Post on 01-Apr-2018
Strategies for Advising
Undergraduate Research
Faith Agostinone-Wilson, Joan Fee,
Christina Bruhn, Meredith Harvey, Christopher Wells
Overview
AU/GWC faculty group book project
Lack of handbooks for faculty and advisors who supervise undergraduates conducting research
Concept of book: ◦ Provide background information about
demographics and characteristics of undergraduates
◦ Present strategies for engagement with writing for research purposes
◦ Discuss different contexts of undergraduate research with real-world examples
Background
Undergraduate students represent some of the most diverse demographic characteristics contained within one group
According to Kazis, et.al (2007), the definition of “non-traditional student” cannot be determined by age alone and includes the following risk characteristics in any combination: not financially dependent on parents, having children or other dependents, being a single parent, not possessing a high school diploma, attending school part time, working full time, and delaying postsecondary enrollment after one year of graduating from high school
Only 27% of undergraduates have none of these characteristics and can be considered “traditional students”
Median age is rising to 29 (Hersch & Merrow, 2005)
Key Contexts Political
◦ Privatization
◦ Adjunctification of faculty
◦ Corporate-funded research
◦ Diversity and backlash
◦ Liberals Arts and foundations decline
◦ Ascent of Utilitarianism
Economic
◦ Reduction in state sources of funding
◦ Subsequent tuition hikes
◦ Changes in financial aid policies
◦ Realities of working adults
Social/Academic
◦ Degree persistence
◦ Transfer and articulation agreements
◦ Campus climate/The commuter student
◦ Pedagogical considerations
Implications for Research
Research projects need to be designed to tap into the life
experiences of the non-traditional undergraduate student
while providing writing and library database search skills
guidance for those who have been away from formal
education for a while
Likewise, the 18-22 year old undergraduate fresh out of high
school may have to have assistance with thematic analysis
and making deeper connections with the data
Students need to learn the importance of research ethics
and the role of the Institutional Review Board. The very
process of submitting proposals for review often increases
the quality of student writing
Implications for Research
Because of the budgetary constraints facing postsecondary institutions, faculty should expect to do a hefty amount of do-it-yourself (DIY) curriculum planning for research experiences, not relying as much on external resources, funding field trips, securing for-a-fee guest speakers, etc.
That means possibly collaborating with faculty from other departments to increase the power of a research project across interdisciplinary lines
These partnerships should be flexible enough to accommodate the working schedules of adult students and partners should be open to a diverse range of undergraduates
Implications for Research
Undergraduate students may not be as responsive at first to more creative, independent, open-ended types of learning, such as are involved with research projects or more often seen in the graduate classroom
Scaffolding of experiences from more heavily monitored/direct instruction about elements of research to guided practice, to independent work is effective for both younger and older undergraduates
Constant and informative feedback while in class is also essential because designing and conducting research is not an experience most undergraduates have had before
Narrative Inquiry/Research
Qualitative Research
Either a
Phenomenon being studied (e.g., narrative of
a college biology class)
Or
Method of conducting research (collecting
and analyzing individual life stories
(Creswell, 2013)
Here we discuss the method.
Definition
“Narrative is understood as a spoken or written text giving an account of an event/action or series of events/actions, chronologically connected” (Czarniawska, 2004, p. 17)
“Stories told in the first person about particular events by the narrator who experience it him/herself” (Labov as cited in Trahar, 2011, p. 23)
For Undergraduates Begin with Writing own Event (500 words) to Share with a Partner
Then Practice
Learning Research Ethics
Developing Questions
Deep Listening
Interviewing/Recording/Transcribing
Taking Field Notes
Reflecting and Analyzing
Engaging with Complexity
Writing
Possible Topics & Analysis Foci
Career-Related Topics
Internship/Apprentice-ship/Mentorship Stories
Best/Worst Day on the Job
Job Success Stories
Challenging Job-Related Situations
Stories of a Job-Related Project
Teamwork/Collegial Stories
Analysis Dimensions
Time (Past, Present, Future)
Interaction (Personal and Social)
Place (Physical Boundaries)
(Clandinin and Connelly, 2000)
Measuring the Impact of Service Learning
Projects
Many undergraduate courses now incorporate a service learning project that is intended to have a social, environmental, or economic impact
A review of the literature shows that students are often asked to write about what they did (tasks) for learning assessment, but not about what they accomplished through the project
Writing about project impacts helps students appreciate the need for their service
Finding appropriate measures of impact is essential (Bornstein & Davis, 2010; Vasan & Przybylo, 2013)
Social – Ice Age Trail
Measures of impact
◦ Number of hikers
◦ Health and wellness
benefits accrued by
hikers
◦ Reduced impact on
other natural land
◦ Works of art inspired
by time spent hiking in
nature
Environmental – Marine Debris
Measures of impact
◦ Amount and type of
debris collected
◦ Number and types of
wildlife that benefit from
a cleaner environment
◦ Number of boaters and
swimmers who benefit
from fewer accidents
caused by debris
Economic – Art Gallery
Measures of impact
◦ Number of artists
whose work has sold
◦ Revenue generated
through art sales
◦ Revenue brought to
neighboring businesses
by having the gallery in
the neighborhood
Primary Research with First Year
Undergrads: Goals & Strategy Explicit Goal: To teach students about
research writing as a mode, through
modeling.
Strategies: Progressive writing
assignments & Flipped classroom model
Research: Pre-Writing & Literature
Review Database Usage
Primary research articles & Journal Club
Topics Selection: Bruce Ballenger’s Curious
Researcher
Journal Club=> Annotated Bibliography
Annotated Bibliography => Literature
Review
Ethics, Proposals & Research
Discuss Research Questions
◦ Bruce Ballenger’s Curious Researcher
◦ How they could find the answer (mode)
Ethics
◦ Henrietta Lacks
◦ IRB=>Research Proposal
Research
◦ Instructor Facilitated
◦ Data Collection
Student Results & Analysis
Results
◦ Oral Presentation (Informal)=>Results
◦ SPSS, graphics, and when to put results &
discussion together
Analysis
◦ Discuss significance of findings
◦ Ask about problems (forms limitations)
◦ Ask about what they learned and what they could
learn with more time/money/access? (forms
future studies)
Student Feedback
“I do think that breaking this final paper in to different
assignments helped keep the paper organized and made it
easier to understand the topic we are writing about. Also it
made it easier to put together.”
“I think the time working and breaking up the steps on the
paper in class did help me complete the tasks effectively
because I got to do the paper in steps and not all at once…
And I got to specifically focus on each step making sure I did
each step right.”
“I was able to take as much time as I wanted to write the
different assignments and i felt in no way pressed for time.
Overall, I'd say that is probably the best way to do a large
assignment like that.”
Why bother with this topic?
◦ No systematic reviews have been published
◦ A book has been published, but it does not address the evidence base
◦ Many studies have been done, yet their research designs tend to be weak (very weak), and the evidence has not yet been aggregated
So, what’s the problem?
◦ Students don’t understand why they need to do research (Shannon, Kim, & Robinson, 2012)
◦ Students are likely to perceive research courses as anxiety-producing (Green, Bretzin, Leininger, & Stauffer, 2001; Howard et al., 2003; Kelly & Bronstein, 2003)
Problems, cont.
◦ Students have “unfavorable attitudes” (Macheski et al., 2008) that may become more unfavorable after taking a class (Manning et al., 2006; Sizemore & Lewandowski, 2009) (from Sociology); of note, however, is conflicting research suggesting considerable variation in students’ attitudes toward research (Secret, Ford, & Rompf, 2003).
◦ Students do not feel prepared to engage in post-graduate work and would rather focus on practice than research (Lemieux & Allen, 2007)
What’s the result? ◦ Students do not retain the research class material
(Witkin, Edleson, & Lindsey, 1980)
◦ Students do not value the importance of scientific evidence as related to their practice (Bolen, 2005) and do not have the skills to apply research findings (Howard, McMillen, & Pollio, 2003; Rubin & Parrish, 2007)
◦ Candidates don’t know how to find or access research literature (Brown et al., 2003)
◦ Students do not use research material once they graduate and enter the professional world – “Practitioners and students… rely on their personal strategies and common sense” (Parker, 2004). Practitioners may think that research is academic and not a pursuit that takes place in the working world (Anderson, 2002)
What are institutional barriers to effective teaching of research?
◦ The content can be difficult to cover in a semester, and the curriculum may not afford a two-semester course (Shannon, Kim, & Robinson, 2012)
◦ Lack of emphasis of research within the curriculum has the effect of limiting academics’ confidence to teach research, thus reducing the future pool of researchers (Orme & Powell, 2007)
◦ Demanding academic schedules may preclude research activity on the part of academics. Absence of active research involvement may impede their ability to incorporate research content in classroom teaching and discussions (Orme & Powell, 2007)
What doesn’t work in teaching of research? ◦ “A significant amount of research teaching was non-
experiential and in traditional formats such as didactic teaching. This is in contrast with the literature on research teaching that highlights the use of experiential learning” (MacIntyre & Paul, 2013)
◦ Andragogy (adult learning strategies) emphasizing presentation by problem rather than by subject and discussion over lecture did not produce better outcomes with regard to knowledge and research appreciation (Nasuti, York, & Henley, 2003)
◦ Team-based Learning was not more effective than traditional pedagogies in increasing student intent to incorporate research into practice (Macke & Tapp, 2012)
What has been claimed as effective? ◦ Active learning using a variety of approaches
Involve students in faculty research (Berger, 2002)
What does work, cont.
◦ Active learning, cont. Conduct secondary analyses of existing data sets (Wells, 2006)
Conduct research in the field/practicum setting (Moore & Avant, 2008)
Teach research and practice in the same course (Berger, 2002)
Evaluate evidence base for an intervention of interest (Auslander, 2012)
Review specific articles in small group settings (Holmes, 2008)
◦ Problem Based Learning (Inquiry Based Learning) IBL was associated with slightly lower knowledge gains but more
retention of knowledge (Dochy et al., 2003)
◦ Service Learning Conducting research in community-based settings to provide benefit
to local social service agencies – challenges skepticism about the utility of research (Shannon, Kim, & Robinson, 2012; Williams & Reeves, 2004)
Historical Context
Nuremburg Code (1949)
Tuskegee syphilis study (1932-72)
Helsinki Declaration (1975)
Belmont Report (1978)
Why “Ethics First”?
Where do students develop ethics?
Where do teachers teach ethics?
Examples from the real world of students
◦ Counterfeit Coke machine $
◦ The Potato Chip Study
◦ Social groups in school
IRB (It’s Not Just Another Hoop)
Guidelines provided by FDA
Required of any institution receiving
federal research funds
Rationale for IRB
Composition of IRB
Conversation Starters
Stanley Milgram's shock box
Stanford prison experiment
Stem cell research in the US and Europe
Conclusion
Feedback? Questions?
fwilson@aurora.edu
If you are interested in writing a chapter
for our book project, let us know!
References Anderson, S.G. (2002). Engaging students in community-based research:
A model for teaching social work research. Journal of Community
Practice, 10(2), 71-87.
Auslander, W., Fisher, C., Ollie, M., & Yu, M. (2012). Teaching master’s and
doctoral social work students to systematically evaluate evidence-
based interventions. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32, 320-341. Doi:
10.1080/08841233.2012.707170.
Berger, R. (2002). Teaching research in practice courses. Social Work
Education, 21(3), 347-358. Doi: 10.1080/02615470220136911
Bolen, R. (2005). Utilizing web based databases to introduce social
work content on statistics courses. Social Work Education, 25(1), 17-27.
Doi: 10.1080/02615470500477805
Bornstein, D., & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: What everyone needs
to know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
References
Brown, K., Rutter, L., & Young, N. (2003). Students need study skills. Community Care, 1461, 42-44.
Clandinin, D. , & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Vann den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instructions, 13(5), 533-568. Doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
References Green, R. G., Bretzin, A., Leininger, C. & Stauffer, R. (2001). Research
learning attributes of graduate students in social work, psychology, and business. Journal of Social Work Education, 37 (2), 333-341.
Hersh, R.H. & Merrow, J. (2005). Introduction. In R. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by Degrees, (pp.1-9). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holmes, C.M. (2008). How can curriculum action research be used to promote post qualifying practice teaching award candidates’ interest in research articles? Social Work Education, 27(7), 695-709. Doi: 10.1080/02615470701538215
Howard, M., McMillen, C., & Pollio, D. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(2), 234-259. Doi: 10.1177/1049731502250404
Kazis, R., Callahan, A., Davidson, C., McLeod, A.,Bosworth, B., Choitz, V., & Hoops, J. (2007, March). Adult learners in higher education: Barriers to success and strategies to improve results. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.
References
Kelly, T.B. & Bronstein, L.R. (2003). The folder feedback system: Making research content more understandable, enjoyable, and usable. Social Work Education, 22(3), 261-270. Doi: 10.1080/0261547032000083450
Lemieux, C. & Allen, P.D. (2007). Service learning in social work education: The state of knowledge, pedagogical practices, and practice conundrums. Journal of Social Work Education, 43, 309-325. Doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2007.200500548
Macheski, G.E., Lowney, K.S., Buhrmann, J., & Bush, M.E.L. (2008). Overcoming student disengagement and anxiety in theory, methods, and statistics courses by building a community of learners. Teaching Sociology, 36(1), 42-48. 10.1177/0092055X0803600106
Macke, C. & Tapp, K. (2012). Teaching research to MSW students: Effectiveness of team-based learning pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32, 148-160. Doi: 10.1080/08841233.2012.668161
References
Manning, K., Zachar, P., Ray, G.E., & LoBello, S. (2006). Research methods courses and the scientist and practitioner interests of psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 33(3), 194-196. Doi: 10.1207/s15328023top3303_7
McIntyre, G. & Paul, S. (2013). Teaching research in social work: Capacity and challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 43, 685-702. Doi: 10.1093.bjsw.bcs010
Moore, L.S. & Avant, F. (2008). Strengthening undergraduate social work research: Models and strategies. Social Work Research, 32(94), 231-235.
Natsuti, J.P., York, R.O., & Henley, H.C. (2003). Teaching social work research: Does andragogy work best? The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 9(1), 149-175.
Orme, J., & Powell, J. (2007). Building research capacity in social work: Process and issues. British Journal of Social Work, 38(5), 988-1008. Doi: 10.1093/bjwe/bcm1
References
Parker, J. (2004). Effective practice learning in social work. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Rubin, A. & Parrish, D. (2007). Challenges to the future of evidence-based practice in Social Work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(3), 405-428. Doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2007.200600612
Secret, M., Ford, J., & Rompf, E.L. (2003). Undergraduate research courses: A close look reveals complex social work student attitudes. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(3), 411-422.
Shannon, P., Kim, W., & Robinson, A. (2012). Implementing a service learning model for teaching research methods and program evaluation. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32, 229-242. Doi: 10.1080/08841233.2012.680867
Sizemore, O.J. & Lewandowski, G.W. (2009). Learning might not equal liking: Research methods courses change knowledge but not attitudes. Teaching Psychology, 36(2), 90-95. Doi:10.1080/00986280902739727
References
Trahar, Sheila. (Ed.). (2011) Learning and teaching narrative inquiry: Travelling in the borderlands. Amsterdam; John Benjamins.
Vasan, N., & Przybylo, J. (2013). Do good well: Your guide to leadership, action, and social innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wells, M. (2006). Making statistics “real” for social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 397-404.
Williams, N.R. & Reeves, P.M. (2004). MSW students go to burn camp: Exploring social work values through service learning. Social Work Education, 23(4), 383-398.
Witkin, S.L., Edleson, J.L, & Lindsey, D. (1980). Social workers and statistics: Preparation, attitudes, and knowledge. Journal of Social Service Research, 3, 313-322.