Is Student Research Oversimplified?

There is more to know of a subject than can be provided by any curriculum. Good teaching produces a desire to learn, and provides some of the tools that make learning possible.

Rote learning is certainly one of those tools, but certifications that require only the knowledge of certain useful facts have grossly inflated its value. Remembering and thinking are both necessary to effective learning, but they are not the same thing.

Labs and experiments are useful, but a purely empirical approach doesn't work unfailingly. The so-called "Scientific Method" (which I was taught as a child) is a useful tool, but it isn't the whole answer.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

Of course, dishonesty can't be tolerated, and the imagination should be encouraged. A real education can produce a wonderful result, but it requires more than any parent or institution can provide. Sooner or later the individual has to establish a goal worthy of the effort required to reach it. Hopefully this goal will not be just a secure retirement.

Yes you can find large amounts of data to cut and paste with but how you discern what data to use and how to apply that data is the real crux.

I've had college classes that I was given a lower grade on a paper when I didn't present the material word for word. I explained the properties to the next level and didn't conform to the book answer. I gave 110% and received an 82%. Lost all respect for that professor and my perfect 4.0 on 120 semester credits.

The lesson learned- find out what they want and provide it. Learn what you need and what you want to succeed by your own initiative.

Brad

OK! Lets try this one, an engineering student at a university is asked to design and produce a viable one cylinder IC four stroke engine within the space of 6 months?

Reading about and studying an engineering project or solution is one thing, doing it correctly is difficult without a lot of practice!

Spencer.

A) Define viable- say greater than 1 shaft horsepower.

B) Scratch build or of the shelf parts or combination there of?

C) Any limitation on fuel consumption?

D) Extra credit for innovation.

E) How much use of high tech materials or cost limits?

Just the addition of producing a defined viable system make for a lot of practice.

I would also add a mentor to guide the projects with the goal to maximise understanding of issues and safety. Just the part production is a discipline of its own.

But you are correct, knowing how to produce it helps in knowing how to design it. And that takes practice.

Brad

Neither the design nor the build (or the assignment) is, or involves, research. Such is the fundamental misunderstanding that trips up so many well meaning people these days...both behind and in front of the lectern.

The issue of research and it's value spreads far further than the student population. I have been a researcher throughout my entire career. I am appalled at the "quality" of research set forth in the past 10 years. And not only in the "scientific" community, but especially in the medical community. There is a lot of medical test data that is garbage.

To True, too many times the data seems to match the expected outcome, not the out come is derived from impartial data.

Brad

Permit me to answer the question by echoing the question back...with appropriate modification.

For many students, today [and in the past], the tendency is [has been] to approach science as a collection of facts to be memorized. The process called research sometimes involves [activities including] putting in the right questions to Google and then copying and pasting the results into an assignment paper. The Powerful Internet [search and information exchange] tools are undoubtedly useful; but are we really introducing students to the true scientific educational actual process of questioning, [making observations,] hypothesizing, experimenting, and drawing conclusions—to the actual meaning of research in its true sense? What is [the] true [status of] science post secondary education today, that the true meaning of research has become lost on even degreed individuals who should know that merely reading or looking things up is not research? That do not know that merely searching and reading, while a prerequisite, does not, of itself, constitute research? That use of the word, as a verb, to self-glorify or impress others with one's job tasks performance—think of the customer service phone attendant who promises to "research" your question or complaint—or the boss who asks you to "research" available suppliers—serves only to expose the person as being misinformed and inadequately educated to others (albeit they are increasingly few) that know what research is, and is not—who know that "research" is never in the job descriptions (or among the skill sets) of hourly wage earners or undergraduate students, or almost almost everyone else who casually throws the word around these days.