Guidelines for the Supervision of Undergraduate Research Robert H. Beer Columbia University, New York, NY 10027
Astudent making the transition from the undergraduate classroom and laboratory to the independent research environment of graduate level research is making a big step. Nowadays, many advanced undergraduates interested in pursuing an advanced degree in chemistry or just a richer scientific experience carry out independent undergraduate research projects. The educational benefit of "hands-on" research experience (1-5) has been recognized by most institutions and many have integrated it into their cumculum. Moreover. in a time when there is concern about losing or disenchanting students interested in science (6-111 and a n effort to increase traditionally underrepresented scientists, women and minorities in particular (12-141, undergraduate research is a valuable educational tool to reach more students. Guidelines Among several different reported descriptions of undergraduate research programs ( 1 5 - I S ) , mast emphasize the development of independent scientific thought and practice, experimental design, use of the chemical literature, and scientific speaking and writing. We have found that if these features are incorporated into simple guidelines, agreed upon a s a contract by the supervisor and student, a vew satisfactow method of both suoervisine and carrvine " out undergraduate research can be achieved. The contract format can be detailed or a simole outline ofthe conditions of the proposed research. A modification of the contract used in our laboratow is shown below.
-
-
Undergraduate Research StudenffSupervisor Contract Research Topic: (1) Objective: A brlef description of your planned work and why you want to do it.
(2) Procedure: How you will accomplish your objective
(3) Laboratory Requirements: Indicate the kind of laboratory facilities to be used and what you will do, e.g.. methods and practices, including safety procedures. (4) C0sts:Anticipated laboratory,chemical, equipment. analytical,spectroscopic,travel, and publication expenses, if applicable. (5) Schedule: StudenffSupe~isor meeting time(s)and student laboratory time. (6) Additional Projects: (a) A reading list with abstracts of pertinent research. (b) A written report. (c) A presentation of the student research project. (7) Grading Criteria:
Student Name, Signature and Date: Supervisor Name, Signature and Date:
that definine the orooosed research in items 1and 2 was giving the student a sense of purparticularly-help&l pose and a goal. Items 3 and 4 were instructive to a student beginning research, who did not often realize what practices, materials and instruments were needed to do research and how much it costs. I n addition, a n entire first laboratory time period was spent on safety and chemical disoosal instruction. ~ e e t i n gwith the student on a scheduled weekly basis, item 5, along with the informal discussions that would normally arise during the course of the project assured proper attention would be eiven to their oroeress. The student was asked to a short outline of the week's work and their data and notebook were evaluated. The supervisor and student would then plan the following week's research. In most instances, scheduling time made best use of the supervisor's and the student's ;me and is more akin to the formal meetings now practiced by graduate advi-
A
~
SOTS.
Item 6 addressed the need for developinggood communication and writing skills and becoming familiar with the chemical literature related to the project. Setting firm times when these assienments were to be accomolished helped both the super&or and student plan for tdem accordinelv. - " At a final evaluationmeeting between the suoervisor and the student, each item of the contract was discussed and whether it had been com~letedto satisfaction. Satisfactory completion of items 1-6 was the basis for item 7. if madine was aoolicable. We have used the contract methid for Loth graded and non-graded undergraduate research programs. The advantage of these guidelines i s t h a t they a r e agreed upon mutually before starting a project and should avoid any disappointment in expectations either the student or supervisor might feel during the project. If one condition of the contract is not being fulfilled, this format allows them to be identified easily and corrected. These guidelines, in contract form, have been used in our laboratory to improve the instruction and guidance of a student in earlv research. Our observations of students who complete successfully a research project are a n increase in creativitv, critical thinkine. and excitement about science and more overall self-cokidence and self-esteem. Any means to ensure that effect is worthwhile. Acknowledgment R. H. B. would like to thank undereraduate researchers Jose Jimmrz and Aaron Laws for thcir cooperation in the development of these guidelinrs and Russ6.ll S. Drago f i r suppo&ing their research projects a t the ~ n i v e r s i of t~ Florida. The author also thanks the U. F. 1991 Summer Research Apprenticeship Program and Corine Myers for providing materials for this manuscript and partial financial sponsorship of undergraduate participants. We gratefully acknowledge Suzanne Sherman (USF/New College) for helpful discussions about the contract method and format. Literature Cited
Item.? 1-7 a e r e dii;cuised and cumplt,ted in a single meeting hetw6,en rhe supcr\i.,~)rand the s~udcnt.We found
1. Cruz-Gadtz, D.: Chamizo. J.A.;lbrrens, H. J Chrm. Edae. 1989,66,320 2. Powers,J. W, Black. D. G.J. Chern, Edur 1977.54, 565. 3. Hughes. C. L. Jr J. C h e m Edur 1972.'49,789.
Volume 72 Number 8 August 1995
721
4. Mohnp, J. R.: WubbelsG. G.J. Cham. Educ. 1984,61,507. 5. Bunnett, J.P J Chem. Educ. 1984.61,509. ~
,~
~~
~
~
~~
~~
. ~.-
7. Cipr8.B. Seimce 1991,254, 370. 8. (a1 Lagowski. J.J. J. Chem, Educ 1990, fi7, 721. lbl Tobias, S. Theyip Nol Dumh, Just Difkrenf; Research Corporation: Tueron, AZ. 1990. 9. Heylin, M. Cham. E n g Neus 1991,69 l201,29. 10. Heylin, M. Chem E n s Nrus 1992, 70 1201,30.
722
Journal of Chemical Education
11. Worthh W Chem. Eng Neur 1991,69 117).26. 12. Brush. S. G.Amrr.Sci 1991.79.404. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
N6wr 1991.69(151, 20. L ~ ~ ~L.~Chem : R En; . Chan, W-H.; Lee, W-M,A- J Chpm Educ 1991.68, 647. Scalzi. F V; Kovacic, P. J. Chem Educ 1973.50, 205. Parsons,M. L.:Bentlep G. E. J. C h m . E d k 1975.52,396 Snnrone. G. J. Ciiem. Edvc. 1917.54.566.
