View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teaching Global Change in Local Places: The HERO Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teaching Global Change in Local Places: The HERO Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program
Language: English
Authors: Yarnal, Brent, Neff, Rob
Source: Journal of Geography in Higher Education. Sep 2007 31(3):413-426.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2007
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Minicourses, Research Methodology, Cooperative Learning, Models, Research Skills, Adjustment (to Environment), Environmental Education, Interdisciplinary Approach, Teacher Student Relationship, Small Group Instruction, Student Research, Environmental Influences, Global Approach, Indigenous Knowledge, Admission Criteria, Mentors
DOI: 10.1080/03098260601082339
ISSN: 0309-8265
Abstract: The Human-Environment Research Observatory (HERO) Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program aimed to develop the next generation of researchers working on place-based human-environment problems. The program followed a cooperative learning model to foster an integrated approach to geographic research and to build collaborative research skills. The program hosted 12-16 students annually, who first engaged in an intensive short course and then formed three- or four-person teams to conduct research in four biophysically and socioeconomically diverse places. The teams used cyberinfrastructure to collaborate and integrate their research and findings. Most of the REU students have opted to attend graduate school and specialize in human-environment research. (Contains 3 tables and 2 notes.)
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 20
Entry Date: 2007
Accession Number: EJ777869
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFmOqmmHQ0Y-65GKudlDC_lAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCCKjir6pAoQg7S1YAIBEICBmjeUELloK7tWPv8p4xz2aCFuMui7xaoFlk5Nter2x7hanBgoDOqun1AF4O29S--cLjLj9d-y3fE0vyGzgyuU78UL7X2t7Tu4K-L7p05PsK9kxZG5I8qxMzfcUpzWsPioSOoNAKdHd1IdisNjkFvXqLkap7ZzWtyTGivjD7APtmp1lpdwojZb4i4FVXx4E4FUR--YqTuoUcGZtaE=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0027240147;jgh01sep.07;2019Mar11.13:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0027240147-1">Teaching Global Change in Local Places: The HERO Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program. </title> <p>The Human–Environment Research Observatory (HERO) Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program aimed to develop the next generation of researchers working on place-based human–environment problems. The program followed a cooperative learning model to foster an integrated approach to geographic research and to build collaborative research skills. The program hosted 12–16 students annually, who first engaged in an intensive short course and then formed three- or four-person teams to conduct research in four biophysically and socioeconomically diverse places. The teams used cyberinfrastructure to collaborate and integrate their research and findings. Most of the REU students have opted to attend graduate school and specialize in human–environment research.</p> <p>Keywords: Undergraduate research; human–environment studies; environmental education; collaborative learning; cooperative learning</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Global environmental change results from countless human actions occurring in local places. At the same time, people experience and respond to global environmental change in localities (Association of American Geographers (AAG) Global Change in Local Places Research Team, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]). If society is to understand how people cause, experience and respond to global environmental change, then it is necessary to study and monitor local human–environment interactions (National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>], 1999). Similarly, if society is to study and monitor the local dimensions of global environmental change in the future, then it is essential to develop a cadre of young scientists trained in this research area today.</p> <p>In response to these needs, the Human–Environment Regional Observatory (HERO) project is developing the infrastructure to study and monitor the human causes and consequences of global environmental change in local places. Geographers from the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), Clark University in Massachusetts, Kansas State University, and the University of Arizona are participating in this project and establishing HERO sites in central Pennsylvania, central Massachusetts, southwestern Kansas, and the United States–Mexico border region of southern Arizona–northern Sonora, respectively. An important component of the HERO infrastructure development is the training of young scientists. The HERO Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program engaged advanced undergraduate students in field, laboratory and archival research on human–environment interactions and, especially, global change in local places. The HERO REU was a four-year program, with the fourth of those years nearing completion at the time of this writing.</p> <p>This paper presents an overview of the HERO REU program, including descriptions of its goal and pedagogical approach, its key activities and its outcomes. Although the paper describes only one program, we draw conclusions that are valuable to educators teaching collaborative research in general (e.g. Maguire & Edmondson, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]), and human dimensions of global change (e.g. Hanson & Moser, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]) and human–environment interactions (e.g. Diduck & Sinclair, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]) in particular.</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-3">Goal and Pedagogical Approach</hd> <p>The overarching goal of the HERO REU program was to develop the next generation of global-change-in-local-places researchers. Specific educational objectives that we targeted included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • fostering a holistic, integrated approach to regional geographic research (i.e. a balance among field, laboratory and library research; among human geography, physical geography and geographic information science; and between quantitative and qualitative research);</item> <p></p> <item> • building collaborative research skills;</item> <p></p> <item> • recruiting students from groups underrepresented in American geographical research (i.e. women, minorities[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>] and students from universities and colleges without strong research programs).</item> </ulist> <p>To help reach that goal and these objectives, we adopted a form of the collaborative learning model. Collaborative learning, an alternative to traditional independent learning, is an instructional method in which students work in small groups to reach a common goal (e.g. Bruffee, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]; Johnson <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]). Instead of only dispensing knowledge, instructors concentrate on developing small-group activities and acting as facilitators and coaches. Collaborative learners not only gain factual knowledge and comprehend concepts as well as independent learners (Gokhale, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]), they also develop higher-order critical thinking skills by synthesizing information and applying factual knowledge and concepts to complex, real-world situations. Collaborative learning promotes social and team skills but at the same time shifts responsibility for learning away from the instructor and to the student, thereby fostering truly independent learning. Collaborative learning also causes students to reflect on their knowledge and, perhaps more importantly, on their personal traits and interpersonal abilities, thereby helping them become better citizens.</p> <p>The HERO REU program applied a form of the collaborative learning model called cooperative learning (Panitz, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]). In cooperative learning, the instructors use small-group activities but create a highly organized, tightly structured environment to achieve specific outcomes.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>] They are deeply involved, taking a significant role in building knowledge and guiding the learning process. They are active in forming groups and constructing tasks, while holding students to high levels of accountability. The focus of cooperative learning is on tangible products. In contrast, in classical collaborative learning, instructors tend to be hands-off and work is much more unstructured. Students are more likely to self-organize, set their own tasks and be less accountable for products. The focus of collaborative learning is on process.</p> <p>The HERO REU program was funded by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Research Experiences for Undergraduates program. NSF requires that REU students receive a stipend, travel assistance and in some cases help with housing. Through their REU program, NSF seeks to expand student participation in research and, consequently, to attract a diverse pool of talented students into science careers.</p> <p>In the following, we describe the HERO REU program—including the recruitment process, the short course, the six-week research experience and the student poster presentations at the Annual Meeting of the AAG—and how it achieved the stated goals.</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-4">The Hero Reu Program</hd> <p>Every spring, personnel from the four HERO sites selected three or four students each to participate in the HERO REU program. These 12–16 students began their summer research activities by participating in a two-week short course at Penn State that introduced them to the concepts and tools needed to study the local dimensions of global environmental change. After the short course, the REU students returned to the HERO sites of their home states where they conducted parallel research activities for 6 weeks and interacted with several mentors working on the HERO project. Students became familiar with diverse tools such as geographic information systems and qualitative analysis software packages and engaged in diverse activities such as mapping and interviewing. Students not only worked as a team at their respective HERO sites but also worked with their colleagues at the other HERO sites by using collaboratory tools designed to facilitate remote collaboration (Pike & Gahegan, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]; Solem <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]; MacEachren <emph>et al.</emph>, 2004a, 2004b, 2006; Fuhrmann & Pike, 2005; Pike <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>]). The following spring, the students and their mentors assembled at the Annual Meeting of the AAG where the student teams presented their research results in poster sessions. This section presents the details of the HERO REU program outlined here, including the recruiting process, the short course, the research experience and the student presentations at the Annual Meeting of the AAG.</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-5">Recruitment</hd> <p>The HERO REU program recruited geography students from the four states in which the four HEROs are located, i.e. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Kansas and Arizona. This strategy was a compromise between the desire to have a broad geographic distribution in potential HERO REU program students and the need to have local and regional knowledge for local-area studies.</p> <p>Within each state, the program recruited one geography student from the home institution—Penn State, Clark University, Kansas State University and the University of Arizona. One criterion used in selection of this student is that he or she must have good knowledge of the local study site. To build a more diverse base, the remaining REU students recruited at each site came from other institutions in the state. Although these 'external' students might have had less local knowledge of the study area, they had an understanding of the regional context and a good acquaintance with the human–environment problems facing residents of their state. To diversify the pool of HERO REU program participants even further, at least one of the two 'external' students in each state attended a college or university that does not have a strong research base.</p> <p>Although each HERO site addressed recruitment independently, each relied on established formal and informal networks within its state to find the best possible students. For example, the Penn State HERO exploited two formal networks in Pennsylvania. This HERO advertised through the Pennsylvania Consortium for Interdisciplinary Environmental Policy (PCIEP, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]), an organization of more than 50 universities, colleges and government agencies devoted to improving environmental policy and education through academic and governmental cooperation. Included in these academic institutions are dozens with limited research opportunities for undergraduate students. A second formal network targeted by the Penn State HERO was the geography departments of the state, which it accessed through the Pennsylvania Geographical Society (PGS, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]). The PGS emphasizes geographic education and research at all levels, especially at non-research institutions. These two formal networks provided access to a large pool of potential HERO REU program students within Pennsylvania. The other HERO sites had access to similar formal and informal networks in Massachusetts, Kansas and Arizona.</p> <p>The recruitment and selection focus was on groups that are underrepresented in American geography—specifically women and racial minorities. To draw students from underrepresented groups, the HERO project hired diverse staff, thereby providing students with mentors with whom they could more easily relate.</p> <p>Candidates were selected not only on the institutional and geographical bases described above but also on a combination of their grades, skills, letters of interest, letters of recommendation and status vis-à-vis underrepresented groups. We preferred to take geography students who had completed three years of university education but accepted exceptional younger students.</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-6">Short Course</hd> <p>The HERO REU program began with students driving or flying to the two-week, intensive short course at Penn State. The program covered the costs of transportation for all REU students. All REU students stayed together in a campus dormitory; even the Penn State student stayed in the dorm to build group cohesion.</p> <p>The short course was co-taught by the project principal investigator, a post-doctoral research associate, graduate students and an undergraduate peer mentor. The principal investigator organized the course and its content and was the primary instructor. The post-doctoral research associate's chief responsibilities were to teach various research methods through lectures and practical tutorials, and to organize computer access, software and data sets to support the tutorials. Other HERO post-doctoral scholars and graduate students contributed by teaching topics in which they had expertise. The short course took place in three locations: in a traditional seminar room, in a computer laboratory dedicated to the short course for the two weeks, and in the field during the three field trips.</p> <p>Excluding Sunday travel to and from Penn State, the short course was taught over 12 days—10 weekdays, with two Saturday field trips and a mid-course Sunday off. Each weekday addressed different topics (Tables 1 and 2); those topics changed slightly each year depending on the focus of the six-week summer research experience. A typical day involved introductions to basic concepts, data collection, research methods, tools and professional activities. The students were introduced to many of the ideas, techniques and issues involved in global-change-in-local-places research by the end of the short course. This information and skill set prepared them for research at their particular HERO site.</p> <p>Table 1. Schedule for the 2003 REU Program Short Course: Week 1</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Lecture 9:00–10:00</td><td>Methods 10:00–11:00</td><td>Practicals/Labs 11:00–4:00, with lunch break</td><td>Professional Activities 4:00–5:00</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Monday</td><td>•Welcome breakfast (8:00 am)</td><td>•Introduction to GIS</td><td>•Explore Centre county with GIS</td><td>•Human subjects: Intro. and clearance forms</td></tr><tr><td /><td>•Regional studies of human–environment interactions</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Tuesday</td><td>•Climate variation and change</td><td>•Controls on Climate and Collecting data from the web</td><td>•Get and explore climate data for each study site</td><td>•Present climate data for each site</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>•Create presentation with graphics</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Wednesday</td><td>•Water quantity and quality</td><td>•Surveys</td><td>•Analyzing survey data</td><td>•Discuss Readings</td></tr><tr><td>Thursday</td><td>•Community Water Systems</td><td>•Intro to Qualitative Methods</td><td>•Designing Interviews (Until 1)</td><td>•Discuss and refine Interview Script</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>•Intro to Atlas TI (1–4)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Friday</td><td>•Land Use/Cover Change</td><td>•Focus Group—CWS Managers from Centre County (Until 12)</td><td>•Analyzing qualitative data (1–4)</td><td>•Field Trip Planning</td></tr><tr><td>Saturday</td><td>•Field trip through Spring Creek watershed (All Day)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Schedule for the 2003 HERO REU Program Short Course: Week 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Lecture 9:00–10:00</td><td>Methodology 10:00–11:00</td><td>Practicals/Labs 11:00–4:00, with lunch break</td><td>Professional Activities 4:00–5:00</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Monday</td><td>•Natural and Technological Hazards</td><td>•Point Data</td><td>•Map Facilities for Study Areas</td><td>•Schedule Interviews/ Prep Presentations</td></tr><tr><td>Tuesday</td><td>•Human vulnerability</td><td>•Polygon Data</td><td>•Extract and map census data, and CWS service areas</td><td>•Schedule Interviews/ Prep Presentations</td></tr><tr><td>Wednesday</td><td>•Last Year's Vulnerability Assessment</td><td>•Geospatial Analysis</td><td>•Overlays between CWS data and Census data</td><td>•Presentations based on previous 4 labs</td></tr><tr><td>Thursday</td><td>•Upload data/results to web and collaboratory</td><td /><td>•Field Trip Planning (319 Walker)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Friday</td><td>•Mentors meet students; student-led field trip</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Saturday</td><td>•Field Trip: Return to Penns Creek (8:30 am–12:00 pm)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>•Place-Specific Context: Presentations from all four sites and discussion</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>An essential feature of the short course was exposure to quantitative data gathering, manipulation and analysis. Students experienced a variety of data types and analysis techniques but the primary focus of the laboratory exercises was manipulating tabular and spatial data in spreadsheets and geographic information systems. In small groups, students mapped spatial variation and analyzed trends in various forms of local data from their home state, such as climate and population. As part of the professionalization exercises, the student teams used presentation software to report the findings of the laboratory exercises to the rest of the students, thus gaining presentation skills and informing their colleagues about their study sites. These presentations also served as a diagnostic tool that allowed the faculty to evaluate the degree to which the students understood the material discussed in lectures.</p> <p>Students also gained valuable qualitative data-collection and analysis skills during the short course. During the 2002 HERO REU program short course, for example, students interviewed local community decision-makers to discover how land-use planning works in Centre County, Pennsylvania. As a team, the students prepared a set of interview questions to learn about individuals and groups involved in local land-use decision-making, tools (legal, administrative, etc.) available to those parties, land-use planning procedures and problems with the planning system. The student team interviewed a local township manager, a local-government policy specialist from the state governor's office, a district engineer from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and a director from a non-governmental organization specializing in community-level affairs. Students then transcribed and manually analyzed audio recordings of the interview. The 2003 short course provided a similar experience for students, except that they interviewed two local experts on community water systems and they used a qualitative software package to help analyze the audio transcriptions. The 2003 short course emphasized qualitative data analysis because students planned to collect data in face-to-face interviews and then organize and analyze these data during the research period of the HERO REU program. In addition to transcribing and analyzing recordings of their short-course interview, the students did a content analysis of a few short documents using HEROINE collaboratory tools such as Codex (Pike <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]) to reinforce their analysis skills. The students also learned about ethical issues of research involving human subjects, and passed an online test administered by Penn State's Office of Regulatory Compliance before going into the field.</p> <p>Key components of the short course were the field trips through the central Pennsylvania study area. During these trips, instructors worked closely with students on topics they were researching, helping them gain insights into how to read and interpret physical and human landscapes and how to think about human–environment interactions on the ground. To help the students engage this process more actively, they were required to design and lead one of the three field trips (see below).</p> <p>The short course also trained students to use the collaboratory tools needed for the ensuing research experience. They included an electronic Delphi tool for decision support, a videoconferencing tool with data sharing, an electronic notebook tool for data storage and sharing, and Codex (which replaced the electronic notebook in Year 4), a tool for data storage, data sharing, concept mapping, and more (e.g. Pike <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]; MacEachren <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>]). Students learned the tools through instruction and, more importantly, through exercises and daily use.</p> <p>To help students make the transition from the instructional setting of the short course to the research environment at the HERO sites, faculty research mentors from each HERO joined the Penn State instructional team during the last three days of the short course. Meeting a member of their research team started the process of connecting students with their sites and made them feel part of a research team. During the three days, mentors presented overviews of their study areas so that all students learned about the others' research sites. In addition, the students led a field trip through the central Pennsylvania study area, introducing the mentors to the study area and displaying their newfound skills in reading human–environment landscapes. Mentors also received student-led overviews of the methods and tools they learned about during the short course; these activities included a Web-based videoconference with HERO research team members in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Kansas and Arizona. Finally, students and mentors worked collaboratively to set the research tasks, products and schedules for the following six-week summer research experience.</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-7">Research Experience</hd> <p>Immediately following the short course, students moved to one of the four HERO sites accompanied by faculty research mentors. There, they engaged in full-time research for six weeks, working alongside faculty, post-doctoral, graduate and peer investigators.</p> <p>The research tasks undertaken by the students changed each year. Through a series of teleconference meetings starting the previous winter, the mentors took months to create these tasks for the students. They chose problems that integrated seamlessly into the greater HERO project and answered fundamental questions addressed by HERO. The success of the program was dependent on the mentors' ability to develop meaningful and challenging collaborative research problems that students with raw talent but limited experience could complete in six weeks. The process of developing each cohort's research problem also gave the entire HERO team a stake in the ongoing success of the REU program.</p> <p>During the 2002 HERO REU program, for example, students tested a research protocol for assessing community vulnerability to contemporary environmental hazards. This research required the REU student researchers to:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • map and ground-truth land cover and land use;</item> <p></p> <item> • identify, locate and evaluate natural and technological hazards endemic to a particular geographical domain (e.g. flood zones, drought);</item> <p></p> <item> • identify, locate and map essential facilities (e.g. fire, rescue and police services, emergency shelters, hospitals, schools, water pumping stations and waste treatment plants);</item> <p></p> <item> • identify and map potentially vulnerable socioeconomic groups (e.g. elderly, children, single-mother households, minorities and poor);</item> <p></p> <item> • map businesses, factories, resource extraction and processing facilities, and other commercial sites.</item> </ulist> <p>Using GIS, they analyzed the interactions of these map coverages (e.g. hazard zones with critical facilities, vulnerable populations and critical habitats).</p> <p>In contrast, the 2003 cohort tested a protocol for assessing the sensitivity of community water systems to weather and climate events using a mixed-method, quantitative–qualitative approach. The students conducted interviews with community water system (CWS) managers and collected data on each system's water sources and demand. Students conducted the interviews using an instrument developed initially by the faculty mentors and refined by the students (with guidance from the faculty) after their group interview during the short course. Thus, the students left the short course with a common interview 'script,' to which they could add questions or discussion points specific to their site. The students also analyzed the interview transcripts using a collaboratively developed coding scheme, created graphic representations of the processes and stresses affecting CWS, collected and analyzed quantitative data on the physical supply and demand of water resources, and produced maps that explored the spatial variation of various characteristics of the CWS in their study area.</p> <p>The research conducted in the 2004 program extended that of the 2003 group by using interviews, archival work and basic quantitative analysis of historical climate variation to investigate historical adaptation to climate variation and change in their study areas. The students began by interviewing historians and other academics knowledgeable about local responses to past extreme weather events such as floods and droughts. They took the initial guidance they received from these experts into the library and conducted archival work, focusing primarily on news accounts of events important to their area and relevant government reports and planning documents. Armed with this background, they went into the field to conduct additional interviews using common interview scripts, interviewing local and regional planners, environmental advocates and others identified through their research as relevant to decisions concerning adaptive practices and policies. As with the previous year, the information they collected at all stages of the research period was analyzed using a collaboratively developed coding scheme. The students also produced a timeline for each site, highlighting important climatological events and the societal responses to those events.</p> <p>The 2005 cohort validated the accuracy and consistency of the findings of the previous REU cohorts. They used the same methods as the 2003 and 2004 students, interviewing some of the same stakeholders to verify accuracy and some new stakeholders to test for consistency. They also crosschecked the interview findings with historical events to evaluate the physical plausibility of the findings. This work proved to be critical to the overall HERO research design and provided a fitting closure to the REU program.</p> <p>In all years, an integral part of the student research was collaboration, both within the three- or four-person local-area teams and among the teams at each of the four HERO sites. At the SRB-HERO (Penn State), for instance, we provided networked computers for the REU students in the HERO project office. There, they performed research alongside the PI, a post-doctoral scholar, a graduate student and a peer mentor who was a previous REU student. Daily interaction and mentoring fostered enthusiasm for the scientific enterprise and inspired confidence in the students that their work was valuable. The other sites used similar models; all four sites found it to be successful.</p> <p>An essential component of the research environment was the collaboratory, i.e. the virtual collaboration networking environment afforded by the HERO website (e.g. Pike <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]; MacEachren <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref21">10</reflink>]). The REU students interacted closely with their counterparts and senior researchers at other HERO sites through synchronous and asynchronous HERO collaboratory tools. In several cases, the collaboratory provided communication critical to the successful completion of the students' research. For example, in addition to weekly videoconferences supported by the HERO Intelligent Networking Environment (HEROINE), REU students and other HERO collaborators interacted via chat, instant messaging and remote application sharing. Further, the regularly scheduled videoconferences gave the students time to discuss any research problems they encountered during the previous week, present their work plan for the following week, and voice any questions or concerns about analyzing qualitative data and doing so in a way that would be comparable for cross-site analysis.</p> <p>A final, yet crucial aspect of the research was the research reports written by each student team. These reports summarized the students' major findings and provided closure to the summer research period. Nevertheless, submission of the report did not mark the end of the students' involvement in HERO or in their research. Over the next several months, a small group of students—with guidance from the faculty and research staff—synthesized these reports into a paper for submission to an academic journal. Every student had the opportunity to comment on the draft before submission, and all received authorship credit for the paper. These papers took longer than average to complete due to the intense mentoring required but this exercise provided valuable experience for the students involved. All of the students who participated in the publication process have gone on to graduate school and have found this experience to be helpful in making the difficult transition from undergraduate to graduate writing. In addition, the synthesized findings helped to inform faculty research and the research of future REU cohorts.</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-8">Public Presentation</hd> <p>A bonus for HERO REU program students was the chance to attend the Annual Meeting of the AAG—all expenses paid—and present a poster on the previous summer's research. Not only did it give the students experience in presenting research results and the opportunity to meet thousands of professional geographers, but it also gave the students a chance to meet their colleagues from the HERO REU program one last time, thus bringing closure to the experience both scientifically and socially.</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-9">Outcomes</hd> <p>The HERO REU program succeeded, clearly accomplishing the program's three goals. First, of the 53 students who participated in the program, 28 were women, eight were minorities, and 16 were from colleges or universities without strong research programs. Second, not only did all students gain experience in field, laboratory and library research, in human geography, physical geography and geographic information science, and in quantitative and qualitative approaches to science but they learned these skills holistically. Finally, the students tackled their research collaboratively, working as tightly knit teams to complete research objectives skillfully and on time.</p> <p>All sites used similar models to insure student–faculty interaction and student–student communication. At the Penn State HERO, for instance, we provided a pleasant work environment with individual desks and networked computers, where students worked alongside HERO researchers. The primary responsibility of the mentors was to help the students, providing them with assistance on data gathering, organization, analysis and presentation. Daily interaction and mentoring fostered enthusiasm for the scientific enterprise.</p> <p>Other keys to success were the diversity of activities, the understanding among the students that their research was authentic and comparable to the work done by graduate students and more senior investigators, and the feeling that their work was valuable. At the HERO sites, the HERO REU program students were not 'chained to their computers'. Instead, they traversed their study areas, learning their physical and socioeconomic landscapes. They ground-truthed data from satellite images, air photos, maps and other sources and used GPS to find the coordinates of important features or places. They interacted with people, interviewing local officials, obtaining data from local data managers and working with local university staff to solve their research problems.</p> <p>Although HERO promoted collaboration and teamwork, it was vital that each student felt a sense of ownership in his or her research. Although each student was part of a three- or four-student team, part of a 12–16 person cohort, part of a HERO site team and part of the entire HERO enterprise, we ensured that each student had a discrete research project with his or her own personal touch. Our goal was that each student could prepare a stand-alone thesis, paper or poster from his or her research if he or she chose to do so. Indeed, several students prepared such products after completing their summer research.</p> <p>The nature of the six-week research period that followed the education and bonding provided by the short course was fundamental to achieving the broad goal of the HERO REU program—to develop the next generation of global-change-in-local-places researchers. Yet, developing the skills needed to conduct this type of research was not enough; it was necessary to attract students to the field and to retain them by making them feel they were valued parts of the HERO team. Thus, it was critical that they did not receive second-class space and second-class treatment. Perhaps most importantly, students needed to receive challenging research tasks that made fundamental contributions to global-change-in-local-places research in general and to HERO in particular.</p> <p>Evaluations from each cohort were collected in spring following their research, after they had begun to develop their poster presentations for the AAG Annual Meeting. Table 3 shows evaluations of the program by the 2003 cohort. Overall, the responses were positive. There were a couple of lab exercises (e.g. the GIS and climate labs) that scored below the others, but all responses evaluating the short course were 3 (average) or higher, particularly in the aggregate. Because we did not think that average was good enough, these evaluations, along with specific written recommendations, were used to improve existing labs and inform the development of new lab exercises for the 2004 cohort. We also asked the students to evaluate various aspects of the research period, and again most responses were positive, with some notable exceptions. The most notable exception was the group of students at Site 2, who scored the research period lower than the other students and found some activities particularly troublesome. The written evaluations indicated that these problems were, for the most part, related to local coordination—the same students rated the support structure at Penn State higher than the support they received at their local site. We used this feedback to change the mentoring process at Site 2 by adding a full-time peer mentor and increasing the interaction between REU students and graduate students. We found subsequent cohorts at that site were among the most satisfied students in the program. Similarly, the evaluations indicated some important difficulties (e.g. technical problems at Site 1) that we subsequently addressed by improving computer hardware and software support. Despite these problems, the overall median scores for the research period were 4 or higher, suggesting that the research period overall was a success.</p> <p>Table 3. Student evaluations of the 2003 REU cohort</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Short course content</td><td>Overall</td><td>Site 1</td><td>Site 2</td><td>Site 3</td><td>Site 4</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lectures:</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Introduction to Human–Environment Regional Resea</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Local Dimensions of Climate Change</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Water</td><td>4.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Community Water System</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Land Use/Land Cover</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Hazards</td><td>4.5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Vulnerability</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Last Year's Vulnerability Assessment</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Labs:</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>GIS</td><td>3</td><td>2.5</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Finding Climate Data</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Analyzing Survey Data</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Designing Interviews/Atlas TI</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Analyzing Qualitative Data</td><td>4.5</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Map Facilities for Study Areas</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Extract and Map Census Data</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Spatial Analysis Using Site-Specific Data</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Research Period</td><td>Overall</td><td>Site 1</td><td>Site 2</td><td>Site 3</td><td>Site 4</td></tr><tr><td>Interview Process</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Coding Process</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Video conferences</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Codex</td><td>4</td><td>4.5</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Concept Mapping</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Writing of Final Paper</td><td>4</td><td>3.5</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Penn State University:</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Faculty Support</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Peer Mentor Support</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Technical Support</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Local Site:</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Faculty Support</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Peer Mentor Support</td><td>5</td><td>3.5</td><td>3</td><td>N/A</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Technical Support</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>HERO Program</td><td>Overall</td><td>Site 1</td><td>Site 2</td><td>Site 3</td><td>Site 4</td></tr><tr><td>My involvement encouraged future research in Human–Environment Studies</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>My involvement encouraged me to pursue graduate work or employment in the field of Geography</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>My involvement inspired future collaborative research</td><td>4.5</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>: Students were asked to rate each component of the short course and research period, or in the case of the last three questions, their degree of agreement with each statement. Responses were given on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most favorable. The median response for students at each research site, as well as the overall median score, is reported for each item.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The responses to the final three questions indicate that the program achieved its primary goals remarkably well. Most of the students indicated that their involvement encouraged further research in human–environment studies, inspired them to pursue careers in geography and promoted future collaborative research. The problems discussed above did not prevent all 13 students from stating that they planned to continue their education by attending graduate school. We believe these responses suggest that it is possible to advance specific areas of geography (e.g. human–environment geography) through targeted educational programs. We also think they suggest that research experiences are excellent vehicles for promoting collaborative, holistic science.</p> <p>Despite the successes noted above, we experienced two major problems with the program. First, although we put special emphasis on recruiting and selecting from racial minority groups, we had difficulty attracting applicants from that limited pool. Minorities are poorly represented in American geography (Pandit, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]); our experience mirrored that of the discipline. We believe the best way to break this gridlock is to go outside geography and recruit from other disciplines. We had far greater success recruiting women and recruiting students from non-research universities.</p> <p>Second, the HERO REU was expensive, costing more than US$100,000 per year. Part of that expense reflects NSF requirements to pay relatively high stipends to the undergraduate researchers and to compensate students for travel and some housing. Thus, running the short course at Penn State and hosting students from outside the immediate vicinities of the four keystone universities drove up the costs. In addition, because we hosted the program at research universities during the summer, it was necessary to pay faculty for their time.</p> <p>Notwithstanding the considerable costs of the HERO REU program, it is possible to develop comparable programs without NSF support. Conducting such a program over the academic year, compensating students with academic credits and grades, settling for students from a single university, and avoiding the need to find extra compensation for faculty could restrict costs to local travel and materials and could enable the program to include many more students. By being more expansive of students at one university but less inclusive of students from other universities, such a program could potentially reach across campus to draw larger numbers of underrepresented students into geography graduate programs.</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-10">Conclusions</hd> <p>The HERO REU program sought to develop a diverse cadre of future global-change-in-local-places researchers that addresses regional environmental problems holistically and collaboratively. The educational outcomes denoted success, with large proportions of underrepresented students participating in the program, with students who approach complex, local environmental problems from an integrated, interdisciplinary perspective, and with students who find collaboration a natural way to conduct research.</p> <p>We have learned many lessons from the HERO REU program but the most important is that if we want undergraduate students to think and act like professionals, then we must treat them like professionals. Providing them with equal space, equal resources and equal treatment lets them know what it will be like if they choose research as a career. Making the undergraduate students feel like valuable contributors to the research enterprise gives them the satisfaction they will feel if they become professional researchers.</p> <p>Because of our growing understanding of how to work with the students, we appear to be making headway in encouraging them to become global-change-in-local-places researchers, which was the ultimate goal of the HERO REU program. Of the 10 members of the 2003 program cohort who were ready to graduate, all applied to graduate school or planned to apply in the near future. Almost all applied or are applying to geography programs and all aim to specialize in some aspect of human–environment interactions. Subsequent years continued that success.</p> <hd id="AN0027240147-11">Notes</hd> <ref id="AN0027240147-12"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> <sups>1</sups> We base underrepresented status on membership data for the Association of American Geographers. See Pandit ([14]) for detailed discussion of these data and their trends over time.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> <sups>2</sups> Alternative collaborative learning models also have small-group activities but are much less organized and emphasize process over product.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0027240147-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Association of American Geographers Global Change in Local Places Research Group (Ed.). 2003. Global Change in Local Places: Estimating, Understanding, and Reducing Greenhouse Gases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruffee, K. A.1983. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Diduck, A. P. and Sinclair, A. J.1997. The concept of critical environmental assessment (EA) education. Canadian Geographer, 41(3): 294–307.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Fuhrmann, S. and Pike, W.2005. "User-centered design of collaborative geovisualization tools". In Exploratory Geovisualization, Edited by: Dykes, J., MacEachren, A. M. and Kraak, M. -J.591–609. Amsterdam: Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Gokhale, A. A.1995. Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7: 1045–1064.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Hanson, S. and Moser, S.2003. Reflections on a discipline-wide project: developing active learning modules on the human dimensions of global change. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27: 17–38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. and Smith, K. A.1991. "Cooperative learning: increasing college faculty instructional productivity". In ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, Washington DC: George Washington University. no. 4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> MacEachren, A. M., Gahegan, M. and Pike, W.2004a. Geovisualization for constructing and sharing concepts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101: 5279–5286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> MacEachren, A. M., Gahegan, M., Pike, W., Brewer, I., Cai, G., Langerich, E. and Hardisty, F.2004b. Geovisualization for knowledge construction and decision-support. Computer Graphics and Applications, 24: 13–17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacEachren, A. M., Pike, W., Yu, C., Brewer, I., Gahegan, M., Weaver, S. D. & Yarnal, B. (2006) Building a GeoColloaboratory: supporting Human–Environment Regional Observatory (HERO) collaborative science activities. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30, pp. 201–225.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maguire, S. and Edmondson, S.2001. Student evaluation and assessment of group projects. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25: 209–217.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 1992. Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 1999. Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pandit, K.2004. Geography's human resources over the past half-century. Professional Geographer, 56(1): 12–21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panitz, T.1997. Collaborative versus cooperative learning: comparing the two definitions helps understand the nature of interactive learning. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 8(2)Winter. Available at: <ulink href="http://home.capecod.net/∼tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm">http://home.capecod.net/∼tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm</ulink> (accessed January 2006)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennsylvania Consortium for Interdisciplinary Environmental Policy (PCIEP) (2004), Available at: <ulink href="http://www.dep.state.pa.us/hosting/paconsortium">http://www.dep.state.pa.us/hosting/paconsortium</ulink> (last accessed 7 January 2006).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennsylvania Geographic Society (PGS) (2004) Available at: <ulink href="http://www.thepgs.org/">http://www.thepgs.org/</ulink> (last accessed 7 January 2006).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pike, W. and Gahegan, M.2003. "Constructing semantically scalable cognitive spaces". In Spatial Information Theory: Foundations of Geographic Information Science, Edited by: Kuhn, W., Worboys, M. and Timpf, S.332–348. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pike, W., Yarnal, B., MacEachren, A. M., Gahegan, M. and Yu, C.2005. Retooling collaboration: a vision for environmental change research. Environment, 47(2): 8–21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solem, M. N., Bell, S., Fournier, E., Gillespie, C., Lewitsky, M. and Lockton, H.2003. Using the internet to support international collaborations for global geography education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27: 239–253.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Brent Yarnal and Rob Neff</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ777869
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teaching Global Change in Local Places: The HERO Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yarnal%2C+Brent%22">Yarnal, Brent</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Neff%2C+Rob%22">Neff, Rob</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Geography+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Geography in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Sep 2007 31(3):413-426.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2007
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minicourses%22">Minicourses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Skills%22">Research Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Education%22">Environmental Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Small+Group+Instruction%22">Small Group Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Research%22">Student Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Influences%22">Environmental Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Global+Approach%22">Global Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Indigenous+Knowledge%22">Indigenous Knowledge</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Admission+Criteria%22">Admission Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mentors%22">Mentors</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03098260601082339
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0309-8265
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The Human-Environment Research Observatory (HERO) Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program aimed to develop the next generation of researchers working on place-based human-environment problems. The program followed a cooperative learning model to foster an integrated approach to geographic research and to build collaborative research skills. The program hosted 12-16 students annually, who first engaged in an intensive short course and then formed three- or four-person teams to conduct research in four biophysically and socioeconomically diverse places. The teams used cyberinfrastructure to collaborate and integrate their research and findings. Most of the REU students have opted to attend graduate school and specialize in human-environment research. (Contains 3 tables and 2 notes.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 20
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2007
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ777869
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ777869
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03098260601082339
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 413
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Minicourses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Small Group Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Global Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Indigenous Knowledge
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Admission Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mentors
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teaching Global Change in Local Places: The HERO Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yarnal, Brent
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Neff, Rob
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2007
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0309-8265
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Geography in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1