Abstract
Numerous studies have indicated the need to improve the general level of science literacy among students and to increase the number of students electing science as a career. One mechanism for doing this is to involve undergraduates in research. This article reports how our Introductory Biology 152 course has worked synergistically with mentors in research labs on the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus to increase undergraduate retention in research and at the same time improve their higher order inquiry and communication skills.
Introduction
In response, a number of studies have surveyed faculty and students regarding the benefits of undergraduate research. Russell et al. (2007) surveyed undergraduates (primarily juniors and seniors; total respondents >5000) involved in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and other research. The responses indicated that undergraduate research opportunities (URO) increased understanding of how to conduct research (83%), confidence in research skills (83%), awareness of what graduate school is like (73%), and interest in an STEM career (68%). In addition, Russell et al. stated, “No formulaic combination of activities optimizes the URO, nor should providers structure their programs differently for unique racial/ethnic minorities or women. Rather it seems that the inculcation of enthusiasm is the key element—and the earlier the better.” As a result, they recommended providing UROs for college freshmen and sophomores.
Kardash (2000) surveyed 57 undergraduates (juniors and seniors) who self-rated their abilities on 14 skills before and after an undergraduate research experience (URE). These were compared with faculty evaluations of the students' abilities after the URE. In most instances there was good correspondence between student and faculty ratings. Kardash concluded that UREs improved the students' basic scientific skills. However, she noted that there is less evidence that UREs are successful at promoting higher order inquiry skills, for example, identifying a specific question for investigation based on research in the field, formulating a research hypothesis based on a specific question, designing an experiment or theoretical test of the hypothesis, or writing a research paper for publication. In fact, when there was a significant difference in student versus faculty ratings of abilities, these occurred in higher order skills, for example, understanding the importance of controls, using statistical analysis to analyze data, and relating the results to the bigger picture.
Lopatto (2003) polled 41 faculty from three colleges (Harvey Mudd College, Grinnell College, and Wellesley). One of the questions he asked was, “What are the benefits of a successful URE?” He also polled 249 junior and senior students engaged in UROs at these colleges.
The top faculty and student responses can be found in Table 1. In his analysis, Lopatto noted that although many of the benefits recognized by faculty and students were similar, four of the benefits proposed by the faculty, which represent higher order skills (indicated with an * in Table 1), were not among the top benefits listed by the students. Three of these four relate to the students' ability to use the scientific literature and/or skills in scientific communication.
From Lopatto (2003).
Asterisks (*) indicate those benefits among the top 10 proposed by faculty that were not among the top 10 proposed by students.
In a follow-up study, Lopatto (2004) indicated similar findings in surveys of more than 1000 undergraduates in research programs at 41 universities and colleges. These data showed that not all of the higher order skills, in particular, communication skills, were being addressed. In fact, many higher order skills, including skill in both oral presentation and science writing, ended up at the bottom of the students' list.
In the 2004 study, Lopatto noted that although Caucasians were in the majority on most of the campuses, nearly half of the students engaged in UREs were not Caucasian. In addition, about 60% of the students were women and 40% were men. When he compared answers among these different groups, he found no significant difference in any of their responses, including their likelihood to continue in a scientific career.
Together, these studies indicate that there is considerable support for undergraduate research and considerable information indicating that undergraduate research is beneficial. However, there was concern in many of these studies that some higher order skills are not being developed. There was also concern that starting a URO in the junior or senior year may be too late. Based on their findings, the authors recommend that students start research experiences in their freshman or sophomore year.
On our campus, Introductory Biology 151–152 is a two-semester course for majors in biological sciences. All students in our Introductory Biology 152 course are required to complete an independent project (IP). Students can choose to do either a meta-analysis of an open question in the literature or mentored experimental research. The mentored research option began in 1983 when the total enrollment in 152 was about 250 students per year. Since we began keeping detailed records (1996), more than 2500 of our students have participated in mentored research. The vast majority of these students have been sophomores. In each of the past 3 years (fall and spring semesters combined), more than 300 of our students have been engaged in mentored experimental research. During these years the total enrollment in 152 per year has averaged about 950.
Although it is conducted in the second semester of the sequence, we introduce our students to the 152 IP research options during the seventh week of Introductory Biology 151 (the first semester of the sequence). For those interested in mentored research, we discuss how to find out what types of research are available on campus. Students interested in the mentored research option must also meet with the lab coordinator before week 13 and bring with them both a completed student background or inventory form and a list of faculty/research of interest. At this meeting, we go over the student's inventory form and faculty list. We discuss how to construct a brief resume, appropriate ways to contact faculty, and what to expect at an interview. We address any concerns the student may have and emphasize that the key criteria for success are interest, dependability, and willingness to ask questions. All of these activities are designed to provide our students with adequate information, support, and encouragement.
In Introductory Biology 152 our students' independent research projects are conducted in association with the laboratory component of the course. For half of their lab grade, our students are all expected to write a proposal for their research followed by a first draft and final draft of their project papers. The proposal and first draft are reviewed. In these reviews, formative assessment/review comments are provided to help our students: (1) understand exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it and (2) learn how to communicate these effectively. The final paper, due at the end of the semester, is graded. In addition, all students give an oral presentation of their research to their lab instructor and peers during the final week of class. Mentored students also present at an evening poster session for their mentors and guests. To prepare our students, a number of our laboratory sessions focus on how to analyze scientific literature, how to use the library for scientific research, how to write a scientific paper, and how to prepare an oral report.
This paper reports how pairing these activities with the work our students do with their mentors has addressed a number of the concerns about UREs that have been raised in the literature.
Materials and Methods
Participants
The mentored research option is open to all students in our Introductory Biology 152 course. On average, about 33% of 152 students in any 1 year elect to do mentored research. Because students self-select, we examined various student characteristics to determine how students who chose mentored research compared to the class as a whole. As a baseline, we examined self-reported ethnicity data for all students in the course during calendar years 2005 and 2006, male/female ratios, and year in school. These data were compared to the same data for the students engaged in mentored research during fall and spring of 2006. These specific years were chosen to allow us to examine retention in research beyond the students' participation in 152. For these same years we also calculated the percentages of our students conducting mentored research in each of seven colleges, schools, and centers on the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus.
Surveys
To determine faculty opinions both about our program and the students they mentored, we polled a group of about 100 faculty each of whom had mentored at least three of our students in the last 3 years. Twenty of them responded to the survey. Similarly, we polled about 200 students who did mentored research in spring and fall of 2006. Forty-five students responded.
Results
Participants
For calendar years 2005 and 2006, we examined the self-identified ethnicity of the 1849 students who took 152 (Table 2). We found these percentages to be similar among the 314 students who conducted mentored research in 152 during the spring and fall semesters of 2006. In both mentored research and our class as a whole, 60% of participants were women and 40% were men. This proportion is similar to the findings in other studies such as Lopatto (2003) and Kardash (2000).
Our analysis of mentors' colleges and schools for 2006 indicated strong support for our program from across campus. Thirty-four percent of our students were mentored in the School of Medicine and Public Health; 31%, in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences; 21%, in the College of Letters and Science; 8%, in the School of Veterinary Medicine; 2% each, in the School of Pharmacy and the Primate Center; and 1%, in the College of Engineering.
Survey results
What makes for a successful mentorship? Faculty viewpoint
The top four student characteristics identified by the faculty were reliability, willingness to ask questions when you don't understand, initiative, and interest in the research. In all cases, 70% or more of the faculty rated these as “very important.” See Table 3 for the other characteristics faculty rated as “very important” to “important.”
Note that in this table, we do not report characteristics that were ranked “Not important” and “Does not apply.”
In a separate question, 85% of mentors thought that student interest was the “most important” when compared to grade point average (GPA), year in school, and previous work experience.
What is the value of the experience? Faculty viewpoint
The faculty ranked the personal satisfaction they gained from interacting with undergraduates as very high value (30%) or high value (70%). They ranked the research experience gained by the undergraduates in their labs as very high value (42.1%) or high value (57.9%). They also rated the mentoring experience gained by their graduate students and postdoctoral scholars as either very high value (30%) or high value (45%). In addition, our faculty noted several higher order skills as important gains by our undergraduates. These included the 152 requirement that the student reviews current literature in the topic area (very high value 30%; high value 45%); the 152 requirement that the student be able to communicate in writing what she/he is doing and why it is important (very high value 50%; high value 40%); and the 152 requirement that the student be able to communicate orally in a poster session what she/he is doing and why it is important (very high value 40%; high value 55%).
What is the value of the experience? Student viewpoint
When asked to rate the overall value of the mentored research experience, 31.1% of the students indicated that this was “one of my most valuable undergraduate experiences”; 31.1% indicated that it was “very valuable”; 24.4% indicated that it was “valuable”; and 8.9% indicated that it was “somewhat valuable.”
When asked what they gained as a result of the experience, more than 77% indicated that they made significant (33%) or moderate gains (44.4%) in their biological knowledge. Eighty percent indicated significant (51.1%) or moderate gains (28.9%) in life experience. Eighty percent indicated significant (40%) or moderate (40%) gains in professional development. Seventy-seven percent indicated significant (35.5%) or moderate gains (42.2%) in experience that informed their future career plans. On another question, over 47% of the students reported that the writing requirement significantly improved their understanding of the research and another 25% indicated that it improved their understanding moderately.
What effects does the experience have on retaining students in research?
We asked the students how many additional semesters (beyond 152) they continued in research labs. Approximately 29% indicated that they stayed an additional semester or two in the same lab. Another 26% stayed three to four semesters in the same lab and 5% stayed more than four semesters. Ten percent went on to one or two more semesters in a different lab, and another 7% completed three to four semesters more research in a different lab. In other words, a total of 77% stayed in research for at least one more semester. The other 23% indicated under “other” that most of them stayed on in some combination of the same and different labs for one to four additional semesters. Only 3 of the 45 students who responded (6.6%) indicated that they did not continue beyond one semester.
Discussion
As noted earlier in this article, many studies have indicated a need to improve both the general level of science literacy among our students and to increase the number of students electing science as a career. As a result, many institutions have worked to involve undergraduates in research. Studies of these programs indicate many solid learning gains for the students involved (Kardash, 2000; Lopatto, 2003, 2004; Russell et al., 2007). However, there was concern that many of these programs that are primarily for juniors and seniors may be too late. There was additional concern that these programs may not be addressing key higher order skills.
Our program addresses some of these issues. First, the vast majority of the students who elect mentored research in our program are sophomores. Not only do our students get into research labs earlier, but also they remain in research labs for an additional two to three semesters on average.
Second, we provide support to our students in finding mentors. This makes it much more likely for younger students to take advantage of these opportunities. As one student noted, “Working as a professional scientist, researcher, or researching university-level teacher/professor was never really suggested to me, and therefore I never really considered it. The 152 IP made the process of guiding us into a research experience very unintimidating. To a freshman or sophomore, contacting faculty to join their lab is a big deal. [The coordinator] made herself seem very available to talk to about concerns and she gave advice regarding what we should say and how to present ourselves. These skills aren't taught in any other class!!!—although I think they're very valuable.”
Third, and perhaps most important, we work in association with the mentors in teaching our students. The mentors educate our students in the laboratory and analytical skills and in the thought processes they need for conducting the research. We support and extend this by teaching our students how to use the library for scientific research, how to analyze literature, and how to communicate scientifically. We focus on their being able to effectively explain what they are doing and why they are doing it. In the survey, over 47% of the students reported that the writing requirement significantly improved their understanding of the research, and another 25% indicated that it improved their understanding moderately. Similarly in the faculty poll, 90% felt that the writing requirement was of very high or high value. It is this synergism between the mentors and our Introductory Biology course that makes this program successful.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the many Introductory Biology 151–152 faculty, staff, and students and all of the researchers on the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus who participate in our mentored research program. This program would not exist without you. This is a great demonstration of how research supports undergraduate education.
Additional information, including the lab manual developed to support the IP options in Introductory Biology 152 can be accessed at the following URLs. Lab manual— Ch. 1 supporting literature—
Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.