Undergraduate Research for Student Engagement and Learning

Joseph L. Murray

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317432265
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Éducation générale

There is growing interest in undergraduate research, given its benefits to students, faculty members, and the institution. For higher education scholars, faculty, and administrators, this book logically synthesizes the literature to demonstrate its impact on facilitation of learning and engagement and to chart a course for expanding and improving these opportunities. This book provides a comprehensive overview of undergraduate research as a "high-impact practice" in postsecondary education, from its theoretical underpinnings and research-base, to student participation and faculty incentives. This important resource offers analysis of the current state of undergraduate research, explores challenges and unresolved questions affecting undergraduate research, and provides implications for research and practice.

PART I

The Concept

1

AN OVERVIEW OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH

Over the past three decades, interest in undergraduate research has grown ­dramatically. The appeal of this pedagogical approach is understandable, as it allows academics to more fully integrate their roles as teachers, scholars, and community members, while exposing their students to rich educational opportunities. Growing awareness of the impact of student engagement on retention and academic success, across widely varied populations, has also heightened awareness of the potential for undergraduate research to serve as a vehicle for promoting an agenda of excellence and inclusion. As interest in undergraduate research has grown, the resultant dialogue has come to extend beyond the individual campus, reflecting the fact that preparation of young scholars for lives of inquiry holds national and international significance, both within the academy and elsewhere.

Defining Undergraduate Research

One challenge in framing discussions of research is the establishment of a common understanding of the term, particularly as it relates to multiple disciplines. Applying a decidedly broad definition, Lichter (1995) described research as “a set of activities leading to new knowledge that, in turn, is presented for critical review and assessment by scholarly leaders in the discipline” (p. 125). The breadth of this definition allows for its application to the investigation of topics in any field. Hence, it serves as an appropriate initial conceptualization for use in discussion of undergraduate research, a phenomenon that has increasingly captured the attention of academics across a wide range of disciplines.

Although Lichter’s (1995) definition provides a starting point for developing a shared understanding of undergraduate research, it is by no means complete. According to Strassburger (1995), undergraduate research must involve “students working in partnership with faculty in discipline-based inquiries” (p. 120). This criterion marks an important distinction between undergraduate research and other forms of scholarship in which faculty might engage, in that undergraduate research is not simply directed toward the advancement of knowledge within the discipline, but is also intended to provide an educational experience for the student researcher (Hakim, 2000). Malachowski (2012) characterized this distinction as a contrast between product-oriented scholarship, in which the contribution to the discipline is paramount, and process-oriented scholarship, in which the benefits of the research experience are of higher priority.

While undergraduate research differs from other investigative activities in which faculty might participate, insofar as discovery is not its sole function, it also differs from other learning activities in which students might participate, insofar as education is not its sole function either. Emphasizing the significance of the actual work product, the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) (2016a) has defined undergraduate research as “an inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that makes an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline.” Lopatto (2010) cautioned against any effort to divorce the educational functions of undergraduate research from the goal of contributing to the scholarship of the discipline, arguing that the two are inextricably linked, such that one cannot exist without the other.

Further clarifying the goals of undergraduate research, Elgren and Hensel (2006) cited three key outcomes: (1) promotion of student learning, (2) encouragement of faculty research productivity, and (3) advancement of knowledge within the discipline. In structuring undergraduate research programs, any of these functions may constitute a legitimate consideration. In examining variation in program emphases, Beckman and Hensel (2009) advanced a multifaceted view, which took into account such factors as targeted populations, program goals, organizational structures, and disciplinary foci.

Based on recurrent themes emerging in the professional literature, it would seem that undergraduate research can be properly understood as a unitive approach to teaching and scholarship, in which faculty members work with undergraduate students to facilitate their learning, through the production of original scientific or creative works, which are ultimately shared with the academic community and evaluated according to the prevailing standards of the relevant disciplines. Undergraduate research programs can be further understood as systematic initiatives that promote such activity in a coordinated fashion within one or more collegiate institutions.

Variations in Undergraduate Research Models

On individual campuses, various opportunities exist for students to participate in undergraduate research. These opportunities differ among themselves with respect to a number of factors, including student and faculty roles and provisions for credit, compensation, and exposure.

Forms of Student and Faculty Participation

Although undergraduate research generally involves contributions by both students and faculty members, the nature of these contributions and the relationship between the two parties can vary widely. Therefore, one basis upon which to classify undergraduate research models is according to the roles of the student and the faculty mentor in the research project. Previous authors have drawn a distinction between activities, including research, in which students assume primary responsibility for their own learning versus similar activities in which decision-making authority rests primarily in the hands of faculty members (McDorman, 2004; Weimer, 2002). Others have identified a third and more egalitarian model of the student-faculty relationship, in which learning itself is viewed as a shared endeavor (Cook-Sather, Bovill, & Felten, 2014; Fink, 2003; Kezar, 1999). Addressing undergraduate research in particular, Beckman and Hensel (2009) differentiated between projects that reflect primarily the vision of the student and those in which the faculty mentor exerts greater influence. Drawing a similar distinction, Levy (2011) further differentiated between projects that involve primarily inquiry for learning and those that focus more on inquiry for knowledge-building.

Consistent with the prior literature, three orientations toward undergraduate research will be examined in the remaining chapters of this book. In the interest of clarity and consistency, the terms used in reference to these three orientations are student-directed, faculty-directed, and collaborative.

The Student-Directed Model

Student-directed research involves projects in which undergraduate students are the principal investigators. Typically, the student investigates a research problem that he or she has identified. This type of research is often largely driven by students’ own curiosity. While even student-directed research requires the guidance of a faculty member, this guidance typically comes in the form of support and consultation rather than close monitoring. Multhaup et al. (2010) referred to this model as the consultant model, to reflect the nondirective stance taken by the faculty advisor. Student-directed research is especially well suited to fields in which creativity is emphasized and equipment costs are minimal (Temple, Sibley, & Orr, 2010). This type of project has been credited with broadening the scholarly interests of faculty mentors, whose own lines of research tend to be more narrowly focused. It has been noted that institutional funding is especially important to the support of student-directed research, because projects of this nature tend not to comport with criteria commonly used by external funding agencies to prioritize grant proposals (Gazdik & Powell, 2012).

The Faculty-Directed Model

In faculty-directed research, the faculty member is the principal investigator. Students participating in faculty-directed projects typically assume the role of research assistants, supporting faculty members in the execution of studies designed by the faculty members themselves. It is not uncommon for this type of research to be carried out by teams of students, under the direction of a single faculty member, though more narrowly defined subtopics may be assigned to individual students within the team (Temple et al., 2010). Laursen, Hunter, Seymour, Thiry, and Melton (2010) used the term faculty-led to describe this model. Referring to this approach as the traditional model, Multhaup et al. (2010) described it as “the most conventional way that undergraduates gain research experience” (p. 21).

The Collaborative Model

The collaborative model closely parallels what Multhaup et al. (2010) have termed the joint-creation model, an approach to undergraduate research in which both the student and the faculty member leave their intellectual marks on the project. In collaborative research, the undergraduate student and the faculty member become partners, and both contribute substantially to the research project.

All three of these models for undergraduate research provide opportunities for both faculty members and students to learn and grow. However, they vary in the relative emphasis placed on the research interests of the two parties and their respective roles in the investigative process. In general, the collaborative model appears to most fully represent the ideals of undergraduate research, as articulated in the second section of this book. However, any of these models might be appropriate for inclusion in a comprehensive undergraduate research program.

Structural Provisions for Undergraduate Research

Just as there are numerous models for the roles of students and faculty members in undergraduate research, there are numerous ways in which research opportunities can be incorporated into the undergraduate experience. Three common provisions are course assignments, independent studies or theses, and fellowships.

Course Assignments

Course-based research activities can range from experiments conducted within the classroom or laboratory during regular class sessions to semester-long projects that students carry out either individually or in teams. Laursen et al. (2010) distinguished this model of undergraduate research from what they have termed the apprenticeship model, the latter being characterized by more intensive and sustained interaction with a faculty mentor or other experienced investigator. Although course-based research assignments are generally of limited scale, they can be used effectively to introduce students to basic elements of research and scholarly writing, and can enhance the overall quality of the classroom experience (Bean, 2011). A major benefit of course-based research is that it provides opportunities for students of widely varied skill levels to strengthen their research proficiency over time, rather than limiting research opportunities to only the most accomplished students (Martinetti, Leynes, Medvecky, Benson, & Paul, 2009).

Course-based research activities have a long history, particularly in the natural sciences (Tannenbaum, 2006), and there appears to be growing momentum for systematic efforts to incorporate research experiences into the undergraduate curriculum (Elgren & Hensel, 2006). The dedication of three thematic issues of the Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly to this general topic serves as evidence of this trend (DeCosmo, 2016; Gould, 2016; McConnaughay & Rueckert, 2006). Together, these issues included reports of innovative practices in the teaching of biology, chemistry, geology, economics, education, engineering, mathematics, music history, psychology/neuroscience, and social work, all directed toward ensuring that students gain experience in research within their undergraduate degree programs. A fourth issue of the Quarterly more specifically highlighted curricular provisions for research outside the major (LaPlant, 2013a). CUR has also published a bound collection of essays, dealing with over 50 campus-based curricular initiatives designed to promote undergraduate students’ engagement in creative or investigative activities in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and engineering (Karukstis & Elgren, 2007).

In examining the characteristics of course-based research, Griffiths (2004) focused on three factors: (1) the breadth with which research is incorporated into the course, (2) the depth of its infusion, and (3) the direction of the relationship between teaching and research within the course. With these three factors taken into account, he identified four general models for the integration of research and classroom teaching: (1) research-led teaching, in which research findings are emphasized within the course content; (2) research-oriented teaching, in which the process of inquiry is emphasized within the course content; (3) research-based teaching, in which students’ direct engagement in the process of inquiry is a primary method of instruction; and (4) research-informed teaching, in which empirical findings on the processes of teaching and learning are used to guide the pedagogical decisions of the instructor. Building upon this framework, Healey (2005) combined the first three orientations with a fourth approach, which he termed research-tutored instruction. Under the research-tutored model, students engage in processes of writing and discussion as a means of learning. Healey (2005) organized the four models into a two-dimensional classification scheme, based on their relative emphases on content versus process and the role of the teacher versus that of the student.

The research-oriented and research-based models are especially relevant to undergraduate research, as traditionally understood, insofar as they directly engage students in the acquisition and application of research skills. As enthusiasm for undergraduate research has expanded beyond the scientific disciplines, the research-tutored model has also gained significance (McDorman, 2004; Rogers, 2003). In actual practice, elements of multiple models can be integrated into a single course. In particular, the research-oriented and research-based models are frequently fused together in courses where students engage in research activities while learning about research as a subject (Murray, 2014; Posselt & Black, 2007; Rogers, 2010).

The decision to adopt an inquiry-based curriculum raises questions as to how best to organize research experiences for undergraduate students (Tannenbaum, 2006). In considering various patterns of organization, two characteristics of the curriculum must be taken into account: (1) the degree to which research experiences are distributed across the full four years, and (2) the degree to which they build cumulatively one upon another. On a very basic level, a research-­intensive curriculum must include multiple opportunities for students to participate in research activity. Several authors have described individual or linked courses, across a variety of disciplines, in which students have completed entire research projects and prepared oral or written presentations of their work within a single academic term (Bender, 2010; Firmage, Tietenberg, & Cole, 2005; Golphin & Smith, 2007), as well as programs of study that have been comprised of several such courses (Brown & Yurekli, 2007). Others have presented curricula in which sequences of research-related courses have culminated in completion of senior theses, projects, or presentations (Awong-Taylor et al., 2016; Birkhead & Stanton, 2011; Hedley & Schneider, 2009; Shanahan, 2011; Sukumaran et al., 2006; Temple et al., 2010).

A popular feature of many research-intensive curricula is the capstone course. Capstone courses are designed to provide students with opportunities to synthesize insights gleaned from previous coursework and to apply theoretical understandings to problems or issues within or across disciplines. Such courses typically incorporate major projects, papers, or presentations (Clear, Goldweber, Young, Leidig, & Scott, 2001; Hicok, 2009; Hirsch, Lazarus, Wisler, Minde, & Cerasini, 2013; Munroe, 2016; Sukumaran et al., 2006; Wittner, 2007). Although culminating experiences of this nature can also be undertaken outside the context of structured courses (Kuh, 2008), the discipline-based capstone course remains the predominant model for such experiences (Hauhart & Grahe, 2015). A recent thematic issue of the Quarterly offered examples of how capstone experiences can be incorporated into curricula across a wide variety of disciplines (LaPlant, 2014).

Although capstone courses are usually taken during the senior year, Williams and Johnson (2007) presented an alternative model in which the capstone course was taken during the spring of the junior year, as a prelude to independent research during the senior year. In a variation on the capstone course, Harvey Mudd College, which specializes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword by Jillian Kinzie
• Preface
• PART I: The Concept
• PART II: The Rationale
• PART III: The Conditions
• PART IV: The Issues
• PART V: The Outlook