The Role of Research in Undergraduate Instruction

Abstract

IN recent years, much has been written about the failures of science education in the United States (e.g. Volpe 1984, Moore 1990, Ogens 1991). While educators have suggested ways to study (Kyle et al. 1991) and reform science education (Moore 1990), some scientists/educators have long used pedagogies, like undergraduate research or investigative laboratories (e.g. Holt et al. 1969, Thornton 1972, Seago 1977), which provide some solutions to the problems critics rightly claim need to be addressed. However, it is not my intent to review the literature on research projects in biology, nor shall I address what educators call the problem-solving approach to science (e.g. Pizzini et al. 1989, Stewart & Hafner 1991). My aim here is to discuss the rationale behind a research approach in college biology courses that differs from reasons offered by others (e.g. Manteuffel & Laetsch 1980, Volpe 1984, Germann 1991) and that can provide teachers a conceptual, yet practicable basis for using research as an integral component of standard coursework. It is the science in science teaching, not the results of science, that I will emphasize in this brief discussion. As noted years ago by Bruner (1973), teachers generally provide students with a firm grasp of a particular subject matter, enable students to become as autonomous in their thinking as they can and enable students to advance their thought processes. If learning proceeds in response to the rewards proffered by teacher approval or the avoidance of failure, the student readily adopts behavioral and learning patterns in response to the cues needed to conform to what is expected (Bruner 1973). Thus, Bruner (1973) stated that, They develop rote abilities and depend upon being able to give back what is expected rather than to make it into something that relates to the rest of their cognitive life. While Bruner's statement and work applied to children, it is essentially the same for college students because the reward system has been perpetuated at all levels of education, including college. Rewards and conformity are obviously useful and necessary for a person to function in our society, but I want to emphasize the importance of research and discovery to cognitive processes, memory and learning within the framework of college biology courses. We scientists have paid scant attention to such educational processes. To look at these matters a little differently, an educator friend of mine told me that, until Jean Piaget, educators had given little consideration to learning structures of the individual. Rather, like many college science teachers today, they assumed that if subjects were taught clearly and logically, the subject matter would be learned clearly and logically (William E. Doll, personal communication). However, learning is not necessarily a function of teaching, unless we place teaching in relation to the structures of the learner.