Building sustainability research competencies through scaffolded pathways for undergraduate research experience

Wicked problems such as climate change are not solvable with a single disciplinary approach (Lehtonen et al., 2018). Addressing the urgency, scale, and complexity of global challenges such as the current climate emergency also requires a new type of researcher equipped with key sustainability research competencies (Rapley and De Meyer, 2014; Lozano et al., 2019; Rozance et al., 2020) and novel pedagogical approaches designed to produce a new generation of complex systems thinkers (Valley et al., 2018; Valley et al., 2020).

Competencies for sustainable development are “complexes of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable successful task performance and problem-solving with respect to real-world sustainability problems, challenges, and opportunities” (Wiek et al., 2011, p. 204). Lozano and colleagues (2017) identify 12 key competencies: systems thinking; interdisciplinary work; anticipatory thinking; justice, responsibility, and ethics; critical thinking and analysis; interpersonal relations and collaboration; empathy and change of perspective; communication and use of media; strategic action; personal involvement; assessment and evaluation; and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. Brundiers et al. (2021) emphasize the integrated nature of these competencies and proposes values thinking as a critical competency underpinning the others.

By and large, university undergraduate research training has not emphasized these competencies. Most educational programs teach in narrowly defined disciplines which approach research in distinct ways, and many graduates are not prepared to deal with complexity in systems or interdisciplinarity (Lang et al., 2017). Traditional approaches to teaching based on one-way flows of information are not sufficient for competency development (Lozano et al., 2019) as students are not passive recipients of knowledge but rather construct their own knowledge and mental models through experiences and active learning (Schunk, 2012), applying knowledge and skills to address a specific problem or issue (Wiek et al., 2011; Wilhelm et al., 2019). Pedagogical approaches such as project and/or problem-based learning, community-engaged learning, interdisciplinary team teaching, mind and concept maps, and eco-justice and community approaches are needed to facilitate deeper engagement with the material and critical self-reflection (Brundiers et al., 2010; Sprain and Timpson, 2012; Lozano et al., 2019).

Relatedly, many students lack access to research training specific to complexity and interdisciplinarity despite evidence that such training contributes to the persistence of students in science (Laursen et al., 2010; Eagan et al., 2013) and build scientific literacy applicable to both academic and professional paths (Linn et al., 2015; Öberg et al., 2021). For example, the University of British Columbia (UBC) Senate Undergraduate Research Working Group found that while 90% of undergraduate students surveyed identified research experiences as important, only 20% felt there were adequate opportunities (UBC Undergraduate Research Working Group, 2018). Similar results have been found at other large research universities, such as the University of Colorado Boulder, where only 20% of undergraduates in the Physics Department were found to participate in undergraduate research experiences (Hanshaw et al., 2015). Institutional policies, structures, and norms can create barriers to undergraduate research programs, for example, when they consider teaching and research separately, and do not have coordinated structures to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration (Brew and Mantai, 2017). A lack of formal research requirement for undergraduates and large class sizes can also hinder efforts to expand undergraduate research experiences (Brew and Mantai, 2017).

Barriers to participating in research experiences are particularly high for students from underrepresented groups in academia (including but not limited to those identifying as Black, Indigenous, other underrepresented racialized and ethnic groups, gender minorities, first-generation, low-income, with disability, and combinations of these) (Espinosa, 2011; MacPhee et al., 2013; Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018; Ranganathan et al., 2021). Bangera and Brownell (2014) summarized these barriers as hidden norms and perceived barriers to approaching faculty, financial and personal barriers, as well as racial and gender bias and preference for students with existing experience in selection processes. These hidden norms around scientific research include how to seek out research opportunities (e.g., through informal interactions or reaching out directly), organizational structures in academia (e.g., which faculty do research, difference between a postdoc and a graduate student), and awareness of potential benefits of doing research (e.g., ability to be paid or gain course credit, opportunities to do research as a career) (Villarejo et al., 2008; Bangera and Brownell, 2014).

Introductory-level course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are one way to make research training more inclusive, especially for large science departments, by expanding research experiences to a greater number of students (Auchincloss et al., 2014), but also by eliminating some of the barriers to diversity (see Berhe et al., 2022), for example, by allowing students to simply enroll in a course to access a research experience (Jones et al., 2010; Bangera and Brownell, 2014). In this article, we share the design and outcomes of a new CURE in socio-ecological systems for sustainability, piloted at UBC over 2 years (2019–2021). The course combined mentored research experience with faculty members from several departments with classroom instruction in an interdisciplinary cohort. It focused on developing 5 core sustainability-related research competencies: systems thinking, research self-efficacy, interdisciplinary collaboration, effective communication, and research design and management. Here, we evaluate alignment between our pedagogical design choices, the achievement of sustainability research competencies, and the goal of reducing barriers to accessing research experiences in undergraduate education.

Our pilot project involved developing and teaching a new research training course for undergraduate students titled “Socio-Ecological Systems Research” at UBC, a large public research institution with over 56,000 undergraduate students. The course was piloted 4 times over 2 years with 23 students enrolled (see Table 3). The course development team involved 2 faculty members (AG and HW) and a postdoctoral teaching fellow (SE). Undergraduate students were mentored by 6 postdoctoral fellows and graduate students and 14 faculty members. In addition, 15 graduate students participated in the course as guest lecturers.

Enhancing and increasing access to undergraduate research experiences is identified in UBC’s strategic plan as a central priority, and in 2019, the university committed funds for innovative pilot projects to address this goal. Our team secured funding to develop and pilot this CURE through a competitive internal process, and this grant was used to fund a postdoctoral teaching fellow (SE, involved in 3 months of course development and delivery of the course for 4 iterations), 16 undergraduate summer research awards, tokens of appreciation for guest speakers, and teaching materials. As faculty appointments in Canada are 12-month, no faculty salary support was requested for faculty co-leads (AG and HW). Departmental approval for new course development was required for teams applying to this internal funding opportunity, which our team received due to alignment with departmental and university-wide priorities to develop more interdisciplinary undergraduate offerings in sustainability, a key area of student interest (UBC, 2018).

Course overview. The course combined classroom instruction with experiential learning in the form of mentored research projects developed in collaboration with participating faculty mentors from multiple departments and faculties (see Table 1 for select project titles). The course reviewed social ecological systems analysis and mapping, the research process and research design, methods used in social ecological systems research, and how to effectively develop an argument and communicate research results. The course aimed for students to develop competencies for sustainability-related and interdisciplinary research, whether they planned to apply them within academia or professionally (see Table 2). We chose to focus the course on these 5 competencies based on their importance for sustainability research and interdisciplinary research in particular (Ramachandran et al., 2022) and a scan of what existing disciplinary course-based research was covering and potential gaps.

Course structure. Students were required to spend 5–6 h per week working on their research project, complemented with weekly 1.5-h class meetings and assignments designed to scaffold progress on their research project (see Supplemental Materials). Class time is treated like a lab group meeting, where students engage collaboratively with their peers, instructor, and academic and practitioner guest speakers via discussion, peer review on in progress work, simulations, and skills development. Assigned readings, videos, or other materials, and preparing questions introduced concepts, methods, and tools used in socio-ecological systems research.

Pedagogical approach. Course development and implementation was based on 4 guiding pedagogical principles to create an interdisciplinary, collaborative, and scaffolded learning experience for research independence. Explicit focus on equity, diversity, and inclusion is integrated throughout these principles.

Experiential learning. The course was based on the pedagogical strategy of experiential learning, providing students with a hands-on research experience designed to integrate cognitive, practical, and affective learning. Experiential learning has been shown to benefit all students but especially students from underrepresented groups (Theobald et al., 2020). The course was project-based, with each student matched with a research project and faculty mentor at the start of the course based on their skills, experience, and interest. In addition to learning via doing in their research project, journal assignments reflected on cognitive and practical experience, something considered integral to experiential learning (Mezirow, 1991; Galt et al., 2013).

Combining faculty mentorship with team-based peer learning. Close working relationships of undergraduate students with faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate student mentors can contribute positively to the development of research skills, networking, and student retention in science (Linn et al., 2015). Our course built on and enhanced this one-on-one mentorship model by including opportunities for team-based learning among undergraduate peers from a wide range of disciplines across multiple faculties and schools. Team-based approaches can be effective at catalyzing learning as students are presented with diverse perspectives in an interdisciplinary context (Valley et al., 2018). Further, being part of a research community of peers can support resilience in the face of the intellectual and emotional challenges that are associated with conducting research (Devos et al., 2017). Both mentored research experiences (Junge et al., 2010; Linn et al., 2015) and peer learning (Chang et al., 2014) have been shown to increase diversity and persistence of students from underrepresented groups in science (Jones et al., 2010).

Providing scaffolded pathways to research independence. Studies show that scaffolded research experiences throughout undergraduate education are important for student performance, scientific literacy, and professional gains (Fechheimer et al., 2011; Thiry et al., 2012). Scaffolding is an approach to student-centered instructional design where learners are guided toward increasing independence in new skills through a curated sequence of learning experiences, beginning with more intensive support (e.g., apprenticeship), and progressing towards learner autonomy and internalization (Wood et al., 1976). Instructional scaffolding emphasizes co-constructed learning, between learners and instructors and learners and peers, supporting students across 3 levels of learning: individual, group, and whole class (Puntambekar, 2022). Benefits of research experiences appear to be dependent on students having at least 3 semesters of undergraduate research experience (Thiry and Laursen, 2011; Thiry et al., 2012); 1 year of experience is not enough (Linn et al., 2015). As such, our course involved a structured and closely mentored research experience in students’ third year of their undergraduate degree that could be followed up with an honor’s thesis, directed studies course, summer research internship, or similar alternatives in their fourth year. As part of the pilot, 4–5 students each year received a summer research award to continue their research with the faculty mentor in a paid research assistantship. The introductory course-based design combined with paid summer research assistantships was intentional to support inclusion, for example, by providing an opportunity for a greater number of students to access research experiences, removing the need to find their own research mentor, and making the option to continue the research available to students who would not be able to take an unpaid opportunity.

Enabling interdisciplinary interactions for significant learning. Sustainability science is an emerging field that focuses on understanding interactions between social and natural systems, ultimately to support environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable futures. The course offered multiple opportunities to bridge disciplines and for students to interact from different departments. The class was open to students from any faculty. Students were typically matched with a research project and faculty mentor outside of their core discipline. Students came to the course with a range of prior research experience, ranging from no research experience to summer research assistantships and cooperative education positions (i.e., integrating classroom learning and professional experience), to capstone projects, to having taken similar courses but involving group research projects. The only requirement to enroll was having at least third-year standing. The small class size and diverse peer group allowed for frequent interdisciplinary interactions.

To evaluate the impact of this CURE design on student learning outcomes for sustainability competencies, and the faculty and institutional level implications for promoting equity and diversity in undergraduate research opportunities, we draw on data from surveys with students and faculty mentors, student reflective journal assignments, and self-reflection by the program and teaching team. A list of enrolled student degree programs is provided in Table 3. Protocols were approved by the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board (certificate H21-01797).

We conducted anonymous open-ended exit surveys in Year 1 (2020) and Year 2 (2021) (see Supplemental Material Section 2 for survey questions) with both students and faculty mentors to assess perceptions of their learning experiences and outcomes. Questions to students were open-ended and focused on prior research experience, learning outcomes, opportunities, and influence of the course as well as its design. Questions to mentors asked about their perception of core research competencies, including interdisciplinary competencies specifically for undergraduates, the value of participating in the course as a mentor, and learning outcomes for students. For the Year 1 surveys, we received responses from 3 out of 11 students (these surveys were delivered in June 2020, and as such response rates likely were affected by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic) and 5 out of 9 mentors. For the Year 2 surveys, which were sent out to all students and mentors who had participated in the course over the 2 years, we received a 43% response rate for students (10 out of 23 students) and 57% for mentors (8 out of 14).

We also reviewed 63 student reflective journal assignments from 23 students for insights into the perceived outcomes of the course (see Supplemental Material for course syllabus, including activities and assessment rubrics). At the beginning, middle, and end of the course, students were required to identify and reflect on a learning significant to them and how they expected their thinking or behavior might change going forward as a result.

We qualitatively analyzed the survey responses and journal assignments by coding key themes and ideas related to students’ and mentors’ perceptions of learning outcomes and competencies. We coded for both intended learning outcomes and competencies, and to identify outcomes that were achieved despite not being explicitly stated at the outset. We analyzed responses to identify the relationships between learning experiences and course design factors as well as opportunities or challenges in achieving the learning outcomes.

The results show constructive alignment between pedagogical design choices and the core SES-related research competencies we intended to address. Below, we summarize the types of pedagogical approaches in our educational model that developed the competencies. For each competency below, we identify the impact, what design factors led to the impact on student achievement of the learning competency, and associated challenges and opportunities.

Impact. Students frequently identified systems thinking as one of 3 main learnings they took from the course. (The other two, research and communication skills, are discussed in more detail below.) One student explained: “I started understanding and thinking about how social and ecological systems can be intertwined in research in a concrete way. In the past, they have been presented as siloed fields that have effects on one another but were studied separately.” Another student noted: “I am more confident taking a systems approach to working through challenges. It’s made me more critical of things overall in how they are not isolated items but rather connected to a larger system that has ripple effects.” Ninety percent of student respondents to the Year 2 survey indicated increased confidence working within the context of socio-ecological systems, and explained that they have since applied systems thinking in their other projects and research assistant placements.

Design factors. Systems thinking was mainstreamed in student research projects, which focused on SES-oriented research questions, and was developed through assigned readings, lecture and active learning in class, and an assignment whereby students created a systems map identifying the purpose, boundaries, components and interactions of the socio-ecological system related to their research project. Students found the combination of teaching and learning activities effective: “I have so much more confidence! I loved the format of the course in that we started with very cut and dry explanations to set us up and then dived further into those meanings through our personal research topics.” In their journal assignments, many students claimed the combination of the class session and applying it to their project via the systems map assignment (see Supplemental Material) were highly effective for helping them to understand systems thinking.

Challenges and opportunities. While students found it easy to see the connections in a system, they faced challenges around scoping and drawing boundaries around the multiple interactions in a system. This in turn created an opportunity for them to develop competency in tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty, and ability to work within complex systems without being overwhelmed. While this was not a competency, we designed for at the outset, it emerged as an important affective learning outcome associated with sustainability research, in line with what others have reported (Rieckmann, 2012; Valley et al., 2018). Students felt more confident conducting research dealing with complex systems as a result, as this quote from a student illustrates: “I think I am much more confident engaging with intertwined topics—especially in terms of narrowing things down and focusing on what is most important to my research, setting the scope of the research.”

Impact. The students reported research skills among the top 3 learnings/skills they took from the course, including diverse methodologies for data collection, interpretation, analysis, as well as ability to evaluate the credibility of sources and to manage citations. The same student quoted above said “I think the portion of the course in which we were planning the research was the most helpful for me—how to ask a meaningful question, how to get the information that is going to answer that question and how to set the boundaries of your research to keep it at a reasonable scope given the time frame and the resources that are allocated.”

Moreover, students used the term “independence” frequently when describing the benefits they received from this course, when compared to other courses they have taken, indicating that research self-efficacy was an important competency developed in the course. Faculty also observed that students from this course, more so than others they have taught, were able to apply their own expertise to a project.

Overall, many students reported that the course had helped to form their interest in research and shape their career goals. Several students stated that they were now planning to pursue a Master’s degree, or were considering a career in research, due to the interest in research and confidence they had gained from the course: “I didn’t think I had the skillset or discipline to go through any higher level of academia. I was so afraid I didn’t even consider it as a plausible route until this course. Getting an opportunity to do research in an interesting topic as well as having the opportunity to further it into a summer employment has had all the difference in my life. I have now set my sights for masters programs while looking for other research opportunities in the meantime.” Students also felt that the course had helped them obtain subsequent jobs and other opportunities; 2 students reported obtaining sustainability research internships after speaking about their course project in their interviews, others emphasized the ability to continue with research assistantships, one student presented their research at an international academic conference, another at a student conference, and one published an article with their mentor.

Design factors. Students attributed their increase in self-efficacy to the individual (vs group) research project that challenged them to be more independent, engage with a project in depth and with a lot of freedom to be creative (in bringing their existing knowledge, skills, and interests into play). One student explained: “Most of all, the way in which we did our research was independent enough that as a student we finally had a chance to be creative. At the same time, it was guided enough so that we knew what we were working towards.” Another student elaborated: “I think the ability to think independently and make decisions was the main thing that I got from this course that I haven’t gotten from others. What I mean by this was that there was no course content to memorize but rather a research project to work through that required many small and large decisions that I had to make and the success of my project was dependent on this.” Faculty also mentioned that the hands-on research experience was invaluable for students and allowed students the chance to work independently and explore new research methods, be creative in their approach.

Challenges and opportunities. An important challenge with mentored individual research experiences is that they require engaged faculty and time commitment. Matching students with faculty also took significant time to administrate on the part of the instructor (see Supplemental Materials). However, student responses emphasize that it was learning by doing that made the difference to them gaining research self-efficacy, and that the scaffolded design of the course supported gradual steps toward independence versus being thrown in the deep end and being completely overwhelmed.

Impact. The course provided students with an interdisciplinary research opportunity and connections that they felt were otherwise not available in their undergraduate programs. Several students explained that this was the first course to offer them an experience doing research outside of their home discipline, with one student maintaining, “This course showed me the beauty of interdisciplinary research.” Mentors likewise highlighted that in this course, unlike others, students importantly gained a synoptic perspective on research, an opportunity for cross-pollination and exposure to epistemic diversity and seeing different ways to approach a research question.

Design factors. Class sessions included guest panels of researchers applying methods of different disciplines to an SES problem, designed to increase student appreciation and familiarity with interdisciplinary approaches to complex problems. Pairing students with a faculty mentor, in many cases outside the student’s home discipline, allowed them to build a strong relationship with a faculty member and gain broader research connections (through their mentor’s lab group, for example). The team-based peer learning structure and small size of the class allowed students to learn from peers with different disciplinary backgrounds, expanding upon their own disciplinary focus and gaining in-depth knowledge of their peers’ research topics. We found that this was particularly effective when effort was taken to create a safe space for students to share and learn from each other, such as through a round of check-ins at the beginning of each class session, adapted to ice breaker activities at the start of Zoom sessions when the course had to be moved online due to COVID-19.

Challenges and opportunities. As previously mentioned, matching students with research projects required significant administrative effort to recruit faculty research project submissions and mentors and match students with projects based on interest and skills. In one case, the match did not work well when the student’s experience did not sufficiently align with the needs of the project. The benefits, however, were such that fruitful partnerships were made between mentors and students, including with faculty whose departments do not have undergraduate teaching responsibilities (e.g., faculty in the policy school) and through this course had the opportunity to collaborate with undergraduate students.

Impact. Students identified communication skills as among the top skills they developed in the course. Students explained that they had gained confidence presenting to experts, and had learned to write a research paper, in some cases coauthoring and publishing an article. Both required them to think about the best ways to display quantitative and qualitative data. Students learned to communicate their research in a succinct, structured way, in which analysis, results, and the implications of those findings were linked back to the research question.

Design factors. Students and faculty attributed this to the course allowing space to practice both written and oral communication, through multiple opportunities to express their ideas and research to different interdisciplinary (across academic disciplines) and transdisciplinary (including non-academic collaborators and stakeholders; Nurius and Kemp, 2019; Ramachandran et al., 2022) groups of people. In our course, students engaged with their instructors and peers, guest panelists and speakers, faculty mentors and their academic and non-academic collaborators. In particular, the course required students to make oral presentations of their work in which they had only 3–5 min to explain succinctly what they were working on.

Challenges and opportunities. Challenges included professional communication for project management, a form of research communication that is not always acknowledged as requiring training. For instance, at the outset of the term, many students were unfamiliar with, or not confident in, formal email correspondence, meeting requests, and calendar tools. Students identified familiarity with these communication conventions as an important learning, discussed in more detail below. Formally incorporating practice with these communication modalities into CURE learning outcomes could be impactful.

Impact. In their survey response, students said they learned basic project organization/management skills, including organizational skills to stay on task, on time in completing research tasks, and time management. Students learned how to act in a research setting (Ovink and Veazey, 2011), including soft skills and norms around professional conduct, communication, and collaboration, in addition to technical skills. They also realized the range of professional as well as academic career options that utilized the skills they were learning through the course.

Design factors. The course placed the responsibility of research project management with the students, making clear that the expectation was for them to set communication with their mentors, ask questions as needed, and ensure they were on time with assignments. The course design supported this through weekly class sessions and scaffolded assignments designed to guide students through the research process and keep track of timing.

Challenges and opportunities. In the first iteration of the course, we observed challenges with students not taking initiative in communicating with their mentors, setting meetings, and advancing their projects. Students attributed this to wanting to wait to have more information and feel more prepared. This was taken into account in next three iterations of the course so that an early class session provided guidance to students on initiating and continuing regular communication with mentors, and normalized feelings of uncertainty. Overall, students felt that what they were learning was applicable in their future studies and professional pursuits, which motivated them. This was supplemented by guest lectures providing insight into research happening outside of academia, and concrete examples of research projects around the world.

Lessons for student training. Key elements of the pedagogical approach that helped train independent researchers with the thinking, research, and communication skills to work to address complex interdisciplinary problems included mentored and scaffolded learning-by-doing supported by interdisciplinary peer group-based learning.

Previous research on undergraduate research experiences has shown learning can be limited to developing data collection skills (Fechheimer et al., 2011; Thiry and Laursen, 2011; Thiry et al., 2012). We found that by placing students at the helm of their research projects and supporting them with scaffolded assignments to support the research process, and with assessments that explicitly stated justification of design and interpretation as learning goals in their rubrics, they learned research design and interpretation alongside data collection skills. Moreover, an emphasis on research as an iterative process (Cartrette and Melroe-Lehrman, 2012) supported confidence-building in viewing themselves as researchers.

We also saw important effects for students beyond the planned competencies. In survey responses and journal entries, many students wrote that the course was instrumental in inspiring their interest and confidence in pursuing research opportunities. The course provided an opportunity for learning experiences with supportive mentors leading to what has been called academic self-efficacy (MacPhee et al., 2013). Reflective journal assignments emphasized integration of research experiences with students’ personal beliefs and ideas, critical to helping students self-identify as scientists (Linn et al., 2015). Through guest panels in class that reflected a diversity of interdisciplinary research projects and methods conducted both within and outside academia, students gained an expanded view of the roles and opportunities in science (Ovink and Veazey, 2011; Strawn and Livelybrooks, 2012).

These findings suggest that it is important to emphasize student interest and confidence in research in early research experiences, as an important foundation to continue to build on and further emphasize other research skills. This finding is in line with research showing that undergraduate research experiences, when they occur early in the degree program, can not only affirm student interest in science but change student interest in graduate education and science in general (Harrison et al., 2011; Eagan et al., 2013). Survey responses and journal reflections from students aligned with studies reporting undergraduates from groups underrepresented in science had increased confidence and expanded images of science careers after participating in research experiences (Ovink and Veazey, 2011; Adedokun et al., 2012; Strawn and Livelybrooks, 2012).

Lessons for faculty. The course also led to important benefits for faculty mentors. Faculty mentors gained consistent research assistance over the course of a term, reporting significant contributions from the students they mentored. This depended on careful matching of students with faculty research projects, which required substantial overhead on the part of the course instructor. The guided support from the course instructor, scaffolded assignment structure and accompanying rubrics, opportunities for peer group interaction, and material taught in class allowed faculty to get undergraduates involved in their research teams with less time commitment than other mentorship opportunities.

Faculty felt the course design provided “a nice structure to work with the student (the sequence of assignments, for instance),” “introduced a lot of fundamental research concepts, which could then be applied to [their] research project,” made grading easier and potentially fairer than a directed study due to the instructor involvement, and reduced their workload. This is supported by literature that shows CUREs contribute to learning theories and conceptual understanding more than independent undergraduate research experiences (Thiry et al., 2012), by integrating lectures and readings with research project work (Szteinberg and Weaver, 2013; Shaffer et al., 2014). Lower stakes opportunities to work with undergraduate students and identify if there is a good fit between a student and a specific research project may enhance the likelihood that faculty members invest in undergraduate student research mentorship, particularly in institutions where undergraduate mentorship is not as explicitly valued as a form of research output.

More than research assistance, however, faculty reported that the opportunity to mentor an undergraduate student often from a discipline different than theirs led them to improve their own articulation of their research and research competencies—a key aspect of interdisciplinary encounters (Lélé and Norgaard, 2005). Further, faculty reported that the experience expanded their own perspectives of their research areas, as they were able to see them through the lens of their mentee’s outlook. Faculty also noted that their mentees brought enthusiasm to the research team and described the mentorship as rewarding. In particular, the structured experience allowed faculty to see mentees quickly gain research skills, overcome unexpected hurdles and learn to ask for help when needed. Faculty mentors also reported benefiting from increased exposure to what their colleagues were doing, and more researchers and research projects at UBC through their student mentees and through attendance at the final course presentations.

The course also offered an opportunity for professional development for graduate students and postdoctoral students, who in many cases helped mentor the students during the research project and contributed to guest speaking on panels in the classes. (Early career researchers also received small honoraria for guest lectures, see Supplemental Material Section 1). One graduate student explained that this helped them to improve their teaching skills, communication skills, ability to provide constructive feedback, and learning from their mentee. A faculty mentor explained that the course offered an opportunity for their graduate student to learn supervision and project management. Where possible, we sought opportunities to integrate with existing professional development programs on campus for graduate students, such as a climate teaching connector program where graduate students receive stipends for preparing and delivering guest lectures based on their research expertise (UBC, 2023).

Lessons for institutions. To address the challenges of interdisciplinarity and diversity in teaching sustainability competencies, alternative models of faculty involvement in teaching and learning experiences, such as team teaching, or serving as project mentors within a course framework, can provide efficient ways to share teaching resources across programs and departments. In our case, interdisciplinary interactions were further facilitated by an existing structure (i.e., course code) for interdisciplinary science courses, under which we were able to formalize this course-based research experience program after the 2-year pilot. Strategic integration with existing campus programs and opportunities for in-kind compensation (e.g., guest lectures as part of teaching training programs for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows) may also offer opportunities to reduce resource requirements for such offerings.

Our research shows that undergraduate research experiences can be a transformative experience, and CUREs are one way to scale this to reach more students. Elements of the course design improved the accessibility of research experiences for undergraduate students, in particular pairing students with a faculty mentor and research project, and the scaffolded assignment structure. Our findings suggest that experiential learning research courses may also play an important scaffolding role within the ecosystem of other existing undergraduate research experiences on campus. These “learning by doing” courses may be a bridge between more traditional research methods courses which more heavily emphasize theory, and more traditional research apprenticeship opportunities such as senior theses or summer research assistantships. Previous research finds that students are more likely to have the opportunity for undergraduate research with faculty mentorship in small liberal arts institution than a large research university (Fechheimer et al., 2011; Thiry et al., 2011). Course-based research experiences are one way to offer research experiences in a large research institutional context, and can contribute to student and faculty recruitment and to expanded research opportunities (see Chang et al., 2020).

Addressing wicked socio-ecological systems problems requires solutions that go beyond any one disciplinary approach. New pedagogical approaches are needed to train a new generation of complex systems thinkers with the research, collaboration, and communication skills to make useful contributions to managing these complex problems in their professional roles. Findings presented here from a new undergraduate socio-ecological systems research training course suggest that mentored, scaffolded, interdisciplinary research experiences can provide an effective and accessible way to develop key sustainability competencies in students. However, successful implementation will require institutional commitment, structure, and funding to support the higher overhead associated with such courses. We argue that CUREs based on innovative pedagogical approaches are one way to scale up such training to develop researchers capable of addressing the complex socio-ecological challenges facing the world.

The data analyzed in this study (student reflective journals, participant survey responses) are not publicly available for research ethics reasons but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The supplemental files for this article can be found as follows:

File 1: Syllabus including Activities and Assessments. PDF

File 2: Evaluation Survey Questions for Students and Mentors. PDF

We gratefully acknowledge all of the undergraduate students and faculty/postdoctoral/graduate student project mentors who participated in the pilot of this course-based undergraduate research experience. We would also like to acknowledge that this research was conceptualized and implemented on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Musqueam People. As settler scholars, we are grateful to live, work, and learn as uninvited guests on these lands.

This work was funded by a University of British Columbia Program for Undergraduate Research Experience (PURE) Grant.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Contributed to conception and design: AG, HW, SE.

Acquisition of data: SE.

Analysis and interpretation of data: SE, AG, HW.

Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content: SE, AG, HW.

Final approval of the version to be published: SE, AG, HW.

How to cite this article: Elder, S, Wittman, H, Giang, A. 2023. Building sustainability research competencies through scaffolded pathways for undergraduate research experience. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 11(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2022.00091

Domain Editor-in-Chief: Alastair Iles, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Knowledge Domain: Sustainability Transitions