Unpaved road of research lies ahead for pilot juniors

The 200 members of the Class of 2004 enrolled in the pilot curriculum are embarking upon a challenge that may alter their typical "to do" lists -- undergraduate research. While such projects frequently entail numerous hours of work, they also provide an opportunity for students to work closely with a faculty member -- an endeavor deemed worthwhile by College of Arts and Sciences Dean Richard Beeman. "That's the principal advantage of an undergraduate research experience -- it's active learning, in which undergraduates guided by faculty mentors... take responsibility themselves for a major part of their education," Beeman explained in an e-mail statement. As part of a five-year undergraduate curriculum experiment, the 200 juniors compose the first group to attempt such an academic challenge. The requirement itself is loosely defined -- anything from intense, year-long research to an honors or major thesis to an end-of-the-semester 20 to 30-page paper could potentially fulfill it. While pilot junior Daniel Creedon maintains that he appreciates that the program's creators are "trying not to box in students," others in the pilot curriculum feel somewhat lost about where to begin. Pilot sophomore Milagros Vandemoortele explained that while the curriculum has typically been very "supportive" and helpful in its advising, the research requirement has been of a different nature. In terms of "direction, there wasn't much," Vandemoortele said, explaining that she had to get in touch with a future faculty research mentor on her own. Though confusion about the requirement has perplexed both those in and outside of the program, officials explain that some of this frustration is likely attributable to a lack of past precedent on which to rely. "Some have experienced confusion about just what they are supposed to be doing," College Director of Academic Affairs Kent Peterman wrote in an e-mail statement. "Part of that is being the first class." Creedon echoed Peterman's sentiments over such feelings stemming from pioneering unchartered territory. The political science major noted, however, that although he felt prepared to face such emotions, he was not expecting the obstacle which has actually become his biggest deterrent -- funding. "If you have a fund-based project right now, you're really in a bind," Creedon said. Last October, the pilot student applied to receive $900 through the Nassau Fund -- a grant available through the Center for Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Creedon explained that he needed the money in order to begin his in-depth research into polling data. But after being denied, he said he was left with no other option than to postpone his work. "I'm putting it off to next year," the College junior sighed, adding that he "could have to fall back into a smaller project" if the needed funds do not become available. According the Beeman, while this issue is on the forefront of Creedon's mind, pilot administrators were unaware of students' funding problems. "I haven't heard a bit of grumbling about students having difficulty due to lack of funding," Beeman explained. If the issue is widespread, however, Beeman promises that the problem will not go unnoticed. "Indeed, we need, as part of the pilot experiment, to discover the financial cost of mandating a research experience for our students, so if this is going to be an issue, we need to address it." Even if current juniors -- and the rest of the pilot groups to follow -- do successfully incorporate the research requirement into their curricula, it is unlikely that the requirement will become a part of curricula outside the pilot anytime soon. "We know that when undergraduates engage in research... the educational benefits are tremendous," Beeman explained, adding, "what we don't know is whether in a school with 450 standing faculty members we can deliver research experiences to 1,600 graduating seniors each year." Though the research requirement is the aspect of the pilot curriculum which has received the most student attention, it is just one of many components officials will use to evaluate the Class of 2004. Pilot Curriculum Evaluation Committee Chairman Paul Allison explained that the research done, along with student comments and transcripts, will all be analyzed next year. Allison said that the committee will survey a pool of 400 to 600 students. Ideally, it will be composed of the pilot group of 2004, a group of students who applied to the program but were not accepted and a random sampling of other Penn students who never expressed interest in participating in the program. The survey will ask chosen students how much they valued their educational experiences at Penn and will also test their ability "to convey scientific knowledge" -- an area of the pilot curriculum officials feel may be weak. In addition to student response, past academic choices of those both in and out of the program will be examined. "We will be doing statistical and computer analysis of transcripts to determine if those students in the pilot program have different course-taking patterns than those not in the pilot," Allison said. According to Allison, the committee eventually plans to present "a detailed report... that will be available to standing faculty" members. After such a report is complete, officials will compare the current standard undergraduate curriculum to that of the alternative model. In the end, according to Peterman, "the goal is to enable the faculty to be in a position sometime after the first cohort has been graduated to make a decision about the future of the College curriculum based on good information gathered over the five years or so of [the] experiment."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.