The interdisciplinary revolution that reshaped STEM learning through early research engagement and cross-disciplinary collaboration
Imagine a world where mathematics isn't confined to abstract equations but comes alive in biology labs, informs cutting-edge physics research, and revolutionizes engineering design. This is the vision that guided the Proactive Recruitment in Introductory Science and Mathematics (PRISM) program, an innovative initiative funded by the National Science Foundation that sought to transform how students encounter scientific disciplines in their critical early college years. While many STEM programs focus on advanced specialists, PRISM recognized that the most crucial recruitment opportunity occurs during freshman and sophomore years, when students are forming their academic identities and career paths. By breaking down traditional barriers between mathematics and other sciences, PRISM created a vibrant intellectual space where interdisciplinary collaboration became the norm rather than the exception.
The timing of PRISM in 2010 placed it at a pivotal moment in American scientific policy, following the America COMPETES Act of 2007 which aimed to strengthen the United States' capacity for innovation 1 .
With a specific focus on freshman and sophomore undergraduates, PRISM represented a proactive approach to addressing the leaky pipeline in STEM education, where potential talent is often lost in the transition from introductory to advanced coursework. The program's architects understood that early engagement with research and interdisciplinary thinking could significantly impact students' persistence in challenging STEM majors. Through strategic partnerships between mathematics departments and other scientific disciplines, PRISM created a foundation for what would become a transformative educational model with lasting influence beyond its initial funding period.
| Mathematical Science Component | Partner Discipline | Integrated Learning Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Statistical modeling | Biology | Analyzing biological datasets to identify patterns |
| Computational algorithms | Physics | Simulating physical phenomena using mathematical models |
| Geometric topology | Materials Science | Understanding structure-property relationships in materials |
| Differential equations | Engineering | Solving real-world engineering challenges with mathematical precision |
Breaking down silos between mathematics and other scientific disciplines
Introducing research experiences in freshman and sophomore years
Addressing the STEM pipeline at critical transition points
The PRISM program operated on the foundational principle that research experiences should not be reserved for advanced graduate students or even junior and senior undergraduates, but could be effectively adapted for students in their first two years of college 1 . This early engagement theory recognized that authentic scientific practice—with all its challenges, discoveries, and collaborative problem-solving—provides unique motivational benefits that traditional coursework cannot replicate.
In PRISM implementations, research was "interpreted broadly to include all forms of discovery learning, at levels appropriate to the students, through which students are introduced to the excitement of the research process" 1 . This approach demystified the research process and allowed students to see themselves as contributing members of the scientific community long before they had mastered all the theoretical foundations of their disciplines.
At the heart of PRISM's strategy was the requirement for genuine collaboration between mathematical sciences and other disciplines 1 . Each proposal required a Principal Investigator from a mathematical sciences department and at least one co-Principal Investigator from another science or engineering department. This structural requirement ensured that partnerships were baked into the program's DNA rather than being superficial add-ons.
The partnership model recognized that modern scientific challenges increasingly reside at the intersections between disciplines and that students benefit from seeing how mathematical concepts empower investigation in other fields. These collaborations often took the form of double majors or major-minor combinations that provided students with diverse analytical toolsets for tackling complex problems.
PRISM implemented a comprehensive approach to mentoring that addressed both intellectual development and professional socialization 1 . Beyond the technical aspects of research, students received guidance in developing "effective teamwork skills, structuring and leading the learning experiences of others, and improving their scientific communication skills for transmission of scientific ideas in both written and oral formats" 1 .
This emphasis on communication and collaboration skills prepared students for the realities of modern scientific work, where success often depends as much on the ability to articulate ideas and work in teams as on technical prowess. The program's attention to these professional development elements reflected an understanding that STEM retention depends not only on academic success but also on students developing a strong sense of identity and belonging within their disciplinary communities.
One compelling example of the interdisciplinary research that aligned with PRISM's philosophy comes from work on mechanics-guided 3D assembly of complex microstructures, which represents exactly the type of mathematics-physics-engineering integration that PRISM promoted 5 .
Students began by designing two-dimensional geometric patterns using computational modeling software, applying mathematical concepts from origami and kirigami to determine where folds and cuts would create desired three-dimensional structures 5 .
The two-dimensional precursors were fabricated from various materials (semiconductors, polymers, metals, and ceramics), allowing students to compare how different material properties influenced the final assembled structures.
The 2D precursors were transferred onto a pre-stretched elastomer substrate. When this substrate was relaxed, controlled compressive forces acted on the precursors, causing them to buckle into precisely determined 3D shapes 5 .
Students used microscopy techniques (including scanning electron microscopy) to document the resulting 3D forms, comparing them with predictions from their mathematical models.
The final step involved evaluating the mechanical and electrical properties of the assembled 3D structures to assess their potential applications in devices.
This experimental sequence provided a complete research experience, from computational design through fabrication and testing, exposing students to the complete research cycle in a single, cohesive project that integrated mathematics, materials science, and mechanical engineering.
The 3D assembly research yielded fascinating insights into the relationship between two-dimensional design and three-dimensional structure. Students working on such projects discovered that relatively simple 2D patterns could generate surprisingly complex 3D architectures through carefully controlled mechanical buckling 5 . The success of the assembly process depended critically on the precise mathematical relationships between the geometric parameters of the 2D precursors and the mechanical properties of the materials involved.
| 2D Pattern Design | Material Composition | Resulting 3D Structure | Potential Applications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Square network with circular holes | Single-crystal silicon | Dome-like structures with precise periodic arrangements | Photonic crystals, metamaterials |
| Serpentine ribbon patterns | Metal-polymer composites | Helical coils with controllable chirality | Stretchable electronics, biomedical sensors |
| Radial arrays with rectangular cuts | Shape-memory polymers | Flower-like structures with petal arrangements | Drug delivery systems, micro-actuators |
| Kirigami-inspired cut patterns | Graphene-based composites | Complex reconfigurable structures | Tunable optical devices, energy storage |
The research demonstrated that this mechanics-guided assembly approach could be applied across a remarkable range of length scales, from 100 nanometers to 10 centimeters, bridging the gap between nanoscale phenomena and macroscopic devices 5 . Perhaps most importantly for educational purposes, students could directly observe how mathematical modeling informed physical fabrication, and how theoretical predictions compared with experimental outcomes—a powerful illustration of the interplay between computation and experimentation in modern materials research.
The significance of this research approach extends far beyond the specific structures created. For students participating in such projects, the experience revealed how mathematical concepts directly enable advances in materials science and device engineering. The inverse design methods developed for this research—which "map target 3D topologies onto unknown 2D precursor patterns"—provided a powerful example of how mathematical reasoning could solve practical engineering challenges 5 .
| Structure Type | Maximum Deformation Before Failure | Electrical Conductivity Retention | Potential Device Integration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Helical microcoils | >300% strain | 95% after 1000 stretch cycles | Wearable health monitors, stretchable circuits |
| Dome structures | 50% compression | 99% (minimal change) | Pressure sensors, energy harvesters |
| Reconfigurable architectures | Multiple shape transitions | Tunable conductivity | Adaptive optical systems, smart surfaces |
| 3D mesostructures | Varied by design | Material-dependent | Target-specific applications |
The versatility of this assembly method—its compatibility with a "very broad set of materials" and its ability to create diverse 3D geometries—made it particularly valuable as an educational platform 5 . Students could explore variations in material composition, geometric design, and loading conditions, then observe how these factors influenced the final structures. This provided a comprehensive research experience that integrated elements of mathematics, mechanics, materials science, and electrical engineering—exactly the type of interdisciplinary exposure that the PRISM program was designed to foster.
The following table details key materials and methods that formed the essential "toolkit" for PRISM-related interdisciplinary research, particularly focusing on the 3D assembly work described above:
| Research Component | Specific Examples | Function in Research |
|---|---|---|
| 2D Precursor Materials | Single-crystal silicon, Polymer films, Metal-polymer composites, Graphene | Serve as the starting material for 3D assembly, with material properties determining appropriate applications |
| Modeling Approaches | Finite element analysis, Analytical mechanics models, Inverse design algorithms | Predict 3D structures from 2D precursors and solve inverse design problems |
| Fabrication Techniques | Photolithography, Electron-beam lithography, 3D printing | Create precise 2D precursor patterns with feature sizes ranging from nanometers to millimeters |
| Stimulus-Responsive Substrates | Pre-stretched elastomers, Heat-activated polymers, Magnetic fluid platforms | Provide controlled forces for transformation from 2D to 3D structures |
| Characterization Tools | Scanning electron microscopy, Atomic force microscopy, Mechanical testers | Visualize and measure resulting 3D structures and their properties |
| Functional Testing Apparatus | Cyclic strain testers, Electrical conductivity probes, Optical measurement systems | Evaluate performance of assembled structures for specific applications |
This toolkit reflects the truly interdisciplinary nature of PRISM-style research, combining mathematical modeling techniques with materials fabrication and characterization methods. For students, exposure to this diverse set of approaches provided a broader perspective on scientific methodology than they would typically encounter within a single discipline.
The PRISM program's influence extended far beyond its initial funding period, establishing an enduring model for interdisciplinary STEM education that continues to inform curriculum development and undergraduate research initiatives. By demonstrating that freshman and sophomore students could successfully engage with authentic research experiences, PRISM helped to dismantle the traditional distinction between "learning" and "doing" science in the undergraduate curriculum. The program's requirement for meaningful partnerships between mathematical sciences and other disciplines created a template for collaboration that many institutions have maintained and expanded.
PRISM demonstrated that early research experiences could significantly improve STEM retention and student success, influencing educational practices nationwide.
The program fostered a culture of interdisciplinary collaboration that has persisted beyond its funding period, influencing how departments structure their programs.
Perhaps the most significant legacy of PRISM lies in its comprehensive approach to student development, which integrated proactive recruitment, early research experiences, and thoughtful mentoring into a cohesive educational strategy 1 .
This model recognized that attracting and retaining students in STEM fields requires attention to the entire ecosystem of their educational experience, not just isolated interventions. The program's emphasis on "fostering students' sense of membership in the departmental community" acknowledged the importance of belonging and identity in STEM persistence 1 .
Though the original PRISM funding solicitation is now archived, its spirit lives on in the many interdisciplinary research and education programs that continue to bridge mathematics with other sciences 1 . The PRISM Seminar Series of Spring 2010 and similar initiatives across the country served as vital incubators for a generation of scientists and engineers who learned to speak the languages of multiple disciplines and appreciate the central role of mathematical thinking across the scientific spectrum. As scientific challenges become increasingly complex and interdisciplinary, the PRISM philosophy of early, integrated, collaborative research experiences remains more relevant than ever, continuing to shape how we introduce students to the excitement and wonder of scientific discovery.
The success of programs like PRISM demonstrates that when we break down barriers between disciplines and invite students early into the community of scientific practice, we not only strengthen American competitiveness but also enrich the scientific enterprise with diverse perspectives and approaches. The interdisciplinary conversations that began in those Spring 2010 seminars have continued, growing in scope and impact as each generation of students carries forward the integrated approach to science that PRISM so effectively championed.