LiberalArtsOnline, Volume 4, Number 6
July 2004
What can we say some 20 years after summer research opportunities for students in the sciences became a common practice on college campuses? At the Center of Inquiry we are impressed by the research that David Lopatto of Grinnell College has done on undergraduate research at several colleges. In this issue of LiberalArtsOnline, Anne Bost, Research Fellow at the Center of Inquiry, offers a summary and observations on Lopatto's research about students as scientific investigators at Grinnell, Hope, Wellesley, and Harvey Mudd colleges. There are important lessons here about the nature and benefit of a liberal arts learning community.
- Frederik Ohles, Editor
-----------------------------------
More Than a Stepping Stone to Graduate School: Undergraduate Research at
Liberal Arts Colleges
by Anne Bost
Research Fellow
Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts
Wabash College
Undergraduate research experiences in liberal arts colleges? It seems like a good idea, but is there really any evidence that students benefit, besides the ever-quoted "success" of these experiences in cloning the next generation of Ph.D.s? Is undergraduate research linked to the overall development of students, beyond what they learn about the subject matter of their research? And, if the answer is affirmative, how does the desired growth happen? In an attempt to answer these questions, David Lopatto (Professor of Psychology, Grinnell College) has studied students at four liberal arts colleges with renowned undergraduate research programs.
What warrants another study, given the many texts on the benefits of undergraduate research? The short answer is that the existing literature, though important, is stronger on its claims than its evidence. As Lopatto writes, "The preponderance of program descriptions, explication of models and evaluation efforts, rather than research studies in this field is, perhaps, not surprising. . . . There are, however, ironies in this situation, given their common goal of seeking to build research skills in undergraduates." (1) [See Endnote 1.] In addition, the literature reveals a tendency to judge the value of undergraduate research by institutional measures such as the percentage of undergraduate research students attending graduate school, rather than student's more developmental gains. Furthermore, the existing studies do not address sufficiently how research mentors help their students acquire thinking skills such as Carol Anne M. Kardash's "higher-order inquiry skills" (2) or Marcia Baxter Magolda's "contextual knowing" stage or Paul B. Baltes' "wisdom," to use terms from the broader literature of student development. "Just as there is a lack of research on the impact of undergraduate research," Lopatto adds, "there is a lack of well-grounded theory."(8)
To inform such a well-grounded theory of undergraduate research, Lopatto investigated the claims and benefits of undergraduate research in four exemplary programs at liberal arts colleges [See Endnote 2]. The chosen institutions--Grinnell College, Harvey Mudd College, Hope College, and Wellesley College--all have histories of supporting 10-week summer research apprenticeships, the most common form of undergraduate research, in which professors mentor students individually or in small groups. The undergraduate research offerings at these four colleges have similar mixes of disciplines. Each offers "three 'core' sciences--physics, chemistry, and biology--with two to four additional opportunities in the sciences, mathematics, engineering, and psychology."(1) The schools emphasize end-of-summer presentations by undergraduate researchers. They also finance trips by the students to present their work off campus, if appropriate.
To test drive a more inclusive means of measuring the effects of undergraduate research, and simultaneously to maximize the number of students in the study, Lopatto used a survey technique for his study [See Endnote 3]. Along with background information about the undergraduate researchers, the survey instrument asked students to rate and rank the importance of 45 possible benefits of the experience and to evaluate their satisfaction with their student/faculty research collaboration. Importantly, the survey probed both the structural and the more relational--or considerational, in psychological parlance--aspects of the students' experiences. (3, 7) A total of 249 students completed surveys about their undergraduate research, including "26 rising sophomores, 82 rising juniors, 128 rising seniors, and 13 others. The most frequently represented majors were chemistry and biology, followed by math, computer science and physics. The students included 150 women and 93 men." (7)
Lopatto found that students were largely positive about their undergraduate research experiences, especially in terms of gaining self-confidence. (4) [See Endnote 4.] Using a quantitative research method known as factor analysis, Lopatto identified ten clusters of undergraduate research student benefits:
1. Interaction and communication skills,
2. Data collection and interpretation skills,
3. Professional development [See Endnote 5],
4. Personal development [See Endnote 5],
5. Design and hypothesis skills,
6. Professional advancement,
7. Information literacy skills,
8. Responsibility,
9. Knowledge synthesis, and
10. Computer skills. (8)
The gains cited by student researchers as most important included "enhancing your professional or academic credentials," "clarification of a career path," "understanding the research process in your field," "learning a topic in depth," and--in keeping with the missions of many liberal arts colleges--"developing a continuing relationship with a faculty member." (7)
Of particular interest was the students' emphasis on personal and professional transitions, a theme not well represented or explored in the existing literature about undergraduate research. As Lopatto writes, "Seen through the student's eyes, the undergraduate research experience appears to be about professional and personal development. Elements of professional development, including enhancement of credentials, understanding professional behavior, understanding personal demands of a career, and understanding the research process . . . are related to satisfaction . . . and student engagement with the project. [So, too, are] elements of personal development, including leadership, sense of accomplishment, self-confidence, tolerance for obstacles and sense of contributing to a body of knowledge." (7)
Notably, even many of the students who chose not to pursue graduate studies in the field of their undergraduate research projects viewed the experience as beneficial--and not just as a resume builder. In fact, among such students, the decisions not to go to graduate school were not dependent on their overall satisfaction with undergraduate research. (9) Said one student who gave the highest satisfaction rating for the research experience, "Although I do not wish to pursue a career in research, I feel it is very important that I was able to gain experience in the field." (9) Another research student reflected, "While I certainly consider conducting research will help me in my future studies, it is the core methodological experience and not specifically the field in which I studied that I will benefit from." (9)
These findings lead Lopatto to caution against judging the merits of undergraduate research solely by the numbers of participants who eventually follow the academic paths of their Ph.D. mentors. While advances in scientific knowledge and interest clearly are benefits for many undergraduate research students, it is at least as important, and perhaps more important, to recognize and seek other gains. As Lopatto writes, "Some of these students may in fact be considered 'successes' although they do not continue in their research field." (9)
If the point of undergraduate research is truly grander than enabling students for graduate education, then how do the benefits cited by the Grinnell, Harvey Mudd, Hope, and Wellesley students link to the larger goals of a liberal arts education? More specifically, if one of the ultimate goals of liberal arts education is for students to become wise citizens (as we have proposed at the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts--See Endnote 6), how does undergraduate research contribute to that? Here Lopatto's reflections on the child development field may be relevant: "Children's current level of learning is not a true measure of their potential, rather, each child has a 'zone of proximal development,' a potential learning level beyond what they currently know. This zone can be estimated by giving a child problems to solve that are beyond her current level of accomplishment. . . . As with a child, an undergraduate's prior classroom learning may not be the true measure of their potential. College undergraduates may have a 'zone of proximal development' . . . that is, a potential to do more challenging work than they have done in the classroom if they can be shown how by an expert." (8)
The idea of a "zone of proximal development" for undergraduate researchers is especially interesting since Lopatto's survey data "suggest a developmental dimension of learning for which undergraduate research experiences may set the occasion." (8) This developmental dimension goes beyond the "skill learning, competency motivation, and expertise" described in *How People Learn*, a book discussed in Lopatto's NSF-ROLE grant proposal. (8, 10) Could it be that the mentor-student undergraduate research relationship fosters the deeper types of learning and development intended by liberal arts education?
To delve more intensely into how undergraduate research may enhance students' learning developmentally, Lopatto questioned whether a richer measure of ways of thinking/knowing--beyond what he terms "cold cognitive descriptions" (8)--might show positive changes resulting from students' summer experiences. Lopatto was aware that other researchers (11) had shown exactly this change, using Baxter Magolda's Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER, or in more accessible language, reflective judgment). [See Endnote 7.] Lopatto set out to observe the epistemological effects of undergraduate research by setting up his own epistemological development study of 42 students at the beginning and end of their 10-week summer experiences. The conclusion? "It seems that the undergraduate research experience ignited 'a bright period of maturation' (6) . . . The undergraduate researcher makes strong and measurable gains in 'how conviction is acquired' - how his or her own view matters in the commitment to beliefs." (8) [See Endnote 8.]
The conclusions from Lopatto's ROLE and epistemological development studies about the benefits of undergraduate research beg two obvious next questions. How do the benefits occur? Why do they occur? The search for answers is ongoing with additional analyses of the existing surveys as well as follow-up studies. [See Endnote 9.]
What is clear from the original studies is that students emphasize the transferability of their undergraduate gains. They "value mastering their field of expertise" as well as learning from mentors who are reliable, responsive, and available. (7) Students' satisfaction is also positively linked to "having some input into the project" and "working with peers." These results, in turn, relate to higher reported gains in collaboration and leadership abilities. (7) An early analysis of a follow-up survey, given in May 2002 to the students who had completed Lopatto's undergraduate research survey in the summer of 2001, indicated that students' views of the importance of the benefits that they obtained from the undergraduate research experience did not alter much over time. (5)
Altogether, Lopatto's research reveals a set of gains from undergraduate research that are richer than what often has been discussed. More than a mere stepping stone en route to graduate education, the findings point to the possibility of using undergraduate research as a way of helping students learn to think, to discover who they are, and to reflect on who they would like to become--professionally and personally.
Endnotes
1. Lopatto's Research on Learning and Education (ROLE) grant text may be read [HERE] 
Lopatto's research partner for the ROLE grant is Elaine Seymour (Director of Ethnography and Evaluation Research, Center to Advance Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder). A thorough report of her work is in press: Seymour, Elaine, Hunter, Anne-Barrie, Laursen, Sandra L., DeAntoni, Tracee. (2004). "Establishing the Benefits of Research Experiences for Undergraduates in the Sciences: First Findings from a Three-year Study." *Science Education*.
2. The study was supported by Lopatto's and Seymour's National Science Foundation ROLE grant.
3. Lopatto's quantitative approach was paralleled by Seymour's qualitative approach, described in the citation in endnote 1.
4. To his credit, Lopatto candidly recognizes the contributions and limitations of his work. He notes, "We knew at the outset of the survey procedure that the four sites for the survey had reputations for excellent science programs and overall undergraduate education. We also knew that the summer research undergraduates are selected by the faculty after formal or informal application. Therefore, to merely assert that the features of undergraduate research reported in the survey results are the key to successful experiences is specious. Instead, we take the attitude that we can learn something useful from exemplary programs." (7)
5. Lopatto's definition of professional development is "Understanding professional behavior in your discipline; understanding personal demands of a career in your discipline; understanding the research process in your field; understanding how professionals work on real problems." His definition of personal development is "Sense of accomplishment; tolerance for obstacles; self-confidence; interest in a discipline." ( 8)
6. We invite readers to review the Center of Inquiry's website at http://liberalarts.wabash.edu for more information on the Center of Inquiry's developing theory of liberal arts education and our ongoing studies testing the theory and the historical claims about benefits of liberal arts education.
7. For a summary of Baxter Magolda's theory, see Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). *Student Development in College* New York: John Wiley and Sons.
8. Lopatto notes that his epistemological development study did not have a control group. The study was intended to validate the idea of epistemological reflective growth, rather than to prove that students who participate in undergraduate research grow more than students who do not.
9. Lopatto will present additional work at a Howard Hughes Medical Institute conference on undergraduate research in October 2004, as well as at the Council of Undergraduate Research conference in June 2004.
References
1. Lopatto, D., & Seymour, E. "Pilot study to establish the nature and impact of effective undergraduate research experiences on learning, attitude, and career choice."
2. Kardash, C.M. (2000). "Evaluation of an Undergraduate Research
Experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors." *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 92(1): 191-201.
3. Kerr, S., & Schriesheim, C. (1974). "Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria--an update of Korman's 1966 review." *Personnel Psychology*, 27, 555-568
4. Lopatto, D. (2002) "Dropping the other shoe: correspondence between the qualitative and quantitative analyses of student reported benefits of undergraduate research experiences."
http://web.grinnell.edu/science/ROLE/
5. Lopatto, D. (2002) "Follow Up to the Summer 2001 ROLE Survey: Spring 2002."
http://web.grinnell.edu/science/ROLE/
6. Lopatto, D. (2002). "Report from the hallways of CUR 2002." *Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly*, 23 (Sept), 4-5.
7. Lopatto, D. (2002). "Short-term impact of the Undergraduate Research Experience: Results of the First Summer Survey 2001."
http://web.grinnell.edu/science/ROLE/
8. Lopatto, D. (2002). "What Undergraduate Research Can Tell Us About Research on Learning."
http://web.grinnell.edu/science/ROLE/
9. Lopatto, D. (2003) "This research experience helps me to understand that I do not wish to continue in this field." Presented at "Breakout Session A," Sept 6, 2003. Project Kaleidoscope Assembly: Motivating students to pursue careers in STEM fields.
10. NRC (1999). *How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School*. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
11. Rauckhorst, W.H., Czaja, J.A., & Baxter Magolda, M. (2001) "Measuring the impact of the undergraduate research experience on student intellectual development." Project Kaleidoscope Conference, Snowbird, Utah.
***********
Direct personal responses to Anne Bost at bosta@wabash.edu.
---------------------------------------
The comments published in LiberalArtsOnline reflect the opinions of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Center of Inquiry or Wabash College. Comments may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author(s), LiberalArtsOnline, and the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College.