UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Teaming Introductory Biology and Research Labsin Support of Undergraduate Education

Jean G. Heitz and Cynthia J. Giffen

Numerous studies have indicated the need to improve the general level of science literacy among students andto increase the number of students electing science as a career. One mechanism for doing this is to involveundergraduates in research. This article reports how our Introductory Biology 152 course has worked syner-gistically with mentors in research labs on the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus to increase under-graduate retention in research and at the same time improve their higher order inquiry and communicationskills.

Introduction

Numerous studies over the past 20 years have indicatedthe need to improve the general level of science literacy

among our students and to increase the number of studentselecting science as a career. A number of these reports haveindicated that one mechanism for doing this is to involveundergraduates in research early in their college careers. Asfar back as 1989, a Report on the National Science Founda-tion Disciplinary Workshops on Undergraduate Educationnoted: ‘‘It is clear that the academic community regards theinvolvement of undergraduate student majors in meaningfulresearch . . . with faculty members as one of the most pow-erful of instructional tools’’ (NSF, 1989). This was followed in1996 by publication of the National Science Education Stan-dards. These called for ‘‘more ‘science as process,’ in whichstudents learn such skills as observing, inferring and ex-perimenting. Inquiry is central to science learning.’’ Again in2003, Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education forFuture Research Biologists stated, ‘‘To successfully undertakecareers in research after graduation, students will need sci-entific knowledge, practice with experimental design, quan-titative abilities, and communication skills. . . . All studentsshould be encouraged to pursue independent research asearly as is practical in their education.’’

In response, a number of studies have surveyed fac-ulty and students regarding the benefits of undergradu-ate research. Russell et al. (2007) surveyed undergraduates(primarily juniors and seniors; total respondents >5000) in-volved in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathe-matics (STEM) and other research. The responses indicatedthat undergraduate research opportunities (URO) increasedunderstanding of how to conduct research (83%), confidencein research skills (83%), awareness of what graduate school islike (73%), and interest in an STEM career (68%). In addition,

Russell et al. stated, ‘‘No formulaic combination of activitiesoptimizes the URO, nor should providers structure theirprograms differently for unique racial=ethnic minorities orwomen. Rather it seems that the inculcation of enthusiasm isthe key element—and the earlier the better.’’ As a result, theyrecommended providing UROs for college freshmen andsophomores.

Kardash (2000) surveyed 57 undergraduates (juniors andseniors) who self-rated their abilities on 14 skills before andafter an undergraduate research experience (URE). Thesewere compared with faculty evaluations of the students’abilities after the URE. In most instances there was goodcorrespondence between student and faculty ratings. Kar-dash concluded that UREs improved the students’ basicscientific skills. However, she noted that there is less evi-dence that UREs are successful at promoting higher orderinquiry skills, for example, identifying a specific question forinvestigation based on research in the field, formulating aresearch hypothesis based on a specific question, designingan experiment or theoretical test of the hypothesis, or writinga research paper for publication. In fact, when there was asignificant difference in student versus faculty ratings ofabilities, these occurred in higher order skills, for example,understanding the importance of controls, using statisticalanalysis to analyze data, and relating the results to the biggerpicture.

Lopatto (2003) polled 41 faculty from three colleges(Harvey Mudd College, Grinnell College, and Wellesley).One of the questions he asked was, ‘‘What are the benefits ofa successful URE?’’ He also polled 249 junior and seniorstudents engaged in UROs at these colleges.

The top faculty and student responses can be found inTable 1. In his analysis, Lopatto noted that although many ofthe benefits recognized by faculty and students were similar,four of the benefits proposed by the faculty, which represent

Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.

DNA AND CELL BIOLOGYVolume 29, Number 9, 2010ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.Pp. 467–471DOI: 10.1089=dna.2009.0990

467

higher order skills (indicated with an * in Table 1), were notamong the top benefits listed by the students. Three of thesefour relate to the students’ ability to use the scientific liter-ature and=or skills in scientific communication.

In a follow-up study, Lopatto (2004) indicated similarfindings in surveys of more than 1000 undergraduates inresearch programs at 41 universities and colleges. These datashowed that not all of the higher order skills, in particular,communication skills, were being addressed. In fact, manyhigher order skills, including skill in both oral presentationand science writing, ended up at the bottom of the students’list.

In the 2004 study, Lopatto noted that although Caucasianswere in the majority on most of the campuses, nearly half ofthe students engaged in UREs were not Caucasian. In ad-dition, about 60% of the students were women and 40% weremen. When he compared answers among these differentgroups, he found no significant difference in any of theirresponses, including their likelihood to continue in a scien-tific career.

Together, these studies indicate that there is considerablesupport for undergraduate research and considerable infor-mation indicating that undergraduate research is beneficial.However, there was concern in many of these studies thatsome higher order skills are not being developed. There wasalso concern that starting a URO in the junior or senior yearmay be too late. Based on their findings, the authors rec-ommend that students start research experiences in theirfreshman or sophomore year.

On our campus, Introductory Biology 151–152 is a two-semester course for majors in biological sciences. All studentsin our Introductory Biology 152 course are required tocomplete an independent project (IP). Students can choose to

do either a meta-analysis of an open question in the literatureor mentored experimental research. The mentored researchoption began in 1983 when the total enrollment in 152 wasabout 250 students per year. Since we began keeping de-tailed records (1996), more than 2500 of our students haveparticipated in mentored research. The vast majority of thesestudents have been sophomores. In each of the past 3 years(fall and spring semesters combined), more than 300 of ourstudents have been engaged in mentored experimental re-search. During these years the total enrollment in 152 peryear has averaged about 950.

Although it is conducted in the second semester of thesequence, we introduce our students to the 152 IP researchoptions during the seventh week of Introductory Biology 151(the first semester of the sequence). For those interested inmentored research, we discuss how to find out what types ofresearch are available on campus. Students interested in thementored research option must also meet with the lab co-ordinator before week 13 and bring with them both a com-pleted student background or inventory form and a list offaculty=research of interest. At this meeting, we go over thestudent’s inventory form and faculty list. We discuss how toconstruct a brief resume, appropriate ways to contact fac-ulty, and what to expect at an interview. We address anyconcerns the student may have and emphasize that the keycriteria for success are interest, dependability, and willing-ness to ask questions. All of these activities are designed toprovide our students with adequate information, support,and encouragement.

In Introductory Biology 152 our students’ independentresearch projects are conducted in association with the lab-oratory component of the course. For half of their lab grade,our students are all expected to write a proposal for their

Table 1. Benefits of Successful Research Experiences as Perceived by Faculty Versus Students

What are the benefits of a successful undergraduate research experience?

Top faculty responses (n¼ 41) Top student responses (n¼ 249)

1 Learn a topic area in depth; have intense exposure;learn subject matter in detail

1 Enhancement of professional or academiccredentials

2 Construct meaningful problem; apply knowledge toa real situation*

2 Clarification of a career path

3 Learn to use appropriate methodology; developproficiency in laboratory practice and techniques

3 Understanding the research process in your field

4 Learn to work and think independently; foster independence 4 Learning a topic in depth5 Learn to design solutions to problems; learn to analyze data 5 Developing a continuing relationship with a

faculty member6 Improve oral communication skills* 6 Learning to work independently7 Improve written communication skills* 7 Learning laboratory techniques8 Appreciate what scientists do; learn what scientific

research actually entails8 Tolerance for obstacles faced in the research

process9 Develop an orientation toward future work and

education; clarify career paths9 Understanding how scientists think

10 Learn to use scientific literature* 10 Understanding how professionals work on realproblems

11 Gain experience with contributions to a body ofknowledge; learn how research ideas build onpreceding studies

12 Make connections to what was learned in courses13 Find a faculty mentor for continuing relationships

From Lopatto (2003).Asterisks (*) indicate those benefits among the top 10 proposed by faculty that were not among the top 10 proposed by students.

468 HEITZ AND GIFFEN

research followed by a first draft and final draft of theirproject papers. The proposal and first draft are reviewed. Inthese reviews, formative assessment=review comments areprovided to help our students: (1) understand exactly whatthey are doing and why they are doing it and (2) learn howto communicate these effectively. The final paper, due at theend of the semester, is graded. In addition, all students givean oral presentation of their research to their lab instructorand peers during the final week of class. Mentored studentsalso present at an evening poster session for their mentorsand guests. To prepare our students, a number of our labo-ratory sessions focus on how to analyze scientific literature,how to use the library for scientific research, how to write ascientific paper, and how to prepare an oral report.

This paper reports how pairing these activities with thework our students do with their mentors has addressed anumber of the concerns about UREs that have been raised inthe literature.

Materials and Methods

Participants

The mentored research option is open to all students inour Introductory Biology 152 course. On average, about 33%of 152 students in any 1 year elect to do mentored research.Because students self-select, we examined various studentcharacteristics to determine how students who chose men-tored research compared to the class as a whole. As a base-line, we examined self-reported ethnicity data for all studentsin the course during calendar years 2005 and 2006,male=female ratios, and year in school. These data werecompared to the same data for the students engaged inmentored research during fall and spring of 2006. Thesespecific years were chosen to allow us to examine retentionin research beyond the students’ participation in 152. Forthese same years we also calculated the percentages of ourstudents conducting mentored research in each of seven col-leges, schools, and centers on the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus.

Surveys

To determine faculty opinions both about our programand the students they mentored, we polled a group of about100 faculty each of whom had mentored at least three of ourstudents in the last 3 years. Twenty of them responded to thesurvey. Similarly, we polled about 200 students who didmentored research in spring and fall of 2006. Forty-fivestudents responded.

Results

Participants

For calendar years 2005 and 2006, we examined the self-identified ethnicity of the 1849 students who took 152(Table 2). We found these percentages to be similar amongthe 314 students who conducted mentored research in 152during the spring and fall semesters of 2006. In both men-tored research and our class as a whole, 60% of participantswere women and 40% were men. This proportion is similarto the findings in other studies such as Lopatto (2003) andKardash (2000).

Our analysis of mentors’ colleges and schools for 2006indicated strong support for our program from across cam-pus. Thirty-four percent of our students were mentored in theSchool of Medicine and Public Health; 31%, in the College ofAgricultural and Life Sciences; 21%, in the College of Lettersand Science; 8%, in the School of Veterinary Medicine; 2%each, in the School of Pharmacy and the Primate Center; and1%, in the College of Engineering.

Survey results

What makes for a successful mentorship? Faculty view-point. The top four student characteristics identified by thefaculty were reliability, willingness to ask questions whenyou don’t understand, initiative, and interest in the research.In all cases, 70% or more of the faculty rated these as ‘‘veryimportant.’’ See Table 3 for the other characteristics facultyrated as ‘‘very important’’ to ‘‘important.’’

In a separate question, 85% of mentors thought that stu-dent interest was the ‘‘most important’’ when compared tograde point average (GPA), year in school, and previouswork experience.

What is the value of the experience? Faculty viewpoint.The faculty ranked the personal satisfaction they gained frominteracting with undergraduates as very high value (30%) orhigh value (70%). They ranked the research experiencegained by the undergraduates in their labs as very high value(42.1%) or high value (57.9%). They also rated the mentoringexperience gained by their graduate students and postdoc-toral scholars as either very high value (30%) or high value(45%). In addition, our faculty noted several higher orderskills as important gains by our undergraduates. These in-cluded the 152 requirement that the student reviews currentliterature in the topic area (very high value 30%; high value45%); the 152 requirement that the student be able to com-municate in writing what she=he is doing and why it isimportant (very high value 50%; high value 40%); and the152 requirement that the student be able to communicateorally in a poster session what she=he is doing and why it isimportant (very high value 40%; high value 55%).

What is the value of the experience? Student viewpoint.When asked to rate the overall value of the mentored re-search experience, 31.1% of the students indicated that thiswas ‘‘one of my most valuable undergraduate experiences’’;31.1% indicated that it was ‘‘very valuable’’; 24.4% indicatedthat it was ‘‘valuable’’; and 8.9% indicated that it was‘‘somewhat valuable.’’

When asked what they gained as a result of the experi-ence, more than 77% indicated that they made significant(33%) or moderate gains (44.4%) in their biological knowl-edge. Eighty percent indicated significant (51.1%) or moderategains (28.9%) in life experience. Eighty percent indicatedsignificant (40%) or moderate (40%) gains in professionaldevelopment. Seventy-seven percent indicated significant(35.5%) or moderate gains (42.2%) in experience that in-formed their future career plans. On another question, over47% of the students reported that the writing requirementsignificantly improved their understanding of the researchand another 25% indicated that it improved their under-standing moderately.

UNDERGRADUATE BIOLOGY RESEARCH 469

What effects does the experience have on retaining stu-dents in research? We asked the students how many addi-tional semesters (beyond 152) they continued in researchlabs. Approximately 29% indicated that they stayed an ad-ditional semester or two in the same lab. Another 26% stayedthree to four semesters in the same lab and 5% stayed morethan four semesters. Ten percent went on to one or two moresemesters in a different lab, and another 7% completed threeto four semesters more research in a different lab. In otherwords, a total of 77% stayed in research for at least one moresemester. The other 23% indicated under ‘‘other’’ that most ofthem stayed on in some combination of the same and dif-ferent labs for one to four additional semesters. Only 3 of the45 students who responded (6.6%) indicated that they didnot continue beyond one semester.

Discussion

As noted earlier in this article, many studies have indi-cated a need to improve both the general level of scienceliteracy among our students and to increase the number ofstudents electing science as a career. As a result, many in-

stitutions have worked to involve undergraduates in re-search. Studies of these programs indicate many solidlearning gains for the students involved (Kardash, 2000;Lopatto, 2003, 2004; Russell et al., 2007). However, there wasconcern that many of these programs that are primarily forjuniors and seniors may be too late. There was additionalconcern that these programs may not be addressing keyhigher order skills.

Our program addresses some of these issues. First, thevast majority of the students who elect mentored researchin our program are sophomores. Not only do our studentsget into research labs earlier, but also they remain in re-search labs for an additional two to three semesters onaverage.

Second, we provide support to our students in findingmentors. This makes it much more likely for younger studentsto take advantage of these opportunities. As one studentnoted, ‘‘Working as a professional scientist, researcher, orresearching university-level teacher=professor was never re-ally suggested to me, and therefore I never really consideredit. The 152 IP made the process of guiding us into a researchexperience very unintimidating. To a freshman or sopho-

Table 2. Self-Reported Ethnicity of All Students Enrolled in Introductory Biology 152 in 2005 and 2006Compared to That of Students Involved in Mentored Research During the Spring and Fall of 2006

Self-reported ethnicity

Totalnumber ofstudentsin 152

Percentage oftotal students

in 152

Number inmentoredresearch,

spring andfall 2006

Percentage ofmentoredstudents

American Indian=AlaskanNative

14 0.8 2 0.6

Asian=Pacific Islander 162 8.8 24 7.6Black 37 2.0 4 1.3Hispanic 41 2.2 3 1.0Unknown (not self-reported) 106 5.7 28 8.9White 1495 80.9 253 80.6

Total 1849 314

Table 3. Faculty Survey Results: Characteristics of Students Who Are Successful in a Mentorship

What are the characteristics of students who are successful in a mentorship?

Characteristics Very important Important

Initiative 70.0% (14) 25.0% (5)Reliability 85.0% (17) 15.0% (3)Interest in the research 70.0% (14) 30.0% (6)Ease with which the student learns

new material=techniques30.0% (6) 65.0% (13)

Adaptability 45.0% (9) 45.0% (9)Willingness to ask questions when

she=he doesn’t understand80.0% (16) 20.0% (4)

Ability to troubleshoot 20.0% (4) 70.0% (14)Ability to learn from mistakes or

unexpected results55.0% (11) 40.0% (8)

Note that in this table, we do not report characteristics that were ranked ‘‘Not important’’ and ‘‘Does not apply.’’

470 HEITZ AND GIFFEN

more, contacting faculty to join their lab is a big deal. [Thecoordinator] made herself seem very available to talk to aboutconcerns and she gave advice regarding what we should sayand how to present ourselves. These skills aren’t taught in anyother class!!!—although I think they’re very valuable.’’

Third, and perhaps most important, we work in associ-ation with the mentors in teaching our students. The men-tors educate our students in the laboratory and analyticalskills and in the thought processes they need for conductingthe research. We support and extend this by teaching ourstudents how to use the library for scientific research, howto analyze literature, and how to communicate scientifi-cally. We focus on their being able to effectively explainwhat they are doing and why they are doing it. In thesurvey, over 47% of the students reported that the writingrequirement significantly improved their understanding ofthe research, and another 25% indicated that it improvedtheir understanding moderately. Similarly in the facultypoll, 90% felt that the writing requirement was of very highor high value. It is this synergism between the mentors andour Introductory Biology course that makes this programsuccessful.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the many Introductory Biology151–152 faculty, staff, and students and all of the researcherson the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus who par-ticipate in our mentored research program. This programwould not exist without you. This is a great demonstration ofhow research supports undergraduate education.

Additional information, including the lab manual devel-oped to support the IP options in Introductory Biology 152can be accessed at the following URLs.

1. Lab manual—http:==tinyurl.com=UndergradResearch orhttps:==mywebspace.wisc.edu=xythoswfs=webui=_xy-25314862_1-t_n4OyzQfi

2. Ch. 1 supporting literature—http:==tinyurl.com=ChocAndTea or https:==mywebspace.wisc.edu=xythoswfs=webui=_xy-13211442_1-t_aTA8Vws0

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Bio2010: Transforming undergraduate education for futureresearch biologists (2003). Available at: http:==www.nap.edu=catalog.php?record_id¼10497 (3=13=10) (Online.)

Kardash, C.A.M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate re-search experience: perceptions of undergraduate interns andtheir faculty mentors. J Educ Psychol 92, 191–201.

Lopatto, D. (2003). The essential features of undergraduate re-search. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, March,139–142.

Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experi-ences (SURE): first findings. Cell Biol Educ 3, 270–277.

NSF. (1989). Report on the National Science Foundation Dis-ciplinary Workshops on Undergraduate Education (NSF,Washington, D.C.).

National Science Education Standards. (1996). Available at:http:==books.nap.edu=openbook.php?isbn¼0309053269&page¼2 (3=13=10) (Online.).

Russell, S.H., Hancock, M.P., and McCullough, J. (2007). Benefitsof undergraduate research experiences. Science 316, 548–549.

Address correspondence to:Jean G. Heitz, M.S.

Department of ZoologyUniversity of Wisconsin

Madison, WI 53706

E-mail: jgheitz@wisc.edu

Received for publication November 2, 2009; received in re-vised form February 5, 2010; accepted February 8, 2010.

UNDERGRADUATE BIOLOGY RESEARCH 471