RESEARCH IN THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM OF THE COURSE IN CHEMISTRY* G. B. L. SMITH.T m POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OP BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN, NEWY O R ~
Research by undergraduate students in chemistry i s adapting the university system of instruction to the college. This i s in keeping with trends in modern higher education, i s valuable to the student, the teacher, and the institution, and is practical. I n general, the attitude of thedirector toward the undergraduate student should be the same as lov~crdthe graduate student and the student should carry out a nery real piece of research under the careful and sympathetic direction of the professor. The professor in charge of undergraduate research should be a scientist with his own field of research and he should confine his problems to this field in order to accomplish something definite for science. The aim of research by undergraduates i s to gine the student a knowledge of the meaning of the term research, and inculcate in him the true "sciatific spirit."
. . . . . .
Industry is demanding more than ever chemists of the research type. This is shown by the fact that large numbers of men with doctorate training in chemistry are absorbed by the industries each year and men with graduate training can find employment more readily than men who have not had this experience. One of the important functions, if not indeed the only function, of a college or professional course in chemistry, is to train persons for leadership in the profession. It is not sufficient that these persons should be trained only in the technic of chemistry and have a fairly wide knowledge of the facts and theories of thssubject, but they should have in addition to these qualifications the ability to think independently and to use their knowledge and technic in a constructive way. The taking of courses and passing of examinations even with high distinction should not he sufficientfor a man to qualify for the title of "chemist." Institutions of higher learning are continually undergoing changes in policy and method. Professional schools of chemistry, and we may include in this discussion departments of chemistry of liberal arts colleges, since many of their graduates go either directly into the industries or into the industries after further study in the universities, in considering policies or changes in policy must be guided to a certain extent by the requirements and needs of their clients. These clients are in the main the industries which employ their graduates. Industry, however, is interested only in the finished product and is not particularly interested in the method by which that product, the graduate chemist, has been trained but a primary interest of the "educator-chemist" is in the method. In the past, two very different types or systems of instruction have characterized teaching in our schools of college rank. The system of assign-
* Presented before the Division of Chemical Education of the A C S at the Buffalo meeting, August 31-September 4, 1931. 286
286
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
F ~ s n u ~ n 1932 u,
ments and recitations common in secondary schools has been used extensively in American colleges. This is probably necessary in part during the first two years but the tendency has gone farther so that the high-school method and attitude is carried to the work for advanced degrees. A certain number of courses (credits) are required for the master's and doctor's degrees. The other system is common in the foreign (particularly the German) universities and has been transplanted here by our college professors, many of whom have received their advanced training in these institutions. So far as chemistry is concerned, there are three methods which characterize the German system; formal lectures, laboratory practice, and original investigation. A very determined effort is being made by our colleges today to replace the traditional German university lecture method with individual or personal instruction, but in a field such as chemistry where the imparting of a considerable body of information is essential, the lecture method of instruction has so many obvious advantages that doubtless it will never be completely replaced. It must be remembered in this connection that individual instruction in the laboratory has had an important place in the training of the chemist since the days of Justus von Liebig. One of the most encouraging and important trends in higher education today is that of bringing the true university system of instruction into the college and professional school. We can cite a great many instances of this, but a few will answer our purpose here: The Johns Hopkins University is admitting students to university work a&the end of their second year of college; the senior college is sharply defined from the junior college in a number of state universities; President Hutchins has eliminated the fouryear residence requirement for the bachelor's degree a t the University of Chicago; "reading for honors" is encouraged in many colleges, and, in a few, only "honors" students are allowed to remain beyondthesecond year. The Wisconsin Experimental College, college and engineering cooperative courses, and orientation courses for freshmen probably belong in this picture. Formerly many colleges required a thesis to be submitted as part of the requirement for graduation. Some still retain this requirement and others have included in their curricula of chemistry a course in "senior research." Some college departments of chemistry make research part of the work of "honors" students. It is evident that this is one way of bringing an important phase of the university system of instruction into the college. The direction of "undergraduate research" is therefore an important and timely topic for discussion among "educator-chemists." There is indeed a great deal of "so-called research being done by undergraduates in our colleges, and it is the opinion of the author of this paper that much of this "undergraduate research" is carried on in a manner which
VOL.!I. NO.2 RESICARCH I N ITNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM
287
is not most advantageous to the school, to the professor directing tlie research, or lastly and by far most important to the student himself. Many eminent educators consider that the undergraduate thesis is the most effective medium through which to administer undergraduate research and the author believes this to be true in the field of chemistry. The thesis in any undergraduate curriculum offers the student the opportunity of bringing together and focusing all the things which he has learned and all the experience which he has gained in the solution of a definite problem. From this work he will develop experience in technic and resourcefulness which is difficult to acquire in any other manner. The student may desire to continue studies in the university and the thesis is the best possible preparation for this advanced work.* The purpose of undergraduate research is often expressed as follows: to train the student in "methods of research." What are methods of research? Are there indeed any methods whichare distinct and characteristic of research? The real purpose of "undergraduate research" or of "graduate research" is to give the student an appreciation and knowledge of what the scientist means by that much-abused term "research." We may truly learn only through personal experience and, granting this axiom, the only way for a student to learn what research is, is to do a piece of research himself. Two very different methods of conducting undergraduate research are quite common. In the first, the undergraduate student is used as a mere assistant or technician in the research laboratpry. He may be assigned various "pot-boiling" tasks which are not important enough for the older and more experienced men to do, or he may be required to prepare materials which the older men desire to use in their own research. In the second, the poor undergraduate is assigned to a very difficultproblem, or to a very indefinite problem where there is little probability of his succeeding. This problem is not assigned to a candidate for an advanced degree because of the relatively slight chance of getting results which would be acceptable for the thesis for the doctor's or even the master's degree. You see the beginner is asked to investigate a problem which is considered to be beyond the abilities of more advanced and experienced workers. He is used to find "leads." The best that he can hope for if successful is to see his problem taken over by an older man who will work out the details and ultimately get all the credit. Neither of these methods is of much value in teaching the student the meaning of research. The lirst is not research a t all, even though the work may be of value to the laboratory and valuable experience for the
* This paragraph was included at the suggestion of Professor Harry Parker Hammond, director of the S . P. E. E. summer school for engineering teachers, and head of the department of civil engineering at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn.
288
-
I
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
FEBRUARY, 1932
student, but it is valuable experience in the same sense that all his laboratory courses have been valuable. The second is a most pernicious one because the student is asked to do the almost impossible and is apt to lose all interest in research and most of his confidence in his own ability. The professor in charge of the undergraduates' research should have in his own mind a clear conception of what research is. Undergraduates who are starting research for the first time should be placed under professors who are strong research men and whenever possible men who are just beginning to direct the research of others should start with graduate and not undergraduate students. Research may be defined in its broadest sense as adding to the sum-total of knowledge. "Research is finding out something, adding something to the known," says Professor E. E. Reid. "True research must be intentional," declared the late Doctor William H. Nichols. There must indeed be a wellorganized plan for research and it should be remembered that the rediscovery of a fact already known and recorded is not research even though the student did not himself have previous knowledge of the fact. The research workers, student and director, should always have these ideas in mind. They should also remember that work recorded in notebooks or files only is not completed research. Completed research is only that work which is recorded where it becomes available to all workers in that field of knowledge (i. e., published). Therefore, if the student is to learn the meaning of the term research from personal experience gained in his undergraduate work, it follows that this undergraduate research must be true research in the strictest sense. I t may and should meet the qualification given above but the director of undergraduate research must have a correct and sympathetic attitude toward his undergraduate research students. He should look upon these students as fellow-workers, as men who have imagination and intellectual personality and he should use all means possible to make them know that he looks upon his relationship with them as one of mutual aid. It is indee3 seldom necessary for the undergraduate to be merely another pair of hands for the director but quite on the contrary the director should welcome and encourage the student to make suggestions and to criticize any suggestions which the director may make. In short the student should be in fact a coworker, not merely manually but intellectually as well. We come now to a consideration of the problem for the undergraduate's research. I do not mean to imply by anything which has been said that the student should be thrust into the laboratory and library and told to go ahead and do some research. On the contrary he should be assigned a very definite problem after baving been given a reasonable amount of latitude in the matter of selecting a suitable topic. I t is my firm conviction that the student himself should choose the professor under whom and the field in
VOL.9,No. 2 RESEARCH IN UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM
289
which he is to work, but of course this a t times may cause rather serious difficultiesin administration. It is seldom if ever advisable for the student to suggest his own problem for he does not have a proper sense of his own capabilities and the difficulties of problems tosuggest wisely. Then, too, it is essential that the director shall be familiar with the general field of the problem and particularly interested in it. The problem should therefore be chosen from a number suggested by the director from the general field of his interest. When the problem is once assigned the student should feel that it is his own in a peculiar way and, that he has assumed responsibilities when he elects to work on the problem. The director should make the student feel when he is starting to do research that he is being admitted to a great fraternity of scientific workers, and what he does will have a definite . relationship to work accomplished and work projected. It follows logically from the above that the director of undergraduate research should be a scientist who has his own special field of research. The work of the several students under a single director should be closely correlated and the student should be made to feel that he is entering into a partnership not only with his professor but also with his fellow students. In this way there may be developed a companionship between professor and student and among students which will develop and foster the trne "scientific spirit." Students should be free to discuss their problems and findings a t all times with their director and immediate fellow workers and also with any one else from whom they may obtain advice and help or who may pos* sibly be interested. As has been indicated, the director of undergraduate research must be intensely interested in the problems upon which his students are working, and he must be willing to give unstintedly of his time and energy to aid in their solution. He cannot be efficient if he has a number of students working on totally unrelated topics, and I do not think it is possible for him to confine his interest to too narrow a field, for after all "there is nothing so broad as a narrow specialty." In regard to choice of subjects suitable for undergraduate research, i t is difficult and probably futile to make any definite suggestions. The teaching activities, previous experience, consulting practice (if any), and general interests of the professor largely will govern this choice of field for research. He cannot however hope to make any progress scientifically if he selects small and entirely suitable problems here and there. In the course of a few years he has accumulated merely a "hodgepodge" of isolated data, most of which are so incomplete as to be almost valueless. Professor Reid in his "Introduction to Organic Research gives some general suggestion in regard to research topics and others may be found in various recent articles, but it is as diicult to tell another man what field he should choose for investigation as to tell him what person he should choose for a life
200
JOURNAL OP CHEMICAL EDIJCATION
FEBRUARY. 1932
companion. This is entirely a personal matter. In truth the dificnlty is not in finding problems that yon would like to investigate. The real difficulty is to decide which you want most to investigate among all those which present themselves to you and then to keep a t work intensively on these problems. When a field for research has been chosen, considerable care is necessary in blocking out problems whose solution will contribute to the knowledge of the field. All research workers know that they are invariably too ambitious in what they hope and expect to accomplish. As they are dealing with undergraduates here, they must be modest, but they always should be certain when they assign a problem that they do have definite and tangible aims, and that these have a place in their larger program. Most of the observations which the author has made apply to graduate research as well as to undergraduate research in chemistry. They are stated here, however, to bring out the fact that there is no essential difference between the research of graduate and undergraduate students. These observations are based upon six years' work in directing undergraduate research in one laboratory and almost entirely in one field of chemistry. The author also has had some opportunity to observe undergraduate research in two other institutions. The professor directing undergraduate research students should have the same attitude toward them as he does toward graduate students. Remember that in having undergraduates do research we are bringing the university method into the college. Thp professor will be obliged to give more time and attention to his undergraduates just as he must give more attention to graduate students beginning research for the first time, and from the standpoint of the student this is essential. The scientificresults produced by undergraduate students may be somewhat limited, but they should not and need not be inconsequential. The college professor having only undergraduates to work with him should be able to carry forward a definite and constructive research program. He is most certainly "falling down on the job" if from time to time work is not completed under his direction which is worthy of publication. Teachers who direct the research of undergraduates should take their students and their research problems seriously. The purpose in directing undergraduate research may be stated as follows: (1) to accomplish something valuable from the scientific point of view, (2) to make an institution known because it contributes to a particular field of chemistry, and, most important, (3) to develop in the minds of undergraduate students the meaning of "research," to give them a love and appreciation of science, and to cultivate in them the "scientific sdrit."
