2013), there remains a shortfall of large-
scale adoption and sustained implementation (Stains et al., 2018). To
accelerate the pace of national change, there is a need to identify and
leverage strategies that have proven to be effective in facilitating
pedagogical transformation (Henderson, 2008; Smith, 2018;
Smith, 2019).
One model that has shown success in facilitating reform at scale
is the inclusive Research and Education Community, or iREC (Hanauer

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 04 frontiersin.org
et al., 2017). An iREC occurs when STEM faculty from institutions of
higher education are supported to adopt and implement course-based
research, collaboratively. Course-based research is a discovery-based
approach to teaching science that exemplifies evidence-based teaching
practices, transforms the undergraduate laboratory course experience,
and improves student learning and their persistence in science
(Graham et al., 2013; Auchincloss et al., 2014; Rodenbusch et al., 2016;
Hanauer et al., 2017, 2022). iRECs aim to be inclusive by supporting
all STEM faculty as they engage their students in research, irrespective
of their prior research experiences or institutional research capacities.
Through iRECs, STEM faculty are provided training to learn about
and implement course-based research projects; they are also provided
sustained implementation support through the provision of curated
instructional resources (e.g., compendium of protocols), technical
services (e.g., sequencing of phages genomes, development and
curation of databases), and subject matter expertise (e.g., phage
biologists and education assessment researchers). Faculty in an iREC
implement course-based research projects iteratively, year after year,
and are convened regularly as a community to share and advance their
research and strategies for mentoring students. Examples of iRECs
include Science Education Alliance (SEA), Genomics Education
Partnership, and Tiny Earth, each coordinating their own community
of hundreds of faculty who implement common course-based
research projects (Shaffer et al., 2010; Jordan et al., 2014; Elgin et al.,
2017; Hanauer et al., 2017; Hurley et al., 2021).
SEA was established in 2008 with its first cohort of STEM faculty
from 13 institutions. In the 2023–2024 academic year, the SEA
community consisted of faculty from 16 cohorts and across 145
institutions who collectively engaged over 6,000 primarily freshmen
and sophomore students in course-based research. Previously, the
effectiveness of SEA was evaluated by assessing outcomes for students
participating in the Phage Hunters Advancing Genomic Evolutionary
Science (PHAGES) course-based research project, commonly referred
to as SEA-PHAGES. A detailed pathway model was first constructed
to visualize the student experience, which subsequently led to the
development and validation of the Persistence in the Sciences (PITS)
assessment tool (Hanauer et al., 2016; Reeves et al., 2020). This
combination of large-scale modeling and validated instrument
development was then used to empirically demonstrate positive
outcomes for students related to their intent to persist in the sciences
(Hanauer et al., 2017). Based on these measures of student outcomes,
SEA is considered effective at facilitating faculty to implement updated
curricular content and pedagogy successfully.
The aim of the present study is to explicate the process through
which SEA, and by extension, an iREC, facilitates such pedagogical
advancement. To accomplish this, a range of stakeholders in the SEA
program engaged in a 2-year study to describe the process through
which SEA supports cohorts of STEM faculty (hereafter referred to as
SEA faculty) to learn and successfully implement two course-based
research projects – the PHAGES project and the Gene-function
Exploration by a Network of Emerging Scientists (GENES) project –
in place of traditional laboratory courses. Through the development
of a detailed pathway model of faculty experiences in SEA,
we identified four categories of outcomes that faculty realize through
their participation in the iREC, and we describe SEA programming
that facilitates the development of those outcomes. These efforts
revealed SEA to (1) support faculty to adopt common curricular
content (i.e., the PHAGES or GENES projects) and pedagogy (i.e.,
course-based research) in the context of a collaborative community
and (2) support the community to leverage data and one another to
iteratively advance their implementation, in a manner that they find
professionally rewarding. The sections that follow provide a detailed
description of these faculty outcomes and SEA programming, which
can serve as a framework to facilitate broader adoption of course-
based research and to inform efforts to transform undergraduate
science education, more broadly.
Methods
Overview
Pathway modeling is an approach to understand how a program
operates through the representation of short-, medium-, and long-
term program outcomes (Brown Urban and Trochim, 2009). Usually
developed and used by program evaluators, a pathway model shows
the theoretical connections between program activities and their
intended outcomes, which can give program staff and stakeholders the
ability to better “see” how their program is believed to work (Reeves
et al., 2020). While pathway models tend to appear visually complex
(i.e., spaghetti-like), this complexity better represents the reality of
how large-scale programs like an iREC operate in actuality. The SEA
faculty pathway model developed herein is intended to reveal the
underpinning features of the iREC that support cohorts of faculty to
learn and continually advance their implementation of course-based
research. The iREC faculty pathway model can also serve as a working
framework for initiatives aimed at facilitating pedagogical
transformations more broadly. What follows is a description of how
we carried out the SEA faculty pathway model creation, refinement,
community checking, and interpretation, which involved three types
of stakeholder groups: internal SEA researcher group (n = 4), small
SEA faculty stakeholder group (n = 5), and large SEA faculty
stakeholder group (n = 109).
Pathway model creation by internal SEA
researcher group (n = 4): participants and
procedures
The process of drafting an initial pathway model of the SEA
faculty experience began with four individuals: one HHMI SEA
program staff member who is familiar with all aspects of SEA
programming (Sivanathan); one SEA faculty member who has
participated in SEA for over a decade and supported the
development and implementation of SEA programming (Monti);
and two external evaluators (Gill and Graham) including one
(Graham) who had previously contributed to the SEA-PHAGES
student pathway modeling project (Hanauer et al., 2017). The team
of four met once a week for eight weeks to draft an initial pathway
model based on their collective assumptions of how faculty
experience the SEA program. This team developed a list of outcomes
that SEA faculty experience and realize as part of their engagement
with the program. Using a program evaluation and planning tool
(The Netway, 2015),1 these outcomes were then organized as short-,
1 www.evaluationnetway.com

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 05 frontiersin.org
medium-, and long-term outcomes based on when these outcomes
are likely to be experienced by SEA faculty. Outcomes were also
functionally linked to one another, that is two outcomes are linked,
directionally, when the realization of one outcome is dependent on
the other. Activities and programming that supported the
development of various outcomes were also identified. The result
was a draft pathway model to represent the SEA faculty experience.
The model was not intended to capture institutional particularities
of the SEA faculty experience but rather to capture an experience
that would be typical of most SEA instructors; it was understood
that some components of the model were more implicit components
of the faculty iREC experience than others. For example, while
long-term outcomes such as “Faculty contributions support their
tenure and promotion” and “Faculty secure internal and/or external
funding” are desired by SEA program staff and faculty alike, this
may be mostly aspirational in practice.
Pathway model refinement by small SEA faculty
stakeholder group (n = 5): participants and
procedures
The aim of this stage was to evaluate, modify, and content validate
the draft pathway model. To do so, five SEA faculty were convened.
These five faculty are considered expert instructors because of their
consistently high student outcomes as measured by the PITS assessment
tool (Hanauer et al., 2016), and they represent a diversity of institution
types and ethnic and gender identities. After being introduced to the
draft pathway model by the internal SEA researcher group and given an
opportunity to review it, the small group of SEA faculty responded
verbally to ten questions (see Supplementary Table S1). All responses
were recorded via Zoom. The first set of questions was designed to prime
them to think deeply about their faculty experience (see “priming”). The
second set of questions was designed to elicit edits to the pathway model
(see “model annotation”). The third set of questions was designed to
capture additional or lingering thoughts about the pathway model and
SEA faculty experience. The internal researcher group then used
feedback from this small SEA faculty group to update the pathway model.
Pathway model community checking by large
SEA faculty stakeholder group (n = 109):
participants and procedures
After gathering an initial round of feedback (from the small
stakeholder group), data collection efforts were expanded to the
broader SEA faculty community. Leveraging the June 2022 Annual
SEA faculty meeting, which was hosted virtually, the internal SEA
research group presented the pathway modeling process and the
pathway model itself to ~150 SEA faculty who attended the meeting.
Following the presentation, SEA faculty were placed in breakout
groups of ~5 persons and were asked to discuss one aspect of the
pathway model. Then, faculty were asked to contribute feedback on
that aspect of the model individually via an online survey
(Supplementary Table S2). Following the SEA faculty meeting and our
call for feedback, we received 109 responses from SEA faculty at 82
institutions. In general, faculty found the model to be aligned with
much of their experience in SEA, as evidenced by comments such as,
“Many of the outcomes are reflective of my experiences” and “I
definitely resonate with this model.” Therefore, the pathway model, as
updated by the small SEA faculty stakeholder group, was found to
be representative of the large stakeholder group. A member of the
internal SEA researcher group coded the faculty member’s reflections
and edited the pathway model to reflect the SEA faculty feedback,
resulting in the pathway model presented in this study (Figure 1).
Pathway model interpretation
Following pathway development, refinement, and community
checking as described previously, the internal SEA researcher group
analyzed the full pathway model for emergent themes according to
guidelines from the systems evaluation protocol (SEP) (Urban et al.,
2021). After several rounds of discussion, four major categories of
FIGURE 1
Full SEA faculty pathway model. SEA faculty outcomes occur at different points in time throughout their engagement with SEA: short-term outcomes
(pink boxes), medium-term outcomes (lilac boxes), and long-term outcomes (light green). Connections between outcomes are depicted by arrows.

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 06 frontiersin.org
outcomes from the pathway model were identified: Knowledge and
Skill Acquisition, Knowledge and Skill Advancement, Community, and
Psychological Affirmation. These emergent themes then allowed for
the full pathway model – with all its needed complexity – to be depicted
and described in a more accessible format by grouping outcomes into
these four categories (Figure 2 – full pathway model color-coded by
outcome category; Figure 3 – categorized pathway model) (Reeves
et al., 2020). A final round of feedback on the pathway models, both
the full pathway model and the categorized pathway model, was
attained. The resulting pathway models and description presented
herein are thus representative of the SEA faculty experience from the
perspective of SEA program staff, program evaluators, and a majority
of SEA faculty.
Results
Overview
To explore the iREC as a model to facilitate the adoption and
implementation of new curricular content and pedagogy,
we identified outcomes that SEA faculty, in general, realize as a
result of their participation in SEA along with activities and
programming that support the development of those outcomes
(Figure 2 – full pathway model; Figure 3 – categorized pathway
model). Broadly, four major categories of faculty outcomes
emerged based upon the pathway model interpretation: (1)
Knowledge and Skill Acquisition (Figures 2, 3, yellow boxes), which
are outcomes related to faculty learning the foundational
knowledge and skills needed to initiate a course-based research
program at their institution; (2) Knowledge and Skill Affirmations
(Figures 2, 3, orange boxes), which are outcomes that are the
result of a deepening and broadening of knowledge and skills
through practice and experimentation; (3) Community (Figures 2,
3, blue boxes), which are outcomes related to faculty becoming
networked with others in SEA and engaging one another as a
community of practice; and (4) Psychological Affirmations
(Figures 2, 3, green boxes), which are outcomes that motivate
faculty to sustain their engagement with SEA. For the most part,
outcomes fall into one of these four categories, although there are
several outcomes that span the categories of Knowledge and Skill
Advancement and Community and have been assigned and color-
coded as such.
SEA supports faculty for as long as they are engaged in
implementing the PHAGES or GENES projects. Accordingly, the
various SEA faculty outcomes occur at different points in time
throughout their engagement with SEA. In the pathway model,
outcomes occur over three timeframes. Short-term outcomes are
defined as those likely to occur within the first 1 to 2 years of faculty
joining the SEA program; these appear toward the left of the pathway.
Medium-term outcomes are those that begin developing as short-
term outcomes are realized, typically when faculty have participated
in SEA for an average of 2–5 years; these appear toward the middle
of the pathway. Long-term outcomes are those that are the
culmination of medium-term outcomes and occur through sustained
faculty engagement in SEA; these appear toward the right of
the pathway.
What follows are detailed descriptions of the various faculty
outcomes from the pathway model, along with SEA programming and
activities that facilitate the development of the outcomes. These are
presented first by outcome category and timing and then by the
relationship of outcomes to one another.
FIGURE 2
Full SEA faculty pathway model color-coded by outcome category. Outcomes that SEA faculty realize through their participation in the SEA
program are grouped into four different categories: knowledge and skill acquisition (yellow boxes), knowledge and skill advancement (orange
boxes), community (blue boxes), and psychological affirmation (green boxes). Outcomes that fall into two categories are shaded in both
colors.

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 07 frontiersin.org
Outcome categories and timing
Outcome category 1: Knowledge and Skill Acquisition
Overview
Outcomes categorized as “Knowledge and Skill Acquisition” relate
to SEA faculty learning the foundational knowledge and skills needed
to implement the PHAGES or GENES course-based research projects.
Course-based research is a relatively new form of teaching for most
faculty, and many have not engaged in virus-host research related to
the PHAGES or GENES projects. Therefore, a key and initial aim of
SEA is to support faculty in acquiring the knowledge and skills
necessary to lead a PHAGES or GENES course-based research
program at their home institution.
Outcomes
Knowledge and Skill Acquisition outcomes (Table 1) include
faculty learning key concepts and techniques relevant to the
PHAGES or GENES course-based research projects. Examples
include background information and techniques in microbiology,
molecular biology, microscopy, and bioinformatics. Faculty also
learn effective approaches for course-based research implementation.
Programming and activities
Knowledge and Skill Acquisition outcomes directly result from
knowledge-transfer and skill-development activities organized by the
SEA program staff. These occur principally through training
workshops offered to SEA faculty before their first implementation of
the course-based research projects. The workshops are designed for
experiential learning, where faculty get an immersive experience in
course-based research from the perspective of both a student and an
instructor. SEA program staff, along with SEA faculty who already
have experience implementing the course-based research projects,
serve as instructors for the training workshops and provide insight
into practical research activities such as reagent preparation and
overseeing the implementation of complex protocols. The training
workshops also support faculty in understanding and navigating novel
challenges associated with course-based research, such as strategies
TABLE 1 Knowledge and Skill Acquisition outcomes.
Short-term outcomes
Faculty learn new laboratory skills
Faculty gain knowledge in microbiology & bioinformatics
Faculty learn about and experience a CRE
Faculty have the skills to establish a CRE
Faculty establish a SEA course at their home institution
Medium-term outcomes
None identified
Long-term outcomes
None identified
FIGURE 3
Categorized SEA faculty pathway model. SEA faculty outcomes are grouped into four categories: knowledge & skill acquisition, knowledge &
skill advancement, community, and psychological affirmations; the category “Community” can be sub-divided into “Networked Community”
and “Community of Supportive Practitioners.” The general relationship of outcomes between these categories, and the timeframe in which
faculty are most likely to realize the outcome, are represented by colored boxes and the order in which they appear, from left to right. Within
the first year of participating in SEA, faculty realize outcomes related to Knowledge & Skill Acquisition and become networked with other
members of the SEA community. In subsequent years, faculty advance their science pedagogy as they engage one another as members of the
SEA community. Thus, over time, a community of supportive practitioners grows and learns together. Over time, faculty realize outcomes
related to psychological affirmations, which promotes their sense of connectedness to their peers, competence as educators, and appreciation
for the profession.

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 08 frontiersin.org
for managing the uncertainties related to timing and outcomes typical
of authentic research. Within a relatively short period of time (i.e., one
week of in-person training), SEA faculty are prepared to establish and
begin implementing the PHAGES or GENES course-based research
projects at their institution.
Timing
Knowledge and Skill Acquisition outcomes are short-term
outcomes, occurring within the first year of faculty joining the
SEA program.
Outcome category 2: Knowledge and Skill Advancement
Overview
Outcomes categorized as “Knowledge and Skill Advancement”
relate to a deepening and broadening of faculty knowledge and skills
for leading PHAGES and GENES course-based research projects
through long-term practice and collaboration coupled with
experimentation and assessment. As faculty implement the PHAGES
and GENES projects at their institutions iteratively, year after year,
they leverage their individual experience as well as the collective
experience and expertise of members of the iREC (e.g., other SEA
faculty, subject-matter experts, and SEA program staff) to advance
their scientific and pedagogical knowledge and skills (Figure 4). As a
result, they become increasingly more effective at managing the
complexities of mentoring a cohort of students in authentic research
and are able to continually enhance the research and learning
experiences they afford their students.
Outcomes
Outcomes related to faculty advancing their knowledge and skill
(Table 2) are numerous and include SEA faculty doing the following: (1)
implementing and leading course-based research at their home
institutions; (2) mentoring students and monitoring student outcomes
(e.g., “faculty and students generate new scientific knowledge” and
“faculty receive and self-assess their student assessment data”); (3)
communicating and receiving feedback from others in SEA (e.g.,
“faculty present phage research”); (4) developing and sharing resources
and strategies to enhance their course-based research program (e.g.,
“faculty develop and share teaching resources” and “as a community,
faculty learn together about what works in the classroom and
laboratory”); and, (5) engaging in research related to their teaching (e.g.,
“faculty are active in SEA community education research”; Table 2).
Programming and activities
Programming and activities that allow faculty to leverage the
community to advance their knowledge and skills include early-
semester check-ins with program staff and multiple avenues for
information sharing and feedback across the community, including
curated online community forums, monthly and annual faculty
meetings, research symposia, and platforms to support short- and
long-term collaborative endeavors. For example, a small group of
SEA faculty was supported to collaborate over a 4-week period in
the summer of 2020 to develop a resource to guide students in
drafting a short-format manuscript describing the research findings
from the year-long PHAGES research project. This resource was
then shared with the entire SEA community and has been updated
FIGURE 4
Knowledge and skill advancement through iterative cycles of instruction, feedback and assessment, and experimentation. SEA faculty spend a year
engaging a cohort of students in course-based research. Toward the conclusion of each year, faculty receive student assessment data and have
opportunities to share and discuss their research findings and teaching strategies with the SEA community. Through these opportunities, faculty learn
how to better implement course-based research, including the development of new science pedagogy resources that are shared with community.
This is an iterative process. Dashed lines represent outcomes that are indirectly linked in the full pathway model; solid lines represent outcomes that
are directly linked.

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 09 frontiersin.org
annually based on community feedback. In 2022, version 3 of the
resource was used by over 40 SEA faculty to support their students
in drafting manuscripts of their PHAGES research findings, which
were then successfully published in a peer-reviewed journal (Diaz
et al., 2020).2 In 2023, version 4 of the resource was published with
a validated grading rubric based on feedback from over 100
SEA faculty.
Each semester, SEA conducts systematic program-wide student
assessment to measure psychosocial variables correlated with student
persistence in the sciences (PITS) (Hanauer et al., 2016). These
assessment data are provided to faculty for each section of their
students with comparisons to program-wide means allowing for
2 https://seaphages.org/publications/
evaluation of their pedagogical approach and advancement over time.
Moreover, faculty are invited to participate in phage and education
research projects organized by SEA that aim to advance our collective
understanding of phage biology and course-based research pedagogy.
Examples include manuscripts describing the genetic diversity and
inter-relatedness of large collections of phages, as well as the
instructional and assessment practices of course-based research, each
co-authored by over 100 SEA faculty (Pope et al., 2015; Jacobs-Sera
et al., 2020; Hanauer et al., 2022; Hanuer et al., 2024).
Timing
Some outcomes related to knowledge and skill advancement
occur as short-term outcomes in the pathway model, but most are
medium-term outcomes that are realized after faculty begin to engage
with one another as a community of practitioners.
Outcome category 3: Community
Overview
Outcomes categorized as “Community” relate to SEA faculty
becoming organized as a community of practice and collaborating
with one another. These outcomes are inherent to SEA as a program
designed to support faculty engaged in collaborative course-
based research.
Outcomes
Outcomes here include faculty expanding their professional
network to include SEA colleagues in addition to other individuals at
their own institutions and subsequently engaging with their expanded
network as a community of practice. Outcomes for the latter include
faculty engaging one another to discuss research and pedagogy (e.g.,
presenting research data and pedagogical practices at meetings and
symposia), co-developing new resources to support their
implementation of course-based research (e.g., teaching resources,
software supporting genome annotation and comparative
bioinformatics), and collaborating to advance STEM pedagogy (e.g.,
studying key elements of instruction and assessment in course-based
research). In addition, outcomes here include faculty supporting each
other’s career advancement (Table 3).
Programming and activities
Specific programming to facilitate networking begins as soon as
faculty join SEA. For example, a cohort model is implemented for
new faculty who join SEA, with onboarding and training occurring
as group activities. Additionally, during the onboarding process, new
faculty are paired with experienced faculty, who serve as additional
points of contact and “buddies” to help new faculty navigate the
program and meetings early in their engagement with SEA. Similarly,
at the initial faculty training workshops, a group of experienced SEA
faculty serves as facilitators. They continue to serve as a resource for
new faculty, particularly as new faculty plan and implement their first
iteration of the PHAGES or GENES projects. To support SEA faculty
operating as a community of practice, SEA program staff facilitate
cross-institutional faculty communications and group work through
curated online forums and platforms, as well as annual in-person
meetings that provide protected time for faculty to advance their
knowledge and skills in phage research and STEM pedagogy. Using
SEA infrastructure, faculty share teaching tips and resources with one
TABLE 2 Knowledge and Skill Advancement outcomes.
Short-term outcomes
Faculty implement new content and a CRE framework
Faculty generate original data along with their students
Faculty see their students gain an increased appreciation for scientific research and
data collection
Faculty develop new teaching tool/techniques
Faculty refine/revise teaching strategies
Faculty receive and self-assess their education research data
Faculty mentor students in authentic research
Medium-term outcomes
Faculty and students generate new scientific knowledge
Faculty present phage research
Faculty publish science findings (GenBank, MRA)
Faculty are active in phage biology research
Faculty develop tools to support phage research
Faculty change their approach to teaching central concepts in biology
Faculty generate new education knowledge
Faculty present education research
Publish STEM education findings
Faculty are active in SEA community education research
Faculty advance their knowledge and skills/attitudes toward evidence-based
teaching
Faculty develop and share teaching resources
Faculty see that students are more engaged in STEM course/lab work
Faculty see an increase in student elements known to increase student persistence
and retention
Faculty participate in working groups
As a community, faculty learn together about what works in the classroom and
laboratory
Faculty facilitate or lead expansion of CRE courses at home institution
Long-term outcomes
None identified

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 10 frontiersin.org
another, respond to each other’s queries regarding course-based
research implementation, and provide feedback on research findings.
Some outcomes in this category, such as faculty supporting the
professional advancement of one another by serving as peer mentors
and writing letters for promotion and tenure, have developed
organically within the community without direct SEA programming.
Subsequently, program staff began developing infrastructure to
facilitate these outcomes.
Timing
Faculty networks develop early as faculty join the SEA program,
while outcomes related to SEA faculty operating as a community of
practice appear early but are mostly medium-term outcomes that
faculty realize when they implement the PHAGES or GENES course-
based research projects iteratively, year after year.
Outcome category 4: Psychological Affirmations
Outcome category overview
“Psychological Affirmation” is a multifaceted outcome category
that we define as factors that mostly occur external to, but as a result
of, faculty engagement with SEA programming. Importantly, these
outcomes affirm a faculty’s sense of connectedness to their peers,
competence as educators and researchers, and appreciation for the
profession. Collectively, and consequently, these outcomes motivate
and sustain faculty engagement with SEA, influence their persistence
in implementing course-based research, and ultimately impact their
identities as STEM faculty – both as researchers and science educators –
and their retention in the profession (van Lankveld et al., 2016;
Hanuer et al., 2024).
Outcomes and timing
Psychological Affirmations outcomes occur throughout the
pathway model and develop over time (Table 4). Faculty realize short-
term psychological affirmation outcomes when they mentor additional
students in relation to the PHAGES and GENES course-based
research projects. The example here is “faculty mentor undergraduate
and graduate students serving as teaching assistants.” Faculty realize
medium-term psychological affirmation outcomes when their role as
a researcher and research mentor expands beyond the SEA courses.
Examples here include “faculty recruit CRE students to their own labs
or other research labs” and “faculty have increased opportunities for
grants.” Long-term outcomes are realized when faculty are recognized
for their contributions to advancing science, science education, and
student learning, for example, “faculty contributions support their
promotion and tenure,” “faculty maintain identity as an outstanding
educator,” and “faculty maintain identity as a research scientist.” SEA
facilitates the recognition of faculty contributions by making
education and research resources developed by faculty citable and
through authorship on publications that are the result of collaborations
(Diaz et al., 2020).3
Relationship of pathway model outcomes
The SEA faculty pathway model depicts the complex ways in
which faculty outcomes are interconnected and facilitate the
development of one another over time. Thus, beyond the identification
of emergent themes of faculty outcomes, an understanding of the
relationship between outcomes is important for considering how the
various faculty outcomes emerge. The interrelatedness of outcomes is
exemplified with a few specific examples.
3 https://seaphages.org/publications/
TABLE 4 Psychological Affirmations outcomes.
Short-term outcomes
Faculty mentor undergraduate and graduate students serving as Teaching
Assistants
Medium-term outcomes
Faculty engage a greater number of students in research
Faculty see themselves as research mentors
Faculty recruit CRE students to their own labs or other research labs
Faculty have increased opportunities for grants
Faculty find this work rewarding
Faculty affirm the value of evidence-based teaching
Faculty seed increased awareness of CRE at home institution
Long-term outcomes
Faculty maintain identity as an outstanding educator
Faculty maintain identity as a research scientist
Faculty secure internal and/or external funding
Faculty contributions support their tenure and promotion
Faculty are rewarded for their work
Faculty are retained in the profession
TABLE 3 Community outcomes.
Short-term outcomes
Faculty network with colleagues outside of own institution
Faculty become part of a community of supportive faculty from other institutions
with central administrative structure
Faculty network with colleagues within their own institution
Medium-term outcomes
Faculty participate in working groups
Faculty are active in SEA community education research
Faculty are active in collaborative phage research
Faculty participate in working groups
As a community, faculty learn together about what works in the classroom and
laboratory
Faculty develop and share teaching resources
Faculty present education research
Faculty present phage research
Faculty support SEA colleagues with letters of recommendation
Faculty serve as peer mentors to colleagues within the SEA and to colleagues at
their own institution
Long-term outcomes
None identified

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 11 frontiersin.org
“Knowledge and Skill Acquisition” and “Knowledge and
Skill Advancement”
The relationship between the acquisition and the advancement of
knowledge and skills is readily observable in the pathway model, with
the former necessary for the latter. The underlying logic is that faculty
must first have acquired the knowledge and skills to implement
course-based research before they are able to learn from and deepen
their understanding for doing so. For example, the outcomes “faculty
learn about and experience a CRE” and “faculty have the skills to
establish a CRE” are prerequisites to outcomes like “faculty receive and
self-assess their student outcome data” and “faculty revise and refine
their teaching strategies.”
“Knowledge and Skill Acquisition” and “Community”
In the SEA, knowledge and skill acquisition occurs in the context
of a community. As described previously, faculty training follows a
cohort model. Training is supported by various members of SEA,
including program staff, experienced SEA faculty, and subject matter
experts, who each bring a diversity of experiences and expertise that
support faculty learning how to implement course-based research.
Consequently, and concomitant to faculty acquiring the knowledge
and skills necessary for leading PHAGES or GENES course-based
research projects, SEA faculty expand their professional network to
include other members of the SEA community. For example, the
outcomes “faculty learn new laboratory skills” and “faculty gain
knowledge in microbiology and bioinformatics” are seen in the
pathway model as facilitating the outcome “faculty network with
colleagues outside of their own institution” (Figure 2).
“Knowledge and Skill Advancement” and “Community”
Outcomes in these two categories are highly related, highlighted
by multiple outcomes being assigned to both categories. For
example, “faculty participate in working groups,” “as a community
faculty learn what works in the lab and classroom,” and “faculty
develop and share teaching resources,” are listed as outcomes in
both categories. This inter-relatedness highlights how knowledge
and skill advancement for SEA faculty is facilitated by their
engagement with one another as a community of practice. This is a
reciprocal relationship, with much of community engagement
occurring in the context of, and driven by, collaborative efforts to
advance their PHAGES and GENES research, course-based research
pedagogy, and student outcomes.
“Psychological Affirmations” with “Community” and
“Knowledge and Skill Advancement”
As described previously, psychological affirmations are outcomes
that motivate and sustain faculty engagement with SEA by reaffirming
their connectedness to their peers (“community”) and their
competence as researchers and science educators (“knowledge and
skill advancement”). For the former, the outcome “faculty find this
work rewarding” stems from outcomes such as “faculty serve as peer
mentors to colleagues within the SEA and to colleagues at their own
institution” and “faculty participate in working groups,” which
exemplify faculty engaging their peers as part of a supportive
community. For the latter, the outcomes “faculty expand CRE courses
at home institutions” and “faculty seed increased awareness of course-
based research at their home institutions” are a result of faculty being
skilled as course-based research instructors.
Highly connected outcomes (hubs)
In examining the interconnectedness of the various outcomes at
a more granular level, we identified two outcomes in the pathway
model that are highly interconnected with other outcomes. In pathway
modeling, such interconnected elements are known as “hubs” (Brown
Urban and Trochim, 2009). A hub may be an important outcome
because it represents a highly cumulative outcome (i.e., many other
outcomes contribute toward the development of the hub outcome), or
the hub is an important stepping stone for the development of multiple
other outcomes or both. We identified two highly interconnected hubs
in the model.
The first hub identified is “as a community, faculty learn what
works in the classroom and laboratory.” This hub is an outcome in the
categories of “Knowledge and Skill Advancement” and “Community.”
As shown in Figure 5A, this hub is central to multiple other outcomes
in the same categories. Additionally, one of these supported outcomes –
“faculty develop and share teaching resources” – also feeds into this
hub, thus creating a positive feedback loop within these categories.
Collectively, this hub highlights that a central outcome for SEA
faculty is engagement in a community of practice that supports and
advances their knowledge and skills in implementing course-
based research.
A second hub, “faculty find this work rewarding,” is the most
highly connected outcome in the SEA pathway model (Figure 5B).
This outcome underscores other outcomes in the model that
contribute to faculty having a positive connection to SEA, including
being able to engage and support one another professionally as a
community of practice and observing positive outcomes for their
students that result from their instruction and mentorship. This hub,
in turn, supports multiple psychological affirmation outcomes. It
depicts that when faculty find the work rewarding, it bolsters their
professional identities and retention in SEA and the profession
(Hanuer et al., 2024).
Summary of pathway model outcomes
The SEA faculty pathway model is a visual and chronological
representation of the large-scale and complex process through which
an iREC facilitates the adoption and continual advancement of course-
based research pedagogy. As can be tracked through the SEA pathway
model (Figure 3), faculty first acquire the knowledge and skills to
implement the PHAGES or GENES research projects. Simultaneously,
faculty become networked with a community that includes other
faculty (new and experienced SEA faculty), subject matter experts
(i.e., active researchers of phage biology, assessment, and program
evaluation), and SEA program staff. As SEA faculty implement course-
based research at their institution, they leverage the varying
experiences and expertise of the SEA network to continually enhance
their course-based research program. SEA faculty do so by engaging
the SEA network in dialog about their course outcomes, working
collaboratively to develop and experiment with new instructional
tools and strategies, and participating in education research. By doing
so iteratively, year after year, in the context of a community of practice,
SEA faculty have opportunities to advance their knowledge and skills
for implementing course-based research. Toward the later stages of the
pathway model, it is observed that the opportunity to engage with
others as a supportive community of practice, to facilitate positive
outcomes for their students, and to advance both science and science
education reinforces their identity as STEM faculty – both as

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 12 frontiersin.org
researchers and science educators – and creates additional
opportunities related to their career advancement. These outcomes
ultimately contribute to their retention in the profession.
Discussion
There are many initiatives designed to facilitate pedagogical
transformations in undergraduate STEM education. Most are
successful at supporting faculty in learning why and how to
implement evidence-based teaching practices. However, these
initiatives less often facilitate the skill refinement needed for true
transformation in teaching (e.g., Ebert-May et al., 2011; Stains et al.,
2018; Bathgate et al., 2019). Researchers have pointed to a need for
more “opportunities for teachers to collaborate with colleagues and
other experts to improve their practice” as well as for science
educator training to include opportunities for reflection and
iteration while being guided by student learning data (Loucks-
Horsley et al., 2010); there are also calls to move away from episodic
training opportunities to a model that supports continual
professional learning (Webster-Wright, 2009). Taken together, the
establishment of long-term communities of practice that position
educators to leverage data and evidence to continuously improve
their teaching is needed. These recommendations are echoed by the
National Science and Teaching Association (NSTA Board of
Directors, 2006). Many existing initiatives have indeed established
communities of practice. Defined as communities in which
members are connected and share common values, purpose, and
resources (Allee, 2000), these communities of practice, however,
generally disband after 1–4 semesters (Beach et al., 2016) and do
not necessarily have data on student learning to inform their
practice (Ebert-May et al., 2011; Stains et al., 2018).
FIGURE 5
Highly connected outcomes (hubs). Hubs are highly interconnected outcomes that are impacted by and impact multiple outcomes in a pathway
model. (A) “As a community, faculty learn together about what works in the classroom and laboratory” was identified as a hub. It is an outcome in the
categories of “Knowledge & Skill Advancement” and “Community” and is connected to many outcomes across these two categories. (B) “Faculty find
this work rewarding” was identified as a hub. It is an outcome in the category “Psychological Affirmations” and is connected to multiple outcomes
across multiple categories.

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 13 frontiersin.org
As described in the summary of the results presented in this
study, STEM faculty in an iREC are organized as a community of
practice who additionally leverage both data and the collective
experiences and expertise of the community to engage in sustained
advancement of their teaching. For example, faculty who join the
SEA program are first supported to learn how to implement course-
based research while also being networked with peer practitioners,
experts, and program staff. These are short-term outcomes for SEA
faculty and are likely similar to outcomes for faculty engaged in the
majority of faculty training initiatives. Importantly, a community of
practice in which faculty are engaged in collaborative and iterative
advancement of their teaching only emerges later in the SEA faculty
pathway model as mid- to long-term outcomes. The SEA faculty
pathway model suggests four interrelated and underpinning features
of an iREC that facilitate the development and functioning of such a
community of practice.
First, an iREC is focused on common content. This is in addition
to common values, purpose, and resources typical of communities of
practice. In the SEA program, the focus is on the PHAGES and
GENES course-based research projects. This commonality of content
allows for the diversity of teaching approaches, experiences, and
expertise represented in the community to be leveraged by faculty to
inform and advance their own teaching. Additionally, common
content facilitates the development and use of standardized evaluation
tools that make data directly comparable by faculty for the purposes
of gauging the effectiveness of their teaching strategies.
Second, embedded within this community are a range of
subject-matter experts, from phage biology researchers to
assessment and program evaluation researchers, who are invested
in and collaborate to advance science pedagogy. Designing and
executing assessments, evaluating that data, and leveraging that
data to advance research and teaching practices is a skilled and
time-consuming undertaking. By providing faculty with
comprehensive data translations and data summaries, for example,
about their teaching, faculty are then better positioned to improve
their practice in a data-driven manner.
Third is the long-standing nature of an iREC community. The
advancement of any practice is an iterative process, and the stability
of an iREC allows faculty to remain engaged with the community to
build their expertise and advance their teaching gradually and,
importantly, continually. With an ever-evolving education landscape,
the opportunity for continual advancement of teaching skills and
expertise is important if faculty are to meet the evolving needs of their
student populations and the demands of the times.
Fourth, the intentional positioning of an iREC as a professional
community is designed to support all its members in a collective and
collaborative endeavor that additionally recognizes and credits their
contributions. Faculty thus feel connected to one another and are
committed to each other’s success, supporting one another in
overcoming difficulties and in advancing their course-based research
implementation. As described in the results section of this study, the
opportunity for faculty to engage with one another in this way is
rewarding and serves to reinforce and sustain their engagement in this
community of practice.
The iREC features described in this study go beyond facilitating
skilled implementation of new curricula content and pedagogy.
Because the iREC is a large, diverse, and long-standing community
of faculty and subject matter experts, it offers a novel and unique lens
to explore complex questions that may have implications for science
educators and science education more broadly. Prime examples
include recent studies that described course-based research pedagogy
through an examination of the instructional and assessment goals
and practices of over 100 SEA faculty (Hanauer et al., 2022; Hanuer
et al., 2024). Such studies elucidate the mechanisms by which course-
based research promotes positive outcomes for students and thereby
allow for the impactful aspects of this form of teaching to
be extrapolated to other areas of science education. Beyond
dissemination, an iREC thus offers a strategy also to facilitate the
development and evolution of updated curricula content and
pedagogy. In this way, an iREC shares similarities with discipline-
based education research (DBER), which relies on the combination
of expertise from education researchers and perspectives of those
who practice in a particular discipline to advance teaching and
learning (National Research Council, 2012). In an iREC, a wider field
of practitioners – in this case, SEA faculty – are included as
collaborators in the research being conducted. Doing so enables
STEM faculty in an iREC to both have a bigger voice in shaping
science education research questions as well as stay better informed
with advances that are relevant to their teaching.
Conclusion
The SEA faculty pathway model presented herein describes the
iREC as an innovative model for facilitating pedagogical
advancement by STEM faculty, both within and beyond their own
classrooms. In particular, faculty in an iREC have agency, are not
just consumers of education expertise, and find this work
professionally rewarding. As a model, the iREC thus offers insight
into an approach that can facilitate a transformation in science
education at scale by fostering a culture of continuous pedagogical
advancement among STEM faculty and in a manner that centers the
success and advancement of both students and faculty. The SEA
program pathway model presented herein is an iREC exemplar
because it lays out the components, stages, and relationships that
support such a community of STEM faculty. We invite members of
the STEM community to begin exploring the utility of the iREC as
a model for enhancing existing efforts and infrastructure to better
support STEM faculty in transforming undergraduate
science education.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed
to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on
human participants in accordance with the local legislation and
institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the patients/

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 14 frontiersin.org
participants was not required to participate in this study in accordance
with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
DM: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology,
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,
Project administration. JuG: Data curation, Methodology, Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis,
Project administration. TA: Validation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. SA: Validation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. YA-S: Validation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. IA: Project administration, Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KA: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JA: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MSA: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MA: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FB: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TCB: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AB: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SuB: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TB: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ShB: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KB: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CB: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SMC: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RC: Validation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. H-MC:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SBC:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BC:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KC:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TD'E:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MD:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LiD:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LaD:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AD:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ID:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DE:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PF-S:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AF:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MRF:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MPF:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. VF:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MDG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. UG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JeG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SG:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LH:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PJ:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KJ:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AJ:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AK:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MK:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RK:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KK:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JL-S:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LL:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HL:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JaM:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BM:
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
MDM: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. SM: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. EM: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JuM: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JoM: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. MAM: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. FN: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. JN: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. IN: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. MO'D: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. RO: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. SP: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. AP: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JP: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. MP: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. TP: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. NP: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. RuP: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. RiP: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. NR: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. CR: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JR: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JSR: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. OR: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. AR: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. ER: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. CDS: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. MS: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. AS: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. CNS: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. MAT: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. MMT: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. DT: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. ST: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JT: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. PU: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. EV: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. CW: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. VW: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JW: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. MW: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. DEW: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. KW: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. SW: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. ECW: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. DCW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
EMW: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
WB: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 15 frontiersin.org
SGC: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
DMH: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
DJ-S: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
DR: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
GH: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DA: Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. DIH: Validation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. MJG: Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration,
Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. VS: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration,
Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was
supported by Howard Hughes Medical Institute grants to DIH is
GT12052 and MJG is GT15338.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations,
or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318/
full#supplementary-material
References
Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of practice. OD Practitioner 32.
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 Sci. Educ. 13, 29–40. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004
Bathgate, M. E., Aragón, O. R., Cavanagh, A. J., Waterhouse, J. K., Frederick, J., and
Graham, M. J. (2019). Perceived supports and evidence-based teaching in college STEM.
Int. J. STEM Educ. 6, 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s40594-019-0166-3
Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., and Rivard, J. (2016). Faculty development
in the age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Brewer, C., and Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology
education: A call to action. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement
of Science.
Brown Urban, J., and Trochim, W. (2009). The role of evaluation in research—practice
integration working toward the “golden spike”. Am. J. Eval. 30, 538–553. doi:
10.1177/1098214009348327
Diaz, A., Lee-Soety, J., Chaudary, S., Monti, D. L., Sivanathan, V., and
Pollenz, R. (2020). Writing Microbiology Resource Announcements Collaboratively. HHMI
Science Education Alliance (SEA) Faculty Group: QUBES Educational Resources.
Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., and Jardeleza, S. E.
(2011). What we say is not what we do: effective evaluation of faculty professional
development programs. Bioscience 61, 550–558. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9
Elgin, S. C. R., Hauser, C., Holzen, T. M., Jones, C., Kleinschmit, A., Leatherman, J.,
et al. (2017). Genomics education partnership. The GEP: crowd-sourcing big data
analysis with undergraduates. Trends Genet. 33, 81–85. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2016.11.004
Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A. B., and
Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science 341,
1455–1456. doi: 10.1126/science.12404
Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., Arnold, R. J., Ayuk, M. A., Balish, M. F., Beyer, A. R.,
et al. (2022). Instructional models for course-based research experience (CRE) teaching.
CBE Life Sci. Educ. 21:ar8. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-03-0057
Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., Betancur, L., Bobrownicki, A., Cresawn, S. G.,
Garlena, R. A., et al. (2017). An inclusive research education community (iREC): impact
of the SEA-PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 114, 13531–13536. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1718188115
Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., and Hatfull, G. F. (2016). A measure of college student
persistence in the sciences (PITS). CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15:ar54. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-09-0185
Handelsman, J., Miller, S., and Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific teaching. Freeman.
Henderson, C. (2008). Promoting instructional change in new faculty: an evaluation
of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop. Am. J. Phys. 76, 179–187.
Hanuer, D. I., Alvey, R., An, P., Bancroft, C., Butela, K., Coleman, S., et al.
(2024). The professional identity of STEM faculty as instructors of course-
based research experiences. Front. Educ. 9:1442306. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.
1442306
Hurley, A., Chevrette, M. G., Acharya, D. D., Lozano, G. L., Garavito, M., Heinritz, J.,
et al. (2021). Tiny earth: a big idea for STEM education and antibiotic discovery. MBio
12:e03432. doi: 10.1128/mbio.03432
Jacobs-Sera, D., Abad, L. A., Alvey, R. M., Anders, K. R., Aull, H. G., Bhalla, S. S., et al.
(2020). (2020) genomic diversity of bacteriophages infecting Microbacterium spp. PLoS
One 15:e0234636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234636
Jordan, T. C., Burnett, S. H., Carson, S., Caruso, S. M., Clase, K., DeJong, R. J., et al.
(2014). A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for
first-year undergraduate students. MBio 4, 5:e01051:13. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01051-13
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., and Hewson, P. W. (2010).
Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. 3rd Edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Research Council (2003). Bio2010: Transforming undergraduate education
for future research biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2012). Discipline-based education research:
Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NSTA Board of Directors (2006). NSTA position statement: Principles of
professionalism for science educators. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Pfund, C., Miller, S., Brenner, K., Bruns, P., Chang, A., Ebert-May, D., et al. (2009).
Professional development. Summer institute to improve university science teaching.
Science 324, 470–471. doi: 10.1126/science.1170015
Pope, W. H., Bowman, C. A., Russell, D. A., Jacobs-Sera, D., Asai, D. J., Cresawn, S. G.,
et al. (2015). Whole genome comparison of a large collection of mycobacteriophages
reveals a continuum of phage genetic diversity. eLife 4:e06416. doi: 10.7554/eLife.06416
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2012). Report
to the president. Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates
with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC:
PCAST.
Reeves, P. M., Bobrownicki, A., Bauer, M., and Graham, M. J. (2020). Communicating
complex STEM program evaluation to diverse stakeholders. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 19:es4.
doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-06-0108
Rodenbusch, S. E., Hernandez, P. R., Simmons, S. L., and Dolan, E. L. (2016). Early
engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of
science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15:ar20. doi: 10.1187/
cbe.16-03-0117
Shaffer, C. D., Alvarez, C., Bailey, C., Barnard, D., Bhalla, S., Chandrasekaran, C., et al.
(2010). The genomics education partnership: successful integration of research into
laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutions. CBE Life Sci. Educ.
9, 55–69. doi: 10.1187/09-11-0087

Monti et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1442318
Frontiers in Education 16 frontiersin.org
Smith, C. (2015). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: Chronicling
change, inspiring the future. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Smith, C. (2018). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: Unpacking
a movement and sharing lessons learned. Washington, DC: American Association for
the Advancement of Science.
Smith, C. (2019). Levers for change: As assessment of Progress on changing STEM
education. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E.,
et al. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science 359,
1468–1470. doi: 10.1126/science.aap8892
The Netway. (2015) Computer software. Cornell Office for Research on Evaluation,
Web release date. Available at: www.evaluationnetway.com
Urban, J., Hargraves, M., Buckley, J., Archibald, T., Hebbard, C., and Trochim, W.
(2021). The systems evaluation protocol for evaluation planning. N. Dir. Eval. 2021,
31–45. doi: 10.1002/ev.20443
van Lankveld, T., Schoonenboom, J., Volman, M., Croiset, G., and Beishuizen, J.
(2016). Developing a teacher identity in the university context: a systematic review
of the literature. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 36, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.
1208154
Vasaly, H. L., Feser, J., Lettrich, M. D., Correa, K., and Denniston, K. J. (2014). Vision
and change in the biology community: snapshots of change. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13,
16–20. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0234
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through
understanding authentic professional learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 702–739. doi:
10.3102/0034654308330970