In the Classroom
A Model for Incorporating Research into the First-Year Chemistry Curriculum James R. Ford,* Caryn Prudenté, and Thomas A. Newton Chemistry Department, University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME 04104–9300; *
[email protected] The primary goal of the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) of the American Chemical Society is “to promote undergraduate student–faculty collaborative research at predominantly undergraduate institutions” (1). To that end, in 2004 the CUR published an electronic collection (2) of 20 case studies from “the institutions recognized by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for their success in integrating research into undergraduate education”(3). This online publication supplements the CUR’s existing “How To” series of books that are aimed at helping faculty incorporate research into their undergraduate curricula (4). In 2005 the CUR initiated the development of a new “How To” book that will “showcase successful practices that enable faculty and institutions to design, implement, and sustain a research-supportive undergraduate curriculum”(5). An emerging focus in all of these efforts is the goal of introducing students to research earlier in their undergraduate careers. Thus the NSF Undergraduate Research Collaboratives (URC) program solicitation (6) states that the primary goal of its URC pilot program is “to expand the reach of undergraduate research to include first- and second-year college students.” We recently published an article in this Journal (7) describing a model for the development and implementation of a research-based laboratory course in organic chemistry. The success of that endeavor convinced us of the value of engaging students in research early in their college careers, and in 2004, with funding from a URC planning grant, the Chemistry Department at this university implemented a pilot program designed to engage students in basic research as part of our first-year chemistry laboratory course. The second semester of this course has an average enrollment of 80 students, most of whom take the general chemistry lecture concurrently. Four sections of the laboratory course are offered each spring, some taught by full-time faculty and others by adjunct faculty. Each section meets once weekly for three hours. In the spring semester of 2005 the research format was applied to one section and in the spring of 2006 expanded to two sections. Figure 1 outlines the basic components of our program. Each component is described in subsequent sections. By all accounts this project has been a great success, and we describe it herein in hopes that it may serve as a model for other undergraduate institutions.
ods followed by student participation in chemistry-centered, multidisciplinary projects that have been supplied by project mentors from within the university and from local companies. At the end of the semester students can apply for one of the summer internships associated with each project. The progress of students through the program is indicated by the open arrows in Figure 1. The course instructor oversees all the students as they progress through their preliminary training, but once students begin working on their research, each project’s organizational structure is unique and requires a degree of flexibility. Both the instructor and the project mentor facilitate student progress as they execute their project’s experimental plan. Throughout the course a teaching assistant aids the instructor. Graduate students or technicians may assist the research team as they learn projectspecific techniques or the operation of new instrumentation. Since first-year students require laboratory skill development, the course begins with three 2-week training modules, which introduce students to a specific set of concepts and techniques that research chemists routinely employ. During the remaining eight weeks of the semester small teams of students apply their newly acquired skills in one of the mentored research projects. At the end of the course each research group presents their results to an audience of their peers, the course instructors, and the research mentors. To provide students with a more intense and focused research experience each project offers a summer internship. One student from each project is selected to join the mentor’s group, and he or she works collaboratively with other undergraduate students, graduate students, post-docs, and technical staff. During the 8-week internship students apply the research tools and methods they were introduced to during the semester. Student interns are encouraged to present a poster describing their project at Thinking Matters, an annual conference at this university devoted to student research and creative work (8).
Partnership Development
Training Modules
Research Projects
Summer Internships
Faculty
Students
Project Mentors
Program Structures
Program Structure In an effort to introduce first-year students to ongoing, high quality, research projects we redesigned our second-semester introductory chemistry laboratory course as a research-focused curriculum with a central theme of measurement and analysis. Our model for engaging students in research includes three training modules that provide an introduction to research meth-
Figure 1. An overview of the structure of a research-based chemistry laboratory.
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 7 July 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
929
In the Classroom
Partnership Development We viewed partnership development as a critical aspect for the successful implementation and growth, and ultimately sustainability, of our undergraduate research curriculum. During the program planning stages partnerships were forged between chemistry faculty and project mentors and the program’s three primary components were envisioned, as indicated by the solid arrows in Figure 1. As the program was implemented we continued to expand the preliminary partnerships and developed additional relationships among all program participants. We were motivated to build a strong interdisciplinary component into the course structure since approximately 90% of the students enrolled in our introductory chemistry course are not chemistry majors; therefore, before our research-focused laboratory program was launched we solicited project mentors from the university community and southern Maine’s industrial research community. To gauge interest in the program, we invited potential partners from faculty in Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Environmental Science and Policy Departments; the School of Applied Science, Engineering and Technology; research scientists from the Center for Integrated and Applied Environmental Toxicology, as well as from two local biotechnology firms and one environmental monitoring laboratory to submit project proposals. While we received an overwhelming positive and enthusiastic response from the scientists we contacted, not all the project ideas submitted were within the scope of an introductory chemistry laboratory course or contained tasks consistent with first-year chemistry student capabilities. Some mentors outlined a specific and detailed project plan suitable for immediate adoption, while others proposed vague ideas that were eventually crafted into 8-week project plans. The average project required only a few hours of the course manager’s time to go from solicitation to implementation. Each year near the end of the first semester, a brief presentation is made to the lecture sections describing the laboratory options. Early in the second semester, students who have signed up for the research-focused sections meet with project mentors over lunch. Each mentor describes the scope of their research agenda and explains to the students how the work they will soon be conducting fits into his or her overall research plan. Once students select their projects, they meet with the project mentor and, as a team, discuss how to collect and analyze samples, as well as safe handling and storage considerations. Periodically students meet with their mentor in the classroom or in the field to troubleshoot, discuss progress, or design future experiments. Throughout the semester we continue to forge partnerships between project mentors and students, and among students. Fostering partnerships among students introduces them to a culture of research, a focus that is often absent from first-year laboratory instruction. In our model, small teams of students work together to perform all the laboratory exercises and to analyze and process data collected by the group. Course Structure The first six weeks of the course include experiments that are typically found in any freshman laboratory course, but they have been modified into three 2-week modules to introduce students to research methods. To build student confidence and
930
to foster an environment of collaboration, the introductory experiments are inquiry-based and include short lectures, data analysis, data presentation, and group discussions regarding theory, methodology, and ethics. The three experimental modules that we are currently using during the introductory portion of the course are
• A kinetics experiment: Students are introduced to the research paradigm in a guided-inquiry investigation of the iodine clock reaction. We have found this to be an excellent vehicle for weaning students away from the misconception that chemistry laboratory experiments are sets of procedures, which, when followed exactly, provide the right answer.
• An investigation of the Beer–Lambert law: The proper use of an analytical balance, the preparation of standard solutions, calibration curves, UV–vis spectroscopy, extinction coefficients, and the spectrophotometric determination of unknowns are covered in this module.
• The determination of the pKa of weak acids: In this
unit students prepare buffer solutions, measure pH, determine pKa values in buffered and unbuffered solutions.
We selected these three modules because they emphasize common laboratory and analytical techniques that students will employ once they begin working on their specific research project. The course’s introductory units focus on allowing students to
• practice careful recording of experimental conditions, procedures, and data
• experience preparing accurate, contaminant-free standard solutions and blanks for instrument calibration
• experience constructing and interpreting calibration curves
• gain knowledge of statistical tools to evaluate the sources and magnitude of experimental error, in order to recognize good data
• build confidence in their abilities to carry out accurate work
After completion of the introductory modules, students select the research project they are most interested in working on for the remainder of the semester. Each research team is composed of three or four students, the project mentor, the laboratory instructor, and in some cases other members from the mentor’s group. Because each project is chemistry-centered, most teams perform preliminary experiments with the equipment and instrumentation provided in the department’s laboratories. Students spend several weeks gathering preliminary data, preparing standard curves, learning how to operate instrumentation, evaluating data, and optimizing experimental conditions. All teams spend part of the semester working in their mentor’s laboratory, and in some cases may spend the entire research portion of the course in the mentor’s laboratory, depending on the project’s specific requirements.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 85 No. 7 July 2008 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
In the Classroom
Research Projects
Results and Discussion
Since the NSF-URC program specified interest in expanding chemistry-centered research, we solicited project proposals from researchers whose work embodies the interdisciplinary nature of modern scientific exploration. We invited scientists from the business community to participate in our pilot program because Portland has a fairly high density of biotechnology and environmental testing firms that routinely utilize chemical processes and analyses. In the first year of the program we selected three research projects that would engage students in measurement and analysis. Two teams of four students contributed to each project. In the second year of the program, five additional projects were included and we expanded the program from one to two laboratory sections. We chose these projects because they demonstrate the central role that chemistry plays in diverse fields of research. Below is a list of the projects incorporated into the first two years of the course, followed by a description of one of these projects as provided by the project mentor. Brief descriptions of all eight projects are available online (9).
A total of fifty-two first-year chemistry students participated in eight projects over the first two years of this program. Ten students have taken advantage of summer internships sponsored by the project mentors or the NSF planning grant. Of these, nine students have continued their involvement beyond the summer internships. Two of the three 2005 summer interns presented posters on their summer research at the 2006 Thinking Matters Symposium (8). One of the 2005 summer interns continued working in her project’s research group throughout the following year and has contributed supporting work for a new NSF grant proposal (10) and an article in preparation for the online journal Limnology and Oceanography: Methods. Clearly her experience in a research setting had a significant impact on her career goals; in an application for a summer undergraduate research fellowship, she wrote: “Even though entering USM I believed I would attend medical school, I would like to keep my options open. Working with Lisa Moore has opened my eyes to new work opportunities. I enjoyed working with the cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus and am actually considering graduate school instead of medical school.” The 2006 summer intern studying nitrate flux in transgenic tobacco plants discovered the previously unknown fact that nontransgenic tobacco plants are able to utilize phosphite as a source of phosphorus. This discovery has opened a completely new line of research in her mentor’s laboratory. It has also expanded the horizons of the student; she now intends to go to graduate school to get a Ph.D. in plant physiology. Students working on the 2005 project “Analysis of the Impact of Arsenic on the Development of Mice” determined that arsenic levels in the mouse tissue samples were below the detection limit of the available instrumentation. The summer intern associated with the arsenic project therefore began work on a new project aimed at the determination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) in tissue samples. During the spring 2006 laboratory class students obtained promising results for quantifying PBDE via HPLC. Two student interns joined the research group in the summer of 2006 to further explore the PBDE project. The intern who helped start the PBDE project became a teaching assistant for one of the research sections and also presented a poster in 2006 on the current progress of the URC program. Students working on the project sponsored by the environmental testing facility in the spring of 2006 (“Developing Analytical Methods for Analysis of Environmental Contaminants”) demonstrated that a copper sulfate-based method for nitrogen analysis gave the same results as the traditional mercury-based method. This work was conducted entirely at the project mentor’s facilities. The company scientists were pleased with the quality of the student work and commented favorably on the experience: “[We] feel that this is a great way to expose students to “real life” experiences in the work field…. We are currently doing more method development with these methods to try to lower detection limits.” Student performance was assessed by written reports, lab notebooks, the oral presentation, and a participation grade assigned jointly by the instructor and the project mentor. We assessed student attitudes through evaluation forms collected at the end of each semester. A standardized student evaluation
• Airborne Particulates and Asthma: A Maine Case Study
• Determination of Dissolved Phosphate in Cultured Phytoplankton Samples
• Analysis of the Impact of Arsenic on the Development of Mice
• Analysis and Measurement of Arsenic Uptake by Mouse B-cell Lines
• Analysis and Bioremediation of Lead in Spinach
• Determination of Nitrate Flux in Transgenic Tobacco Plants
• Determination of PBDE Disposition in Mouse Tissues Following Exposure During Development
• Developing Analytical Methods for Analysis of Environmental Contaminants
Determination of Dissolved Phosphate in Cultured Phytoplankton Samples Measuring phosphorus (P) concentrations is a fundamental aspect of studying the P physiology (the growth and uptake capability) and ecology of living organisms, particularly prokaryotic microorganisms that depend directly on uptake of dissolved P from their environment. Professor Moore’s research group is conducting physiological experiments on cultured marine cyanobacteria. The general chemistry students will measure dissolved P concentrations in samples taken from the ongoing physiology experiments in Professor Moore’s laboratory in the Biology Department. After preparing samples and generating standard curves, students will spectrophotometrically measure P concentrations in the cyanobacteria samples based on the colorimetric method of Strickland and Parsons.
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 7 July 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
931
In the Classroom
TC
RC
14 Were the class meetings profitable and worth attending?
1.38
1.49
15 How would you rate the subject matter of this course?
2.34
1.78
16 Did you develop significant skills in the field as a result of taking this course?
2.14
1.73
19 Were students required to apply concepts to demonstrate understanding?
1.53
1.36
In 2006, two groups of students asked to come in during the spring break to work on their projects. This rather unusual request is indicative of how engaged and enthusiastic students were about their research. The overall improvement was also reflected in the “additional comments” portion of the evaluation forms. In the traditional lab sections, only 1 out of 70 students commented on the course content or organization, while 14 out of 47 students in the research sections included such comments. Without exception those comments were strongly positive, for example,
21 How much intellectual discipline was required in this course?
1.85
1.64
An awesome format for a chem lab! I learned far more this semester thanks to the way this course was structured.
22 What is your overall rating of this course?
2.18
1.56
31 Did the labs provide a learning experience?
1.53
1.44
33 What is your overall rating of the laboratories?
1.91
1.76
Table 1. Data Comparing Student Attitudes Toward the Traditional Curriculum (TC) versus the Research Curriculum (RC) No. Question
Note: The grading scale was 1, positive response, through 5, negative response.
with 33 questions based on a five-point Likert scale was used. Eight questions were selected as being particularly relevant for a comparison of the research approach to our traditional curriculum. Mean responses for the traditional curriculum (TC) were averaged over two instructors and five sections with a total of 70 student responses. Data for the research curriculum (RC) were averaged over the same two instructors and three sections with a total of 47 student responses. The results are summarized in Table 1. In general, students found the research curriculum superior to the traditional curriculum. The two-sample t-test for equal means (11) shows that the improvements to questions 15, 16, and 22 are statistically significant at a significance level α = 0.05. While the responses to questions 19, 21, 31, and 33 are not significant at this level, we believe the additional written comments provided by students of the research classes indicate greater satisfaction with the research curriculum. We also consider the small decline in question 14 to be worthy of comment. Traditional labs at this university involve all students working on one experiment at a time. The procedure for each experiment has been refined over years of use to best meet the needs of students and faculty. The instructor knows where students are likely to have difficulty and can quickly identify those in need of direction. The instructor also knows the expected results, and it is a simple matter to assess student progress. In contrast, the unique organizational structure of each project in a research section did not allow for the same dynamics. Typically there were six groups of students working on four or five different projects. As first-year chemistry students they were unprepared for a laboratory course in which instruments might not work and procedures might not be suitable for the samples at hand. The extended discussion required to assess the progress of each group occasionally left others waiting for direction. Many students found these aspects of the course disconcerting, and we believe that the responses to question 14 reflect their frustration.
932
I enjoyed the research style of the course much more than the standard lab work. The projects made me think about chemistry and made me enjoy coming to class. I feel more confident in using what I’ve learned in class in real world environments. I feel this class was much more valuable than the traditional method. Research lab is the best lab I’ve had in professional college career. Learned valuable chemistry skills that can be applied to real life situations.
We also solicited feedback from the project mentors. Without exception they, too, felt the program was worth pursuing. Industrial partners see this program as a means of increasing the number of technically competent students who are potential employees. Mentors from academia also see a pool of interested and trained students to participate in advanced research. Representative comments include the following: The program provides undergraduates early in their degree program a feel for how ‘real’ research is carried out after they have learned some basic lab skills. This makes for an educational experience in which the students seem to feel more invested, and consequently learn more. (Lisa Moore, Biology Department, Determination of Dissolved Phosphate in Cultured Phytoplankton Samples) This is an excellent experience for students. The two students who worked on my research project enjoyed it and often said they had learned a lot. As a result of the program one student is now a summer intern in the lab and she continues to benefit from the experience as do I. (Tom Knight, Biology Department, Determination of Nitrate Flux in Transgenic Tobacco Plants) I thought it was a great program. All of the students were bright and motivated so the Chemistry Department did a good job selling the idea to them. The fact that [the students] have continued with me this summer is evidence of their interest. (Vincent Markowski, Psychology Department, Determination of PBDE Disposition in Mouse Tissues Following Exposure During Development)
Most project mentors also indicated a need for more communication with the instructors. Several mentors felt a need for better coordination earlier on in the semester between mentors, students, and instructors. Some project mentors complained about the lack of specific instructions and procedures for the
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 85 No. 7 July 2008 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
In the Classroom
students to follow; this might be taken as a need to better explain the program’s philosophy that “research experiences” are different from traditional laboratory exercises. As we solicit future project mentors, we will strive to improve communication among the partners. For example, we intend to incorporate a brief description of the goals and methods of this program into the course syllabus, and we will discuss how it differs from a traditional laboratory course. We plan to familiarize students with the program in their first semester and will bring students and project mentors together earlier in the second semester. By assigning students to projects at the beginning of the research semester, students and mentors will be able to schedule appropriate research-related activities. Faculty, students, and project members will work together to ensure that all parties are aware of the project research goals and the course learning outcomes and assessment. As we expand the program to include all sections of the course, we anticipate the need for a faculty development workshop to train instructors and to share strategies for monitoring the progress of several concurrent projects. All students participated in the preparation and presentation of an oral report at the end of the semester. This event, which brought students together with faculty and project mentors, gave students valuable practice in presenting their work and offered them an opportunity to see what their peers had accomplished. All student presentations have been posted on the Chemistry Department’s Web page (9), and two posters describing our program and the associated projects are on display in the Science Building. Conclusions With this program we have engaged students in research in their first-year chemistry course, provided increased opportunities for summer research for undergraduates, and strengthened partnerships with the local academic and business scientific community. Students have gained an appreciation of the broad array of fields that employ basic chemical techniques. They have experienced first-hand the cooperative nature of high quality scientific research and become competent team players. As the four examples cited above clearly demonstrate, individual research efforts have benefited from quantitative data and a supply of eager students familiar with the projects. Students were actively engaged and highly motivated as they gained experiences closely resembling the way chemists conduct scientific research. Based on our experience with this new course as well as our researchbased organic laboratory course, we are confident that exposing students to a culture of research early in their career results in improved learning and a higher likelihood of future participa-
tion in scientific research. We believe this program provides a model by which other institutions may incorporate high quality research experiences into their first-year laboratory courses. Literature Cited 1. Karukstis, K. K.; Wenzel, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 468– 469. 2. Reinvigorating the Undergraduate Experience: Successful Models Supported by NSF’s AIRE/RAIRE Program; Kauffman, L. R., Stocks, J. E., Eds.; Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington, DC, 2004. http://www.cur.org/Publications/Howtoseries. html#RUE (accessed Feb 2008). 3. Karukstis, K. K. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 938–939. 4. Council on Undergraduate Research Publications How To Series. http://www.cur.org/Publications/Howtoseries.html (accessed Feb 2008). 5. Karukstis, K. K. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1440–1441. 6. National Science Foundation Publication NSF 03–595. http:// www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=6675 (accessed Feb 2008). 7. Newton, T. A.; Tracy, H. J.; Prudenté, C. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1844–1849. 8. Thinking Matters: A Student Research, Scholarship, and Creativity Symposium. http://research.usm.maine.edu/thinkingmatters/ (accessed Feb 2008). 9. Undergraduate Research: First Year Research Opportunities, University of Southern Maine. http://usm.maine.edu/chy/ ugrad_research.html (accessed Feb 2008). 10. Moore, Lisa. Collaborative Research and RUI: Determination of Phosphorus–Stressed Marine Picoplankton Populations through Flow Cytometry and Molecular Anlaysis; NSF proposal in preparation for submission in July 2006. 11. Two-Sample t-Test for Equal Means. http://www.itl.nist.gov/ div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda353.htm (accessed Feb 2008).
Supporting JCE Online Material
http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Jul/ abs929.html Abstract and keywords Full text (PDF) Links to cited URLs and JCE articles Supplement Detailed anaylsis of the results in Table 1
Description of the eight research projects
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 7 July 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
933
