Life Sciences: Undergraduate Education
in the Life Sciences: Every Student an Investigator?"
Powerpoint Presentation

Leader: William B. Wood, Professor of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology,
University of Colorado

Recorder: Lori B. Seischab, PhD Candidate in Biochemistry, Stony Brook University

The discussion focused on whether the goal of providing a research experience for every undergraduate in the life sciences is realistic or desirable, especially in large, public research universities. Participants addressed such questions as: Is this a goal for which we should strive? What are the constraints, and what new resources and incentives would be required to achieve it? Can existing resources be better utilized? Are there effective inquiry-based alternatives to independent laboratory research? What should be the next steps? The consensus was that although it may not be possible or desirable for every student to have carried out or participated in a formal research project, universities should strive to produce graduates who have "the mindset of researchers."

Main Points

Providing every undergraduate in the life sciences with independent research under the guidance of a faculty mentor may not be a feasible or desirable goal. Research space, research support, faculty time, research group time, and the number of qualified motivated students are all constraints to universal independent research for undergraduates. In order therefore to produce graduates that have the mindset of researchers, we need to adopt student-centered inquiry-based teaching in all our courses so that students can develop the prerequisite skills and characteristics.

We need to improve assessment and produce evidence that the current system is not working. The faculty should be persuaded to define the learning goals for their courses, and to develop objective methods to assess whether these goals are being met.

The transformation of all our courses will require major reform. To successfully implement reform we need to persuade faculty to take an active interest in developing more effective teaching methods. We need to motivate faculty through inspirational pedagogy seminars and real rewards.

Challenges

Research space, research support, faculty time, research group time, and the number of qualified motivated students are all constraints to 100% participation in research. These constraints vary in severity. The burdens placed on space and funding are only moderate problems. The burden placed on faculty time is somewhat more severe, but mitigated by the fact that graduate students spend time with the undergraduates. A much larger problem is the expenditure of the research group time. The NIH views undergraduate research as a distraction since it drains funding and time from the goals of the lab. Finally, the most severe constraint to 100% participation in research is the motivation and qualifications of the undergraduate students. Before we involve a student in research we should consider the following questions: Should this student be in college? Should this student be in this major? Is this student prepared to undertake research? Is this student motivated to undertake research?

Because of the constraints, universal independent research for undergraduates is neither feasible nor desirable. We need to modify the goal of 100% research participation to produce graduates who have the mindset of researchers. Although undergraduate students have diverse career goals, all students would benefit from an education aimed at developing in each student the characteristics of a researcher. Students who possess the mindset of researchers are good at and enjoy problem solving. They solve problems by applying background knowledge from various disciplines. These students are capable of collecting and organizing data, and then critically analyzing the data and drawing conclusions from it. Most importantly, a student who has the mindset of a researcher is able to pose questions that can be addressed by research.

Examples of Effective Programs

What besides independent research can we offer to help all students develop the research mindset? To help all students develop the research mindset, those of us teaching undergraduate life science courses must become educators. More specifically, we must develop student-centered inquiry-based teaching in all our courses. We also need to think about teaching in the same way we think about our research. Thus we must ask ourselves: Are our teaching methods working? Do we have the controls necessary to evaluate our teaching methods? How can we make the undergraduate learning experience more effective?

Some specific examples:

• Methods and Logic" courses help all students develop the research mindset and are one good example of student-centered teaching. MIT developed a "Methods and Logic" course at the graduate level that uses research papers as a teaching tool. The papers are discussed in class and students are called upon to answer such questions as: How did they do that experiment? Why did they do that experiment? What controls should have been done? Such courses have since been used at the undergraduate level, generally in small elective classes of less than 25 juniors and seniors. However the concept could be applied to courses for freshmen and sophomores. In MCDB at Colorado this approach has been tried successfully in a larger required course of 64 students. The students were divided into groups and each group was assigned specific questions in advance. Through this "methods and logic" approach students learn how research is actually done and discover the origin of the information in their textbooks.
• Another type of student-centered teaching is "transformed" inquiry-based courses in which the students solve problems during the class time. This concept of inquiry-based courses is being applied to biology at the University of Delaware. (See http://www.udel.edu/pbl/courses.html).
• In some cases, the physicists are doing a better job than biologists at transforming courses:In 1992 University of Arizona, physicists developed the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), a multiple-choice probe of students' understanding of basic concepts in mechanics. The choice of topics included in the probe was based on careful consideration of the fundamental concepts. Furthermore, the distracters (wrong answers) were based on the students' most common misconceptions. The FCI test is administered to the students at the beginning and end of the course to assess whether the learning goals of the course are met. Use of the FCI helped convince physicists that students' learning in conventional courses was limited, and it provided the incentive to explore more effective teaching methods. A similar assessment tool should be developed for the life sciences in the form of a Biology Concepts Inventory (BCI), to provide a better way of measuring how much students know and how well our courses are succeeding in increasing their knowledge. Compared to the FCI, the BCI would have to be somewhat more factual.

Bob Beichner at North Carolina State University developed the SCALE-UP program (Student Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs), an inquiry-based physics course. The standard classroom with desks aligned in rows was transformed into a room with round tables. Each table seats nine students (three teams of three) and is equipped with three laptop computers that are wired to the Internet. During class time the students solve questions such as: How thick is each page in your textbook? What is the size of a period in the textbook?

• In the Ecology and Evolution program at the University of West Virginia, students go through the entire research process in an inquiry-based research-related course. The students work in groups. Each group identifies a problem and writes a proposal. The TAs and faculty then review the proposals. Approximately 60% of the proposals receive funding. The unsuccessful proposals must be rewritten and resubmitted for review. Once funding has been granted, the group does the research and writes a paper based on the format of the Journal of Ecology. The papers are then presented in the form of an oral presentation (for the best projects) or a poster presentation.

At Rochester Polytechnic Institute an inquiry-based course was developed for freshmen. The students select a bacterial system or a fast-growing plant system. Working in groups of 3 or 4, the students pick a question and form experiments. Both undergraduate and graduate teaching assistants supervise the research. At the end of the semester, each group presents a poster, and the TAs grade the poster presentations.

At the University of South Carolina where the apprenticeship approach to research is impractical to apply to all of the students, the Marine Sciences department developed an experimental research-design course. After the course ended, a group of students was motivated to conduct the research they had designed in the course. The students raised money for their research and solicited the advice of faculty mentors. Senior students within this group recruited younger students, thus ensuring the continuation of the research. This example of student-initiated research is evidence that students like to "own" their scholarship. The research process should not be limited by the faculty. Rather, the faculty need to get interested in the problems that the students find interesting. We need to talk to students, not just lecture to students.

At UCLA there is a limit of 10 students in a lab. Faculty members who want more than 10 students can turn the research experience into a course. The students get credit for taking the course, and the faculty member gets credit for teaching the course.

Participants' Comments

The consensus of the group was that independent laboratory research under the guidance of a mentor is not the only way to teach the patterns of thought necessary for research. We should define the experience we want students to have, and then take a variety of approaches in offering it. Inquiry-based courses may be more feasible than 100% mentor-guided independent research. However, we should not fall into the pattern of thinking of the research experience as either mentor-guided independent study or course-based study. Both types of research experience are valuable and should be available to undergraduate life science students.

There are benefits to course-based research experiences. First, they reach more students than is possible in a lab. Second, students who join a lab are at the bottom rung, whereas students in a course have equal footing. Third, non-field study research (e.g. biochemistry, microbiology, genetics etc.) is very frustrating because experiments often fail. Courses could perhaps provide a research experience that is designed to more likely succeed than fail.

The necessary transformation of existing courses into inquiry-based courses should be initiated via small steps. Small steps are more acceptable to skeptical colleagues, and more likely to succeed.

The research process involves not only the discovery process, but also the social aspect and the apprentice aspect of the advancement of science. By incorporating these aspects into undergraduate education we will create graduates who will be informed civil leaders as well as the next generation of scientists.

There needs to be a reward system for faculty. Currently, most faculty members are hired for their research and not their teaching and mentoring skills. We need to change the climate on campuses.

Recommendations

We must incorporate inquiry-based teaching in all our courses. Life sciences curricula should incorporate a broad spectrum of research-related experiences, ranging from student-centered inquiry-based introductory courses to project laboratories to faculty-mentored independent research.

An assessment tool in the form of a Biology Concepts Inventory should be developed for the life sciences to provide a better way of measuring how much students know and how well our courses are succeeding in increasing their knowledge.

We must motivate our colleagues to change. Inspirational pedagogy seminars can be included in departmental seminar programs. Pedagogy discussions should be incorporated into faculty meetings. We should also involve our colleagues within professional societies in these discussions of reform.

We must collaborate with Schools of Education. We can use the faculties of education at our universities to help us in course and assessment development, and to help us train our graduate and undergraduate students to be good teachers.

Each department could appoint a single person responsible for coordinating and promoting undergraduate research. This individual's duties could include organizing seminars, providing resources for faculty, and organizing grant proposals.