High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

DOI 10.1007/s10734-015-9945-z

How science really works: the student experience

of research-led education

Lillian Smyth1 • Federico Davila2 • Thomas Sloan2 •

Ellen Rykers3 • Sam Backwell3 • Stephen B. Jones3

Published online: 15 October 2015

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract There has been a shift in modern tertiary education theory that has moved away
from a traditional, didactic model of education, towards a more student-led, constructivist
approach. Nowhere is this more the case than in science and mathematical education,
where the concept of research-led education is gaining more and more traction. The focus
of this approach is on training students to join a community of scholars, rather than on
encouraging the accrual of factual knowledge. What has scope to be addressed further in
this area is what students might gain from research experience and the impact this kind of
education has on career intentions. The current study, using a combination of quantitative
and qualitative survey data, explores this experience. We aim to answer questions sur-
rounding skill gains, student perceptions and the impact on career choices. Findings
indicate that students value research experience and gain much from it. Further, we find
evidence that engaging in, and benefiting from, research experience is related to career
intentions. These results have implications for the ways we scaffold research experience
for students, as well as reinforcing the value of this approach to education.

Keywords Research-led education
Science
Higher education

& Lillian Smyth

[email protected]
1
Medical Education Unit, ANU Medical School, The Australian National University, Florey
Building, 54 Mills Road, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia
2
Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra,
Australia
3
Science Teaching and Learning Centre, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

123
192 High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

Introduction

Things you learn in the classroom generally do not reflect how ‘the real world’
works. This is particularly true of the research process. The only way to learn how to
do research is to do it—3rd year physics student.
As the above response from a survey participant indicates, the connections between the
research process and the ways in which science is taught at a tertiary level teaching are not
always clear. In fact, a meta-analysis of the relationship between research and teaching has
suggested that the two are ‘‘very loosely coupled’’ (Hattie and Marsh 1996, p. 529). This is
fundamentally problematic in a model where educators hope to prepare science students
for the research work that is at the core of the scientific process. In these models, educators
aim to build scientific reasoning skills, foster familiarity with the research process, and an
ability to develop and apply theoretical frameworks (Valter and Akerlind 2010). This
understanding of the education process suggests that, through the course of their degrees,
students should: be exposed to relevant knowledge and marketable skills that build their
professional career prospects (Mitchell and Forer 2010); develop an understanding of the
social dynamics of academia and the professional world (Mauranen 2009; O’Donnell and
Tobbell 2007); and develop self-direction, critical thinking and the capacity to understand
problems outside a university context (Watkins 1982).
However, the empirical and anecdotal evidence from students would suggest that these
aims are often not met. Reports on student experience often highlight the lack of a full
understanding and exposure to the research process (McDermott 1993) and a lack of
consensus among students regarding the expectations and requirements implicit in
undertaking research (Meyer et al. 2005). Despite their crucial importance for students’
professional development and academic training, these skills are often not established.
In response, notions of science teaching have changed, and this has led to the increased
popularity of research-led education (RLE) as a means of allowing students to get more
exposure to the research process and broader professional skills, applicable in non-research
domains. RLE is an education model where students are both exposed to up-to-date
research and literature, as well as actually doing research through supervision in under-
graduate degrees (Zamorksi 2002).
The current paper examines the experience of students in the science programme from a
higher education institution with RLE as one of its core educational tenets. We focus our
analysis on what students gain during the RLE process at university, and how RLE and the
skills gained therefrom influence their future career decisions. These findings do not just
address the development of skills specific to research careers, but also what non-research-
track student might gain from engaging in research-led education at an undergraduate level.
Using a survey of all science students (not just those participating in elite research-only
programmes), we explore student perceptions of the skills, knowledge and understanding
they have drawn from engagement with the research process. The paper concludes with a
discussion of the implications of our findings, and poses future questions for exploring how
delivery of and engagement with RLE can be improved across university programmes.

Science education and constructivism

Science education has a set of specific goals. These goals include: understanding of sci-
entific concepts, developing interest and motivation, scientific practical skills and problem-

123
High Educ (2016) 72:191–207 193

solving abilities, scientific habits of mind, understanding of the nature of science, methods
of scientific inquiry and reasoning, and application of scientific knowledge to everyday life
(Hofstein and Lunetta 2003). These learning outcomes cover a range of levels, from simple
concept familiarity to higher-order thinking skills and academic norms.
Much science education at a tertiary level, even in more innovative courses, still relies
on lecture-based teaching and formulaic labs. These passive modes of delivery do little to
scaffold the kind of skills educators hope to develop in students, leading to a mismatch in
intended outcomes and activities. Biggs and colleagues (e.g. Biggs and Tang 2007) argue,
in the constructive alignment model, that this kind of mismatch between student learning
activities and intended learning outcomes is a common fault in tertiary education design.
This can result in less desirable student learning approaches, poorer student performance
and lower levels of student engagement (Biggs and Tang 2007; Cousin 2012; Walsh 2007).
If science educators want to get the best from their students and support them in learning to
their full capacity, training future scientists requires a radically different educational
process to the traditional didactic model.
As a means of departing from traditional teaching styles, Biggs and others (Biggs 1993;
Biggs and Tang 2007; Palincsar 1998; Rust et al. 2005; Walsh 2007) argue for a more
student-centred, constructivist model of teaching and learning. In these models, the student
is not a passive receptor of information given by the educator. Rather, students construct
their own meaning, in the context of their prior knowledge (Herman 1995). This kind of
learning is an active process of network generation that requires students to ask questions,
generate answers, speculate on possibilities and generally engage with the material at a
higher-order level (Biggs 1999).
It is, however, important to consider the complexities of implementing a more con-
structivist approach. As Wilson et al. (2007) note, ‘‘To become an effective researcher, an
extensive range of skills must be mastered… There is considerable debate on the best way
to teach these skills to undergraduates while not compromising on the mastery of ‘fun-
damental’ knowledge’’ (p. 1). That is, engaging with scientific literature and practice often
has, as a prerequisite, a large volume of factual knowledge. In a teaching context with a
large volume of students entering the institution at a range of knowledge levels, a focus on
the constructivist skills-acquisition model can undermine student accumulation of this
necessary, factual knowledge. This is a crucial balance to strike. One approach to
addressing this problem is research-led education (RLE).

What is RLE?

RLE refers to two inter-twined, but distinct ideas (Zamorksi 2002). The first is an edu-
cational model that ensures students are exposed to the research process and research
literature. This kind of approach is often characterised by instances in which educators
include their own research as lecture content or case-study assignments. Teaching, here, is
shaped to get students to engage with recent research literature and methodology. The
research findings and methodology form part of the course content. The second idea is an
educational model in which the student engages in doing research. This kind of approach is
characterised by independent research projects and student-led lab activity (rather than
staff-led labs). The focus is on research conducted by or with students.
Jiang and Roberts (2011) explored these two approaches (exposure to research and
taking part in research) to RLE in two case-studies of tertiary courses. Their findings
indicated that students who did their own project had a much better understanding of the
research process. However, overall learning in the content area was quite low, as students

123
194 High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

had learned methodology, not content. This is reflective of the concern above about fun-
damental knowledge (Wilson et al. 2007). In the Jiang and Roberts (2011) study, students
also valued the second approach (the research-exposure method). Students found the
enthusiasm of the lecturer, and the lecturer’s engagement with the topic, supported their
learning. The authors conclude that students respond well to both ‘‘types’’ of RLE, but that
perhaps the different forms should be considered to have different educational purposes.
Students gain the most from doing their own research, but found the process challenging
and therefore did not engage as fully with the factual content. The exposure method,
however, promoted familiarity with the content area, but resulted in fewer gains in research
skills.

Outcomes of RLE: skills and career intentions

A review of the literature would suggest that there are myriad possible benefits of research-
led teaching and learning. Christ and colleagues (Christ et al. 2003), for example, suggest
that investing the time and effort to include students in RLE results in stronger student
identification with the field, better academic outcomes and a greater likelihood that stu-
dents will continue in the field. Robertson and Blackler (2006) note that engaging students
in the research process early (i.e. during undergraduate years) assists students in seeing the
big picture, in relation to their education. Brew (2012) and O’Donnell and Tobbell (2007)
argue for a reconceptualisation of tertiary education, wherein RLE could be considered a
method of inducting students into a community of scholars.
An educational approach that allows students to engage in the research process also has
impact on the way in which students think about their post-study career options. Some
literature suggests that involvement in RLE can increase intentions to enrol in postgraduate
study (Lopatto 2004). Other research has reported no evidence that RLE encourages further
study, but that it may clarify or confirms student career intentions (Seymour et al. 2004).
That is, students with research-intentions who engage in RLE emerge at the other end more
certain that they wish to pursue research.
The literature also provides suggestions regarding the types of skills students could be
expected to gain from RLE. These include research skills, such as: observation, descrip-
tion, analysis and interpretation of data, ability to discuss and brainstorm ideas, library
research, presenting findings and ability to apply theoretical knowledge in practice (Valter
and Akerlind 2010). Literature further suggests that student might gain communication
skills, lab or fieldwork skills, collaboration skills, time management skills, reading, library
and computer skills (Seymour et al. 2004). Howitt et al. (2010) argue that most of the skills
gained by students will be in the domains of group work and familiarity with aspects of
research and that students will only rarely gained the higher-order critical and integrating
thinking skills. All of these skills are clearly valuable for research-track students, but also
for students who go on to non-research-related careers and education.
It is this area of possible benefits, skill gains and career intentions that the current paper
explores. The exploration is based around two key research questions:
1. What do students gain from engaging in research experience? Specifically, what kinds
of skills and experiences gained as part of participating in research at an undergraduate
level do students value?
2. How does research experience impact on academic and post-study intentions? That is,
having gaining these research-related skills and understandings, what are student
intentions for further education, career decisions and engagement with the research

123
High Educ (2016) 72:191–207 195

and science communities? Does research- led education shape these outcomes and, if
so, in what way?
In exploring possible answers to these questions, the paper makes a novel contribution to
the area in two key ways. First, we examine the value of research experience and research-
led education for students (a) not in an elite research-direct degree programme (such as the
PhB). For discussion of these students, see: (Howitt et al. 2010) and (b) considering careers
outside of the research-related career market. Second, we explicitly examine the links
between perceived gains from RLE and the impact on career intentions. Where previous
work has examined the link between having had research experience, we take this a step
further to examine how students’ qualitative experience of research and their perceived
gains might impact these decisions.

The ANU context

To explore these questions, we situated our investigation in the undergraduate science cohort
at a research-intensive university with a strategic goal of ensuring that students are ‘‘part of a
community of scholars’’. RLE is an explicit component within the education platform of the
ANU and has been since the creation of a PhB degree programme (an undergraduate
research degree) in 2003. As part of this, it is contended that an ANU education ‘will engage
students and stretch them intellectually, encouraging them to question the norms—to ask
‘‘why’’ not only ‘‘how’’ and to discover through their own research’ (2011, p. 5). This
research focus and support for research-led initiatives mean that large number of ANU
science students have access to research-led education options. These include specific,
research-led degrees (both a PhB programme and a BSC (Adv) programme, with ‘‘honours-
pathway options’’), research-courses (‘‘special topics’’, ‘‘advanced studies’’ and ‘‘indepen-
dent research projects’’), as well as a variety of courses offering engagement with research
content and methodology and inquiry-based models of delivery. Students can pursue an
interest in research as part of an ordinary science degree, as well as other disciplines, or take
a specialist focus on preparing themselves for a research career.
Practically speaking, there are several ways in which students can be involved in RLE.
These include, but are not limited to: third-year dissertations and projects, preparation for
seminars, self- and peer assessment, practical work (Zamorksi 2002), individual research
projects, advanced study courses, specific research-led degrees (Howitt et al. 2010), case-based,
inquiry-based, or PBL modes of course delivery (Healey 2005) and research-ability-focused
assessed courses (e.g. academic poster-format assessment task; McNamara et al. 2010).
In the current context, RLE was defined as ‘‘undergraduate student involvement in
research’’ in recruitment materials and in the survey. This was further elaborated to include
‘‘special topics’’ courses, ‘‘student-led projects’’ and ‘‘designing an experiment’’. A list of
kind of research involvement was also provided and students indicated in which of these
processes they had been involved.1

1
These activities were: a scripted lab or project in which the students know the expected outcome; being
responsible for a part of the project; a lab or project in which only the instructor knows the outcome; reading
primary scientific literature; a lab or project where no one knows the outcome; writing a research proposal; a
project in which students have input into the process; collecting data; a project entirely of student design;
analysing data; working individually; presenting results orally; working as a whole class; presenting posters;
working in small groups; critiquing the work of other students.

123
196 High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

Methods

Participants

Participants were 190 undergraduate students (117 females and 73 males) from across
approximately 12 different science disciplines (see Footnote 1) at a moderately sized
Australian university. In the current sample, discipline groups were: biology, environ-
mental science, chemistry, physics, psychology, mathematics, medicine, engineering,
computing science communication and ‘‘general science’’. Twenty per cent of respondents
reported belonging to more than one of these groups, some reporting up to four disciplines.
As such, these data were not clear enough to stratify the sample for analysis.
Participants were approached as part of a study on the student experience of research-
led education and attitudes to research careers. Participants completed an online ques-
tionnaire that included both Likert-scale and free-response items within a few weeks of the
beginning of the second semester, 2013. The mean age of the sample was 22.5 years, and
their stage of studies ranged from first year to having already graduated. Participants were
recruited via email, as well as through social media.
Sixty-four per cent of participants in the overall study indicated that they had engaged in
undergraduate research experience during their studies. This reduced the overall sample to
121 participants, with regard to qualitative analysis. The other 69 participants responded to
items on their attitudes to, understanding of research, as well as barriers to their partici-
pation. These data are not discussed in the current paper. For the purposes of quantitative
analysis, a further 12 participants were excluded on the basis that they had not completed a
sufficient volume of the Likert-scale items (their qualitative responses were retained for
analysis).

Measures

What do students gain from engaging in research experience?

To assess the extent to which students saw the experience of research as valuable, a scale
of five items addressing perceptions of their experience was asked. Items included ‘‘I
valued the opportunity to engage in research projects’’, ‘‘I feel that I gained something
from the experience of doing research’’ and ‘‘I was afforded freedom and independence in
determining research direction’’. These items were all highly correlated with one another
and formed a single factor under principle components analysis. They were therefore
treated as a single ‘‘value’’ of research experience scale (a = .837).
Participants were also asked, more specifically, ‘‘to what extent they had gained any-
thing from RLE experience that they could not have gained for a conventional class’’.
Finally, students were asked to report what skills they had gained from engaging in
research experience. A list of sixteen skills2 was given, and students were asked to rate
whether, as a result of their research experience, they had had ‘‘no’’, ‘‘some’’ or ‘‘quite a

2
These skill areas were: problem-solving in general; formulating a research question that could be
answered with data; identifying limitations of research methods and designs; understanding the theory and
concepts guiding my research project; understanding the relevance of research to my coursework; comfort in
discussing scientific concepts with others; comfort in working collaboratively with others; ability to work
independently; understanding what everyday research work is like; writing scientific reports or papers;
defending an argument when asked questions; explaining my project to people outside my field; preparing a
scientific poster; keeping a detailed lab notebook; using statistics to analyse data; managing my time.

123
High Educ (2016) 72:191–207 197

few’’ skill gains in each area. Skills listed included ‘‘problem-solving in general’’,
‘‘comfort in discussing scientific concepts with others’’ and ‘‘using statistics to analyse
data’’. Responses to these items were factor analysed, to examine possible subsets. Prin-
ciple axis factoring produced a four-factor solution (‘‘research skills’’, ‘‘communication
skills’’, ‘‘lab skills’’ and ‘‘science skills’’).
Finally, participants were asked an open-ended item that asked for ‘‘an example or brief
explanation that illustrates what you gained from research experience’’. These responses
allowed for analysis through multiple independent sets of thematic coding.

How does research experience impact on intentions?

To explore the impact these experiences have on student outcomes, participants were asked
what their intentions were for the following 2–3 years. Students were given a range of
eight options, including items that addressed employment (e.g. ‘‘finish my current degree
and seek employment in a related field’’), further study (e.g. ‘‘continue study to a post-
graduate level’’) and research (e.g. ‘‘seek opportunities to engage in research again in the
future’’). Respondents indicated on a five-point scale the extent to which each reflected
their intentions. These items addressed three possible post-study options: pursuing further
study, seeking employment and pursuing research. To explore the ways in which this might
be related to their research experiences, participants were then asked to outline ‘‘how you
perceive your experience of research in your science degree has influenced your career
intentions’’.

Summary of measures

In summary, quantitative data were collected on student perception of the ‘‘value’’ of

research experience, the ‘‘skills’’ they had gained and their future ‘‘career intentions’’.
Qualitative data were collected addressing what students had gained from engaging in
research and how their experiences have influenced their career intentions.

Analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted on the data. First, the numerical
responses were considered. Frequency distributions, means, standard deviations and zero-
order correlations between all variables were examined for interrelationships between key
variables. Following this, free-response data were coded for content and explored for key
themes. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify commonalities across responses
(Ryan and Bernard 2003). Theme identification was undertaken by three members of the
research team to compare and contrast their interpretation of the data.

Results and discussion

The following section reports on the qualitative and quantitative findings of the survey,
with reference to the two research questions previously outlined.

123
198 High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

What do students gain from RLE?

Student responses to the numerical items capturing their perceptions of their research
experience were examined. A total of 109 of the original respondents completed a suffi-
cient volume of the survey items to be included in the quantitative analysis discussed
below. Results indicated that 64 % of respondents indicated they had had access to
research experience in course of their undergraduate career. It is important to note that this
was a voluntary survey and this is may therefore not be representative of the overall
undergraduate sample.
Turning to the five-item ‘‘perceived value’’ scale, responses indicated that student
perceptions of the value of research experience were positive. The mean score on the
‘‘value of research experience’’ scale was 3.93 (SD = .74) on a five-point scale (see
Table 1). This is significantly different from the neutral point of 3 (t = 13.10, p \ .001), in
a positive direction. In responding to the final item, the majority of student respondents
(89 %) reported that they felt they had gained something from RLE that they could not
have learned from a conventional class. Taken together, these results indicate that students
perceived that they had engaged in research-led education, had gained something from it
they could not otherwise have gained and perceived the experience to be educationally and
professionally valuable.
Students were also asked to report the extent to which they had gained in 16 different
research-related skills, broken into four subsets (‘‘research skills’’, ‘‘communication
skills’’, ‘‘lab skills’’ and ‘‘general science skills’’). These scores were given on a five-point
scale and means for three of the four fell above the neutral point (Mresearch = 4.00,
SD = .74; Mcommunication = 3.60, SD = .95; Mscience = 3.83, SD = 1.01 and Mlab = 2.87,
SD = .82). The mean scores for research, communication and general science skills were
all significantly different from the neutral ‘‘a few gains’’ point (tresearch = 13.22, p \ .001;
tcommunication = 6.29, p \ .001; tscience = 8.10, p \ .001) in a positive direction. This
indicates that students, on average, felt they had had significant gains in these skills areas,
as a result of RLE. Lab skill gains were, however, not significantly above the neutral point,
indicating fewer gains, on average.
Exploring how these factors might relate to one another, correlations were examined
(see Table 1). Results indicate that students who reported greater access to research
experience also reported stronger gains in research skills (r = .444, p \ .01) and com-
munication skills (r = .384, p \ .01) than those who reported less access. Students who
perceived value in research experience were more likely to report strong gains in research
skills (r = .562, p \ .01), communication skills (r = .420, p \ .01) and lab skills
(r = .304, p \ .01).
To tease these responses out further, students were asked to ‘‘Give an example or brief
explanation that illustrates what you got from research experience’’. A total of 78 students
(*72 % of respondents) provided an answer to this question. Responses were categorised,
and the distribution across theme categories can be seen in Table 2.

Lab skills

The development of lab skills was perceived by students to be less useful than other skills.
As reflected in the student quote below (which was representative of *10 % of responses
to this item; see Table 2), while useful the development of certain skills, these tasks did not
stimulate significant insights or interest into the research process.

123
 Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations
Mean (SD) Access Value Gains Research Communication Science Lab Study Work

Perceptions of RE
Access 3.39 –
(.87)
High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

Perceived value 3.93 .319** –

(.74)
Perceived gains (yes/no) .89 .166 .352** –
(.31)
Skills gained
Research skills 4.00 .444** .562** .319** –
(.74)
Communication skills 3.60 .384** .420** .265* .614** –
(.95)
Science skills 3.83 .045 .176 -.013 .420** .296** –
(1.01)
Lab skills 2.87 -.045 .304** .029 .234* .211* .327** –
(.82)
Career intentions
Continue study 4.02 .007 .288** .396** .209* .129 .135 .164 –
(1.07)
Seek employment 2.93 .076 -.094 -.099 .040 .079 -.003 -.038 -.320** –
(.93)
Pursue research 4.06 .147 .385** .479** .410** .258* .268** .190 .695** -.066
(1.15)
199

123
200 High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

Table 2 What students gained from research experience

Category of response Number of responses

Skills and methodology

Design 4
Practical methodology 6
Management 5
Writing/reading 4
Thinking 4
Data collection and analysis 2
Total 25
Understanding of the lived experience of research
Teamwork, interaction and asking for help 5
‘‘What research is actually like’’ 13
An understanding of the workload, time-costs and repetition that go into research 8
Total 26
More in-depth engagement with content 13
A sense of independence, agency and self-direction 11
Familiarity with approaches to the unknown/unchartered 3
Total 78

You do the same old things over and over, until you’re so sick of it that when you
finally get to the results, your brain is so numb from it all that even if you find
something amazing it no longer registers.
However, students who had engaged in more research-based tasks (such as an inde-
pendent research project) felt that many of these gaps had been bridged. One student
described this process:
Undertaking research has allowed me to come to terms with the idea that research
doesn’t always work, and that this isn’t necessarily a bad thing…. Being able to
problem solve and provide direction to a project is empowering and motivating
The process of undertaking an independent research project afforded the student insight
into the ‘‘real’’ research process, highlighting the critical roles of both failure and
creativity.

Critical engagement

One skill gain that emerged clearly from student responses was an improved capacity for
students to understand the research process, including the ability to critique other research.
These skills are valuable not only for informing students’ own research design, but also in
engaging with the literature. The latter of these skills are crucial to being engaged members
of a community of scholars. For example, one student (representative of *5 % of
responses) reflected that undertaking their own research had ‘‘made me more critical of
research, and more careful when reading the papers of others’’. For another, they observed
that doing research ‘‘teaches you to think critically, not just about someone else’s research,

123
High Educ (2016) 72:191–207 201

but the whole process of research and how important it is to properly structure’’. Through
developing an understanding of the research process, students reflected that the critical
insights they had gain in critiquing the work of others had broader benefits. For example,
one student reflected that learning ‘‘to be more selective about where I take my information
from’’ had been a skill that ‘‘helped me in every other course’’.

Autonomous research capacity

Another key gain students reported was self-reliance, autonomy and self-direction. As
reflected in the quote below (representative of *14 % of responses to this item; see
Table 2), this experience helped develop a much deeper insight into the process of doing
research.
Research has given me the chance to formulate my own questions and, in a self-
guided manner, develop strategies to gather and analyse data and answer these
questions. Much deeper insight is gained from this type of investigation than from
simply learning fundamental principles (although of course, that is necessary!)
Embedded in this experience was the development of an autonomous ability to do
research and not just receive knowledge or, as one student (representative of about 33 % of
responses—see Table 2) summarised, ‘‘basically given the chance to experience being a
working scientist—instead of just learning how to do the science’’.

Teamwork, management and communication

The research experience, for many students, also built professional and practical skills.
Many student responses highlighted that research was more time consuming and intensive
than they had expected. The development of time and project management skills was a
central component of the student experience, with a respondent noting that ‘‘the impor-
tance of the planning process was made clear through the research I did’’.
Students perceived that working as part of a team, and needing clear communication
with other members in the research team, was centrally important (approximately 7 % of
responses were on this theme). For example, one student noted the importance of needing
to ‘‘understand the social dynamics in a research team’’, while another reflected they
‘‘needed very strong collaborative group work skills to make the research work effec-
tively’’. Embedded within the issue of communication was the tension between the
autonomous nature of research, in developing a capacity to guide your own work, while
also learning how to work with fellow researchers. One student summarising a range of the
challenges of the need to develop a range of skills simultaneously:
learning to ask people for help, and talking about your work is very important…
Along with this comes learning to work independently without someone telling you
what to do and how to do it all the time. You learn the importance of checking your
work and keeping good records of what you are doing.

The challenges of including RLE for undergraduates

While student responses highlight that there was a broad range of important skills that were
developed through RLE, students also noted the extent to which research experience
seemed to be at odds with the rest of their undergraduate experience.

123
202 High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

For instance, research in general was not perceived to be compatible with, or something
that is done, in a conventional classroom. One student (representative of about 4 % of
responses) observed that ‘‘Conventional classes do not particularly require individual
research and trying to understand content and come to own conclusions. Research does—I
have learnt how to find useful resources for research projects, and how to explain findings
from research and data. It involves coming to my own conclusions, which are not nec-
essarily the ‘correct answer’ that is typical of exams’’. This quote highlights some of the
perceived limits of standard education structures and hierarchies for facilitating autono-
mous research capacities.
The challenge of being able to meaningfully include research in undergraduate courses
was regularly alluded to. An emphasis on prescriptive labs, associated with some of the
development of lab skills, was not seen to be ‘‘research’’, as it lacked the autonomous
exploration of the unknown. For example, that it was not ‘‘‘real’ research because the set-
up and experiments you are doing is the same… and in the end you probably won’t
uncover something new’’. Such an experience, thus, did not represent what research in the
real world was like.

Impact of RLE on career intentions

In exploring our second research focus, we also sought to understand whether being
involved in RLE impacted postgraduation career intentions. Response frequencies indi-
cated that 69 % of respondents had an intention to seek out further opportunities to engage
in research; 67 % of respondents indicated an intention to pursue further study (at either an
honours or postgraduate level); and 34 % (37) of respondents indicated an intention to seek
employment (in either a related or unrelated field). Intention to seek further study was
strongly correlated with intention to seek further research opportunities (r = .695,
p \ .01).
Exploring correlations to examine the effects of research experience on these intentions,
the data indicated that perceiving the RLE as valuable was moderately positively associ-
ated with an intention to pursue more study (r = .288, p \ .01) and seek opportunities for
more research (r = .385, p \ .01).
Having made gains in research skills, as a result of RLE, was also strongly related to
intent to engage in further research (r = .410, p \ .01) and moderately associated with
pursuing further study (r = .209, p \ .05). Gains in communication skills from RLE were
positively associated with an intent to seek more research opportunities (r = .258,
p \ .05), as were gains in science skills (r = .268, p \ .01). Taken together, these asso-
ciations indicate the impact the kinds of skills students gain has on the kinds of career
decisions they make.
Importantly, simply having had research experience was not significantly correlated
with any of the career outcomes. This is crucial for future RLE development across
universities, as it highlights that simple experience itself is not the answer. Meaningful skill
development, socialisation and understanding of careers pathways are crucial elements of
maximising student learning through RLE.
Further to this, open-ended responses asked participants to ‘‘explain how you perceive
your experience of research in your science degree has changed/influenced your career
intentions’’. A total of 40 students (*37 %) of respondents provided an answer to this
question. Responses were categorised, and the distribution of responses across theme
categories can be seen in Table 3. Supporting the quantitative results, qualitative data
highlight students’ desire to either engage in research or pursue further study.

123
High Educ (2016) 72:191–207 203

Table 3 Impact on career intentions

Category of response Number of responses

Change of mind
Change of discipline, area or topic 4
Now think research is an option (didn’t previously think they were capable) 3
Made me more open to research (didn’t previously think they would enjoy) 6
Total 13
Confirmation of intent
Always wanted to do research, now more excited 7
Disinterested initially, even more so now. 1
Total 8
Gave me more information
Now know the options 3
Awareness of ‘‘what it’s really like’’ 6
Opened eyes to the breadth of possible research 3
Total 12
Discouraged me
Found it insurmountably difficult 3
Not as glamorous/fun/exciting as expected 2
Negative experience, no longer interested 2
Total 7
Total 40

Confirming intention to undertake further research

For a broad range of students, and in line with Seymour et al. (2004), experience of RLE
reconfirmed their pre-existing intention to undertake further research. For example,
respondents noted that the experience ‘‘strengthened my opinion that I want to undertake
research as a career’’, and further that ‘‘RLE confirmed that research is something I would
quite like to pursue after my degree’’ (about 17.5 % of responses fit this theme; See
Table 3). For another participant, ‘‘RLE is the most important component of my degree
and I will endeavour to take every opportunity to undertake any research in the future’’.
These comments highlight the galvanising impact RLE can have on students who are
already leaning towards a research career.

Confidence to do research

Related to this first point is the observation from several students that engaging in the
research process gave them unexpected insight into their own abilities. The qualitative data
reflected the development of student self-confidence in applying the skills which they held
or had developed during their research experience. This was articulated by one student
(representative of about 7.5 % of responses) who reflected that:
I wanted to be a researcher, but doubted I was intelligent enough. Having a go at
research at an undergraduate level made me realise that being a scientist is really

123
204 High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

about passion for your field, creativity and perseverance. I now have the confidence
to pursue a career in research.
For some students, this experience was completely re-oriented their career intentions.
For example, for one they noted ‘‘It changed my mind; I was planning on getting a job but
after research experience, have decided to do a PhD’’.
In this respect, exposure to a research experience allowed students who were unsure of
their own capacity to build the confidence in their own abilities.

Changing aspirations

This pro-research trend did not hold across all students, however. For some, the process
was one of a broadening of changing of interests and perceived options. For others, the
experience left them more sure of their disinterest in pursuing research.
For some students (about 17.5 %), changing aspirations meant altering their field of
interest. For example, one student reflected that ‘‘Prior to my research experience, the only
type of research I would have wanted to undertake is epidemiology, but now I am more
open to other research avenues’’. Another noted that their experience of research was
prescriptive, uninspiring and thus ‘‘made me less inclined to further studies and event to
some extent remain in my field’’. For another, the sheer complexity and enormity of the
task was made clear to them and, as such, ‘‘Before getting experience in research it was
somewhat more attractive, now that I have done research experience there is more to
consider and I may not end up doing research’’. It is important to note here that this should
not necessarily be seen as a negative outcome. Just as not every student would excel at
neurosurgery, research is not for everyone. This does, however, highlight the value in
allowing students insight into the process at an undergraduate level and allowing them to
make informed postgraduation decisions about their future.

General discussion

This paper began by highlighting our focus on what students gain during the RLE process,
and how RLE influences future career decisions. The data presented above demonstrate
that there are two domains in which students have identified the most useful aspects of
RLE: the diversity of skills they have developed, and consequently, how this skill
acquisition impacts on their career intentions. We find that research experiences that allow
students to build on research skills (such as problem-solving and identifying limitations of
methodology), communication skills (such as working collaboratively and defending an
argument) and science skills (such as analysing data and writing scientific papers) all
contribute to clearer insight into the nature of research and more informed career decision.
For some students, this means they are more confident, either in their decisions or in their
abilities, to take on the task of research. For others, this means knowing that research is not
for them.
The data also highlighted the fundamental skills that students valued from their RLE
experience. These included: advanced laboratory skills, critical engagement with material,
autonomous research capacity, and strategies for research design, analysis, management
and communication. The prevalence of these themes in the data indicates two things. First,
and as reflected in the literature (Howitt et al. 2010; Seymour et al. 2004; Valter and
Akerlind 2010), these skills are clearly crucial to undertaking research activity. Second,

123
High Educ (2016) 72:191–207 205

these skills are not being imparted to students as part of conventional science teaching in
our sample. These are all skills that students indicated they had gained specifically from
their research experience.
This meshes well with the finding that nearly 90 % of the students who had experienced
RLE indicated that they felt they had had gained something from it that a conventional
classroom would not, in their view, have provided. In line with the critique that Johnstone
and colleagues (Johnstone et al. 2006) pose against scripted lab work, the data presented
outlines how merely participating in the scientific process is insufficient to meaningfully
learn the process of science.
Developing these skillsets is not only important for understanding the research process,
however. These skills (e.g. critical thinking, self-direction) can be transferred to the
workplace and outside of university environments. As highlighted by our data, not all
students will pursue research in the future. They will transition to workplaces where the
technical concepts and factual knowledge gained through a science degree may not be
important. The critical thinking and self-direction gained through an RLE process, how-
ever, will be of immeasurable value. As such, attempting to build such skills into RLE, and
making it clear to students why these skills are valuable, should form part of any RLE
programme.
It is important to note that the current dataset had several limitations and should be
treated as an important first step in a body of work to be pursued. In the first instance, the
sample was relatively small and students who engaged in RLE were over-represented. At
the institution of study, the proportion of students who would undertake RLE as part of
their science degrees is significantly lower than the 69 % found in our dataset and, as such,
results should be considered with caution, when generalising to broader populations. The
sample was also fairly small, particularly after having excluded a number of participants
for having completed insufficient items or not having any experience with RLE. However,
the trends indicated in the current data suggest scope for further and broader investigation
of these issues in tertiary education.

Conclusion

Taken together, our findings offer further evidence that RLE can contribute to students’
interest and future engagement in research. Higher education institutions already carrying
out explicit RLE programmes can use these findings as a prism through which to assess the
extent to which their existing programmes have the ability to develop the set of skills that
students find valuable. Similarly, educators interested in designing RLE programmes can
gather insights from this paper and design programmes that aim to develop these sets of
skills in students. If our purpose as educators is to encourage future engagement by
students in any kind of research, then it is our responsibility to understand what students
are gaining from RLE processes and how these are influencing career choices.
Through understanding the current issues and challenges in a specific RLE programme,
we pose a series of future research questions that need exploring in order gain a deeper
understanding of how RLE can improve the student experience. These largely relate to the
variety of practical challenges that higher education institutions face in integrating RLE
into existing lab-based teaching practices. As such, future research questions in this vein
include: How can RLE, and the related skills developed through it, be better incorporated

123
206 High Educ (2016) 72:191–207

into the conventional classroom setting?; and ultimately, how might access to RLE be
bolstered within the undergraduate student body?
Our findings indicate patterns of skill gains, student insights and career decisions that
can be used to inform policy, course design and research in the area of RLE. As science
teaching moves further from the passive knowledge transmission model, into a construc-
tivist, student-centred, enquiry-based framework, data on the student experience and
outcomes will become increasingly valuable. Building from this starting point, we can
tease out these ideas towards a full understanding of the value of RLE.

References
ANU. (2011). ANU by 2020: Strategic plan. Canberra: Australian National University.
Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review
and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 3–19.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and
Development, 18(1), 57–75.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Using constructive alignment in outcomes-based teaching and learning.
Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed., pp. 50–63). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Brew, A. (2012). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching
and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(1), 101–114.
Christ, O., van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra mile: Foci of
organisational identification as determinants of different forms of organisational citizenship behaviour
among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 329–341.
Cousin, G. (2012). Getting our students to engage: A review of two key contributions 10 years on. Higher
Education Research and Development, 31(1), 15–20.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-
based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the University: New relationships between research,
scholarship and teaching (pp. 67–78). Mcgraw Hill: Open Universtiy Press.
Herman, W. E. (1995). Humanistic influences on a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. In
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San
Francisco, CA, April 18–22). http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED393814.pdf
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foudations for the twenty-first
century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
Howitt, S., Wilson, A., Wilson, K., & Roberts, P. (2010). ‘Please remember we are not all brilliant’:
Undergraduates’ experiences of an elite, research-intensive degree at a research-intensive university.
Higher Education Research and Development, 29(4), 405–420.
Jiang, F., & Roberts, P. J. (2011). An investigation of the impact of research-led education on student learning
and understandings of research. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 8(2), 4.
Johnstone, A. H., Sleet, R. J., & Vianna, J. F. (2006). An information processing model of learning: Its
application to an undergraduate laboratory course in chemistry. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1),
77–87.
Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First FINDINGS. Cell Biology
Education, 3, 270–277.
Mauranen, A. (2009). Spoken rhetoric: How do natives and non-natives fare? In E. Suomela-Salmi & F.
Dervin (Eds.), Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing.
McDermott, L. C. (1993). How we teach and how students learn—A mismatch? American Journal of
Physics, 61(4), 295–298.
McNamara, J., Larkin, I. K., & Beatson, A. (2010). Using poster presentations as assessment of work
integrated learning. In Paper presented at the Australian collaborative education network National
conference, Perth.
Meyer, J. H. F., Shanahan, M. P., & Laugksch, R. C. (2005). Students’ conceptions of research. I: A
qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(3), 225–244.

123
High Educ (2016) 72:191–207 207

Mitchell, P., & Forer, P. (2010). Blended learning: The perceptions of first-year geography students. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 34(1), 77–89.
O’Donnell, V. L., & Tobbell, J. (2007). The transition of adult students to higher education: Legitimate
peripheral participation in a community of practice? Adult Education Quarterly, 57, 312–328.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 345–375.
Robertson, J., & Blackler, G. (2006). Students’ experiences of learning in a research environment. Higher
Education Research and Development, 25(3), 215–229.
Rust, C., O’Donovan, B., & Price, M. (2005). A social constructivist assessment process model: How the
research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Edu-
cation, 30(3), 231–240.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 58–109.
Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Deantoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research
experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Edu-
cation, 88(4), 493–534.
Valter, K., & Akerlind, G. (2010). Introducing students to ways of thinking an acting like a researcher: A
case study of research-led education in the sciences. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 22(1), 89–97.
Walsh, A. (2007). An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in the context of work-based learning.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1), 79–87.
Watkins, D. (1982). Factors influencing the study methods of Australian tertiary students. Higher Education,
11, 369–380.
Wilson, A. N., Howitt, S. M., & Wilson, K. F. (2007). Research-led Education: challenges and experiences.
In Paper presented at the Australian conference on science and mathematics education, Sydney.
Zamorksi, B. (2002). Research-led teaching and learning in higher education: A case. Teaching in Higher
Education, 7(4), 411–427.

123