In the Classroom
Learning Chemistry Research outside the Laboratory: Novel Graduate and Undergraduate Courses in Research Methodology
W
Steven M. Schildcrout Department of Chemistry, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555-3663;
[email protected] Traditionally, research in chemistry is learned as a discovery experience with little formal structure. The student chooses a research advisor and problem from those offered. Typically the student learns the lab techniques via mentoring by the advisor or research group members, collects data, attempts to make sense of the data, searches the literature, and finally writes the report or thesis. The student is expected to learn by doing. The discovery method has been successful in the upper-level undergraduate and graduate laboratory, and aspects of it are now modifying traditional lower-level undergraduate classroom learning (1, 2). This method of learning research, however, has its difficulties. Students may get off to a slow start if they have no basis for choosing a research advisor or a research problem. They may not understand the goal of their research until they write it up. If the students do not understand the research goal early in their work, the work is less focused, less efficient, and less interesting to the student. Consequently, undergraduates will get less done in the allotted time, and graduate students will take longer to complete the thesis, both lab work and writing. Writing may be difficult if the students’ previous experience in technical writing is limited to reports for lab-course experiments (3). The research advisor may not have the time or the inclination to effectively address these problems. At Youngstown State University (YSU) we have encountered these problems and are addressing them with courses in research methodology that integrate the classroom experience with that of the research lab. There are few reports in the literature on the use of research courses for undergraduates (4, 5). Very recently a research course for Ph.D. students was reported (6). To ascertain the availability of research-methodology courses, Web sites (including online catalogs) were surveyed for a sampling of 28 public and private colleges and universities in Ohio offering at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry. Eight of these institutions offer the Ph.D. and three offer the M.S. as the highest chemistry degree, but none of these graduate programs (other than YSU’s) has such a course. Other than YSU, only two (7, 8) of the 28 institutions appear to have comparable undergraduate courses. More common are courses primarily focused on chemical information or chemical literature. None of these courses reported in the literature or found in the survey appears to integrate classroom learning with the students’ individual research projects, as ours does. The purpose of this report is to describe YSU’s graduate and undergraduate courses in research methodology and our experience with them. We offer the courses as models that others may consider for improving their students’ research experiences. 1340
Research Courses at Youngstown State University YSU is an open-admission, state-assisted, comprehensive university enrolling students primarily from our region. In chemistry, YSU offers a B.A., an ACS-certified B.S., and a M.S. degree. The B.S. degree requires research and the M.S. degree requires a thesis. Nearly all of our 16 faculty are active in research with students in all branches of chemistry. The research-methodology courses are structured with class meetings and graded assignments. Students enroll in these courses before or as they begin their lab-research work. The course instructor and the student’s research advisor have distinct roles as they interact with the student. Besides the obvious role in the course, the instructor can serve as facilitator in keeping the student on schedule as the student begins working with the advisor, and as mediator if problems arise between student and advisor.
The Graduate Course The graduate research-methodology course is a two-semester sequence (9). The graduate students are required to complete the sequence in their first year. The course outline is shown in Table 1. The author has taught the course for the past five years. The organizational focus for the course is provided by a required textbook (10), written for graduate students planning research in any academic discipline. We use this broad perspective to help students recognize both those aspects of research in chemistry that are common to and those that distinguish chemistry from the other fields. The instructor introduces or elicits from the students examples of how the material compares to or contrasts with the practice of chemistry research. Thus the students gain both an outsider’s and an insider’s perspective into chemistry research. The ACS Style Guide (11) is also required for the course. This source provides chemistry-specific information complementing the main text; students are referred especially to Chapters 1, 3–9 (writing in chemistry), 12 (oral presentations), and Appendix III (ethics of publication). Among the topics covered in the course are a definition of research, and criteria for deciding what is or is not research. Students should realize that research needs to begin with both a problem or question and a goal. The problem is divided into subproblems. Hypotheses must be formulated, and data acquired and organized. The data are interpreted, the hypotheses are tested, the original problem is resolved, and new (or reformulated) problems emerge for further study. Students are expected to apply these criteria in their critiques of journal articles and theses, as well as in their own proposed research.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 11 November 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
Table 1. Graduate Course Outline Topica
Assignment First Semester: 3 Semester Hours
Introduction and discussion of syllabus
---------------
Research vs. pseudoresearch (Chapt. 1)
---------------
The tools of researchb (Chapt. 2)
---------------
Keeping research records
Identify area of research interest
Library sessionc
---------------
Stating the research problem (Chapt. 3)
Choose research advisor
Technical vs. nontechnical writing
---------------
The literature review (Chapt. 4, two sessions)
Choose journal article for reviewd
The research design (Chapt. 5)
---------------
Professional and research ethicse
Written review of journal article Abstract for oral review of journal articlef
The research proposal (Chapt. 6, two sessions) g
Oral presentations by students (three sessions)
Oral review of journal articleg
Experimental designs (Chapt. 10, two sessions)
Choose thesis for reviewh
Statistics in quantitative research (Chapt. 11)
----------------
The research report (Chapt. 12)
Written review of thesis
Science research and the publici
Written examination (take-home)
(End classroom sessions. Begin individual consultations as needed.)
Statement of thesis research problemj
---------------
Outline of literature review for thesisj,k
---------------
Literature review for thesisj Second Semester: 1 Semester Hour
---------------
Outline of research proposalj
---------------
Written research proposalj,l
---------------
Oral research proposalm
a. One 75-minute class session each unless otherwise indicated. These topics run for approximately 11 weeks. Thereafter, students consult individually with the instructor on their assignments. Chapter numbers refer to the Leedy and Ormrod textbook (10). b. These tools include library, computers, and software; measurements, logic, and language. c. At the library, the reference librarian demonstrates online resources: electronic journals center, SciFinder Scholar (12,13), and Science Citation Index (14). d. In consultation with research advisor. Article should be relevant to student’s intended research but not authored by advisor or instructor so student can freely criticize. e. Includes case studies and ACS Academic Professional Guidelines (15), which treats the mutual ethical responsibilities of the research student and the faculty. f. Each student submits a 150-word abstract electronically. Instructor assembles the abstracts into a program and distributes them to the class before the presentations. g. Students use PowerPoint for 10–15-minute presentations to the class. Allowing time for questions and discussion, three students can present in each session. h. In consultation with research advisor. Best if written by a former student of the research advisor. i. Discussion on issues such as science illiteracy, funding of research, how researchers justify their work to granting agencies and the public, and research vs. technology. j. Research advisor should review and approve the statement, with student rewrite as needed, before submission to instructor. k. With reference list. l. A copy of the approved proposal is kept on file in the department office. In the future we will require that the proposal be approved by the student’s thesis committee, which will be constituted by this time and will continue to oversee the thesis work through its completion. m. A 15-minute departmental seminar.
The literature review and the written proposal, with possible modification, can be incorporated later into the student’s thesis. It is important that these assignments be prepared at this early stage of the research so they can serve as guides for the work yet to be done. The written proposal is a contract between advisor and student, and a copy signed by both is filed in our department office.
Assessment Since the research-methodology course was instituted, colleagues have commented that their research students are getting off to a better start, thesis writing has gone more smoothly, and the quality of theses and seminars is better. The course has been evaluated twice by the students (combined, N = 16). The evaluations showed 100% agreement
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 11 November 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
1341
In the Classroom
with the following statements describing the course: “helped me improve my communication skills”; “provided opportunities for problem solving, critical thinking, decision making”; and “provided opportunities to apply materials and information learned in this course”. Nearly all evaluators agreed that the course “increased my understanding of the subject matter”, “provided experience with new/improved technical skills specific to the subject matter”, “improved my abilities to access information beyond the textbook(s)”, and “included activities with variety of methods/approaches designed to clarify material”. Narrative responses on these surveys indicated that students perceived a strength of the course to be the preparation it gave them for research and thesis writing. The students like knowing what to expect and feeling prepared for it. A follow-up survey by the author was done as a group of students (N = 6) was nearing completion of their M.S. work, a year after taking the course. For each aspect of the course, the students were asked whether or not they agreed that it was “helpful for my research or thesis.” At least five of the six students thought the thesis review, literature review, research proposal, The ACS Style Guide, and class sessions were helpful. Opinions on the textbook and the journal article reviews (both written and oral) were nearly evenly divided. The survey showed good agreement that the literature review and the research proposal were the two “most valuable” aspects of the course, likely due to their direct relevance to the students’ thesis writing.
The Undergraduate Course Our positive experience with the graduate research-methodology course prompted us to create a one semester-hour undergraduate adaptation (16). This is a capstone course required for both B.A. and B.S. chemistry majors. It is prerequisite to or concurrent with undergraduate laboratory research. Quantitative analysis or a semester of organic chemistry must be completed before taking the research-methodology course. The format is one hour of lecture–discussion weekly for a semester, or an accelerated version (two hours daily for one week and one hour daily for a second week) for participants in our summer research program. There is no required textbook; the instructor provides the students with notes and other handouts on topics similar to those of the graduate course. The material is not treated as deeply or as comprehensively as the graduate course because of the students’ experience level and time constraints. The students are graded on written and oral assignments similar to those for the graduate course, however the undergraduate students do not present an oral review of a journal article, write a literature review, or take an exam. They are required to submit brief, written summaries and critiques of the weekly departmental seminars. This exercise has the added benefit of improving seminar attendance (we dispense with the requirement for the accelerated course and for students with unavoidable schedule conflicts). For B.A. students not doing laboratory research, the research proposal is replaced by a written and oral review of a research topic. Assessment During summer 2001, ten upper-level, highly-motivated undergraduate students from various colleges and universi1342
ties participated in a 12-week research program in our department. They took the research course in the first two weeks and were surveyed near the end of the summer. Eight students returned surveys, which were similar to the follow-up surveys described for the graduate course. For each aspect of the course, the students were asked whether they agreed that it “enhanced my research experience.” As with the graduate course, the strongest agreement was on the oral and written research proposals and the thesis review. Again, opinions on the journal article review and classroom sessions were more evenly divided. Only one of the eight students agreed that “The course took time that I would rather have spent in other research activities.” Conclusions Undergraduate institutions are incorporating the discovery approach of traditional research into lower-level chemistry coursework to allow students more creativity as well as structure. We believe our experience with the researchmethodology courses described here shows the advantages of, conversely, incorporating a traditional coursework approach into graduate and upper-level undergraduate research, giving students a structure to enhance creativity. Our students recognize the value of this novel integration of coursework with their individual research, especially in the preparation of the research proposal. The students benefit from a better understanding of, and thus confidence in, their laboratory work, an appreciation of its significance, better relationships with their research advisors and coworkers, more timely initiation and completion of their work, and better written and oral communication skills. For a future professional researcher as for any future contributing member of society, learning specialized laboratory skills is not nearly as important as learning to think critically and creatively. This thinking, however, is most effective when it is structured, and it is the essence of research. W
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article (abstract, course syllabi, and project guidelines) is available in this issue of JCE Online. Acknowledgments I thank my colleagues James H. Mike for his work in originating and first teaching the graduate course and Stacey Lowery Bretz for her helpful comments on the manuscript. The support of the National Science Foundation (Award #0097682) for the undergraduate summer research program is appreciated. I also thank the students, whose experiences and feedback helped us improve the courses. Literature Cited 1. Ditzler, M. A.; Ricci, R. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 685–688. 2. Anthony, S.; Mernitz, H.; Spencer, B.; Gutwill, J.; Kegley, S.; Molinaro, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 322–324. 3. For recent considerations of writing in the upper-division chemistry curriculum, see: (a) Paulson, D. R. J. Chem. Educ.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 11 November 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9. 10.
2001, 78, 1047–1049. (b) Bressette, A. R.; Breton, G. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1626–1627. Krakower, E. J. Chem. Educ. 1969, 46, 395. Williams, E. T.; Bramwell, F. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 565–567. Mabrouk, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1628–1631. Ohio Northern Univ., Chem. 300. http://www.onu.edu/banner/catalog/C.htm#CHEM000 (accessed July 2002). Wittenberg University, Chem. 300, 400. http:// www5.wittenberg.edu/academics/chem/courses.shtml (accessed July 2002). Youngstown State Univ., Chem. 6980, 6981. http:// www.as.ysu.edu/~chem/gradcourses.html (accessed July 2002). Leedy, P. D.; Ormrod, J. E. Practical Research: Planning and Design, 7th ed.; Merrill Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001.
11. The ACS Style Guide, 2nd ed.; Dodd, J. S., Ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997. 12. Chemical Abstracts Service. SciFinder Scholar, http:// www.cas.org/SCIFINDER/SCHOLAR/index.html (accessed July 2002. 13. For a course based on this, see Ridley, D. D. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 557–558. 14. Institute for Scientific Information, Web of Science. http:// www.isinet.com/isi/products/citation/sci/index.html (accessed July 2002). 15. ACS Academic Professional Guidelines, 3rd ed.; American Chemical Society, Department of Career Services: Washington, DC, 2001. 16. Youngstown State Univ., Chem. 4850. http://www.as.ysu.edu/ ~chem/courses.html (accessed July 2002).
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 11 November 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
1343
