Involving Undergraduate Students in Research: Is it ... - CiteSeerX

Session M5G

Involving Undergraduate Students in Research: Is it Possible? Frode Eika Sandnes1, Hua-Li Jian2, Yo-Ping Huang3 Abstract – Postgraduate students are often involved in research activities. “Undergraduate” and “research” are two words that are seldom used in the same sentence. It is a commonly held view that undergraduates have insufficient skill to conduct useful research. Further, the faculty members in traditional research universities often have a sufficient supply of research-capable postgraduate students. However, polytechnics and traditional teaching oriented universities, such as Oslo University College, have few postgraduate students. This paper addresses the use of undergraduate students as a research resource both in terms of doing research work, and as part of the students’ training and development. Factors contributing to the success of such activities are discussed such as publishing results and including students in the writing process. Experiences from various projects over the past four years at both Oslo University College and Tatung University are used as examples on how this can be achieved in practice. Index Terms - Undergraduate research, Publish or perish, Lifelong learning, Student motivation, Academic writing. INTRODUCTION The idea of incorporating undergraduates in the research activities of a university is appealing – especially for colleges or universities that mainly offer undergraduate programs. Advancing the research agenda of a department, while nurturing the academic skills of the student, is a win-win scenario. Clearly, there are obvious obstacles associated with undergraduate research, including students’ motivation and skill, teachers’ effort, etc. However, some educators may be surprised to learn that the literature on undergraduate research is quite extensive [1-3], and that undergraduate research experiences are offered in many places around the world. Undergraduate research is offered in several different forms ranging from extracurricular research projects, structured taught modules to summer schools. In this paper we share our experiences with undergraduate research and emphasize strategies for motivating students to participate. UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE FOR EVERYONE? Some claim that there are strong reasons for including all students in the undergraduate research experience [4], also referred to as creative scholarship [5]. Gates et al. [4] argue

that students in lack of self confidence rarely seek out research experience by themselves. They propose a realistic “for-all” approach based on a well-structured program. Others argue that students from teaching oriented universities have disadvantages over research oriented university students when entering into postgraduate programs [6], and that the inclusion of research into the curriculum in teaching oriented universities can help narrow this gap. Other arguments are that research help prepare students for lifelong learning which they will need in a future filled with rapid change [7]. The Internet is increasingly used as a source of information and students need to be able to search for and assess the quality of the information they find. Everybody make decisions, and decisions are founded on information and insight. Good decisions are based on good information while bad decisions are based on poor, false or inaccurate information. Furthermore, students may learn to handle failure as a possible outcome. It is also claimed that it is stimulating for students to work with new, novel, knowledge [7], and that research can stimulate students enthusiasm for a subject [5]. Undergraduate research can help reach pedagogical goals such as communication, problem solving, teamwork, informed learning and responsible learning [8]. Elgren [9] argues that the increased student teacher contact, that results from an undergraduate research experience, helps combat the current trend of studentdisengagement from education. Most papers focus on the payoffs of the research activity, but there are also important personal development issues such as ethical conduct, growth of self-confidence, independence and tolerance of obstacles [8]. Another viewpoint is that students’ involvement in research helps justify the research carried out at the institution [10]. TEAMWORK OR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS The literature on undergraduate research promotes the use of student teamwork [11]. These recommendations are also consistent with the authors’ own experiences. However, the notion of teamwork is somewhat inconsistent with the ideas of independent academic research where the individual will have to assess a situation, collect information and make a decision based on the available information. On the other hand, few undergraduates reach this level of research, as their work is mainly development oriented.

1

Frode Eika Sandnes, Faculty of Engineering, Oslo University College, P.O. Box 4, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway, [email protected] Hua-Li Jian, Dept. Foreign Languages and Literature, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Road, Tainan, Taiwan, [email protected] 3 Yo-Ping Huang, Dept. Computer Science and Engineering, Tatung University, 40 ChungShan North Road Sec. 3, Taipei 104, Taiwan, [email protected] 2

San Juan, PR

July 23 – 28, 2006 9th International Conference on Engineering Education M5G-1

Session M5G --

FIGURE 1 TEACHERS’ OFFICES THAT ADD DISTANCE BETWEEN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS AND THEIR TEACHERS.

FIGURE 2 A GENERAL STUDENT LAB IS NOT A SUITABLE MEETING PLACE FOR STUDENTS AND THEIR TEACHERS.

FIGURE 3 A LEISURE AREA OUTSIDE THE LABS IS NOT A SUITABLE PLACE TO DISCUSS RESEARCH.

FIGURE 4 A MEETING ROOM FOR DISCUSSING RESEARCH PROJECTS NEEDS TO BE BOOKED IN ADVANCE. MORE DIFFICULT TO IMPROVISE MEETINGS.

-RESEARCH VERSUS TEACHING UNIVERSITY Much of the literature on the undergraduate research experience is authored by teachers from liberal arts colleges or other teaching institutions that mainly offer undergraduate programs. Such institutions are often termed “teaching universities” because they do not offer the traditional researchoriented postgraduate programs as the traditional research universities do. However, there are plenty of high-quality research activities conducted at teaching universities. A research portfolio is often required, even at teaching universities, to obtain tenure. This is sometimes referred to as the “publish or perish” regime. Many faculty members publish their work in prestigious journals. The issue of undergraduate research arises as young faculty members try to combine research in their teaching and involve students in research with the overall objective to advance their own career and gain promotion [7, 12, 13]. As there are no supply of postgraduate

students on campus the faculty members must use “what they’ve got”, i.e., undergraduate students [11]. However, the term “research institution” is rather categorical. For instance, the second author is a faculty member at a traditional research university in Taiwan, which is often referred to as the second most prestigious on the island. However, the particular department of the second author is in practice a “service” department to the university and not a core “research” department. Consequently, mostly undergraduate courses are offered. Still faculty members of the “service” departments face the same publishing pressure as their colleagues in the more resourced “research” departments. The most common belief is that research activities lead to better teaching. However, McCaughey and others questions the teaching abilities of faculty at traditional research universities [14, 15]. The over emphasis on research in recent years has led to teachers in research universities distancing themselves from undergraduate teaching. A sobering study by Bohart [13] show that students do not connect teachers’

San Juan, PR


Session M5G publishing activities with teaching ability. Next, few undergraduates are aware of professors’ research. Both undergraduate and postgraduate students are unable to distinguish between a teacher that publishes or does not from their teaching. Finally, they found that both undergraduates and postgraduates value teaching over research and they do not think that teachers that do not publish should be sacked. There are also interesting difference in practice between social science and humanities and science and engineering [8]. Science and engineering students have more contact with their teacher than social science and humanities students. Moreover, science students are often given a project by their supervisor while social science students have to develop their own theme. Science and engineering students often learn from example, while social science and humanities students often organize their own learning. This pattern parallels those of Confucian Heritage Culture students (CHC) versus Western students [16, 17] where CHC students learn from example, or a role model, while Western students learn from self discovery and process. Finally, science and engineering students are more likely to work in teams than social science and humanities students [8]. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Although several educators stress the importance of a suitable research infrastructure [18], few mention the physical layout of the building. Our experiences are that the physical organization of the working space can directly affect research. Take for instance the premises of the first author at Oslo University College. All the teachers are located on the 7th floor along a corridor of small glass-offices (see Figure 1), while the students are cramped into student labs on the 2nd and the 3rd floors (see Figure 2). Sadly, this anti-pedagogical style of office space organization is typical of contemporary Norwegian office architecture. This environment adds distance between the teacher and the student as it is more cumbersome for them to interact. First, it is hard to comfortably accommodate more than one student in the teacher’s office. Obviously, this is especially difficult when working with student teams. Furthermore, it is hard for the teachers to meet students in the lab. There are many labs to choose between and one has to walk across different floors, and sometimes a significant distance, in order to locate students. Students simply have to pick whatever free seat they find. Once the students are located it is hard to discuss their projects as there are usually many other students in the lab. One does not wish to disturb these students, and the students might find it intimidating to hold meeting with the supervisor in front of fellow students. Between the labs, there is a leisure area for students (see Figure 3) and these are also not a suitable arena for discussions. One acceptable solution is to use dedicated meeting rooms located on the 8th floor (see Figure 4). Students enjoy the formal “business-like” atmosphere of these rooms, but they need to be booked in advance and the meetings therefore must be planned in good time and impromptu improvised meetings are more difficult to realize. At Tatung University, which is the home of the third author, each teacher is allocated a relatively large office, often

referred to as a lab with all the necessary equipment. The office, or lab, is divided into sections using open-office movable walls. There is typically a small cubicle for the teacher, a cubicle for the senior research students and a larger area for undergraduate or junior postgraduate students. This configuration ensures that students and staff are together in a natural way. Students can more informally and privately talk to the teacher and the teacher will be able to continuously monitor the progress of the student and provide better guidance. There is of course some status among undergraduate students affiliated with particular professors’ labs, and there is healthy “pressure” on the students to perform. Students in the same lab work on related problems and can help each other. The effects of peer-pressure in similar context has been reported to have positive effects [19]. It is our belief that this environment helps stimulate undergraduate research and increase the quality of the undergraduate research experience. MOTIVATING STUDENTS Ward [20] outlines several methods for persuading students to participate in research projects including, hiring, allocating course credits and using volunteers. Hiring may be a viable option if such funding is available. However, it is our opinion that money is a misleading motivator to do research, and that money alone is not sufficient to attract suitable students, let alone encourage those students to immerse themselves full heartedly in the project. Hiring also adds an administrative burden. Hiring seems to be a more popular alternative in the US where students can obtain internships in companies or gain funding from initiatives such as the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) program or the Collaborative Research Experience for Undergraduates (CREU). Allocating course credit for research work is an appealing idea and can help ensure that students do not feel that their research effort “eat into” the time needed to follow other courses. However, by introducing course credits the entire process needs to be formalized by adding assessment, quality control, etc, and one looses some of the flexibility of individual free-standing projects. Furthermore, the introduction of course credits sends out the signal that undergraduate research is for everyone. Whether research is for everyone or not is disputed in the literature [20]. At Oslo University College students work on a large independent project during their last semester, and on a few occasions such projects have been used as a vehicle for undergraduate research. Such projects awards the students credit points, as they run over one semester and awards students 20 ECTS, which is equivalent to about two-thirds of the total effort during one semester. Teachers carefully screen students and only those who demonstrate a combination of interest and skill are allowed to participate in the departmental research group. Hence, we award credit points, but the undergraduate research experience is not offered to all – yet. At Oslo University College we also have some experience with incorporating research as a part of a taught module. This is particularly suitable for computer science subjects such as human

San Juan, PR


Session M5G computer interactions where there are many open ended problems that students can get into without too much background knowledge. Volunteers are also an option, and at Oslo University College we have supervised a handful of volunteer undergraduate research projects. However, our experiences of volunteer students are that they are very focused with a clear agenda. They are highly motivated, usually in the top quartile, and are planning to continue their postgraduate education at some prestigious university. Other motivations for conducting undergraduate research is preparation for postgraduate study or increasing the chances to be admitted to better universities [1]. However Greendyke found that undergraduate research experiences did not affect students choice to proceed to postgraduate studies [11]. Financial concerns and job opportunities are more influential. Well paid jobs waiting after graduation are more tempting than continued study. Furthermore, using the research experience to strengthen a CV to increase job possibilities are also cited as a motivation [5]. This is especially true if the students are involved in the publishing of the results. Others claim that undergraduate research experiences can be one factor for recruiting into the research profession. Again, the need for researchers in society is limited. There will always be a small fraction of the population that naturally finds its way into research – regardless. The problems associated with the congested job market for academics are discussed in [21]. FAME AS MOTIVATOR: INCLUDING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS AS CO-AUTHORS According to the literature, it is quite common to include students as co-authors on research papers resulting from the work the students have participated in [7, 8, 20]. Students, and young people in general, or increasingly publishing their thoughts and experiences in weblogs, also known as blogs [22]. The desire to reach a greater audience, publish and obtain fame sometimes manifests itself from a pre-university age [23]. It is our experience that the publishing aspect of research becomes as important to students as it is to the faculty. Present day students generally enjoy the idea of being “famous”, and the thought of “being in print” is very appealing. Students quickly acknowledge the advantage to have their name on a publication and the doors in which this can open in terms of being admitted into various postgraduate programs, being admitted to do a PhD or having more opportunities in the workplace. It is our experience that the possible degree to which students can be included in the writing process is limited. It takes years to develop an academic writing skill and students’ prose is usually un-publishable. The coaching of students in writing requires a significant effort from the teacher. Furthermore, research is hampered with deadlines and there might not be time to follow a student manuscript from initial draft to final form. At most, students can draft some of the procedural or methodological parts of a paper. However, even simple methodological descriptions often have to undergo

major revisions by experienced researchers. Although students’ contribution to the actual writing process is limited, students clearly recognize their own contribution in the finished paper and indeed learn “something” from seeing how their initial draft has been transformed into scholarly prose. Poger [19] stresses the importance of distinguishing between undergraduate and postgraduate research. Table 1 gives our impressionistic overview of how we expect student involvement at various levels of the academic system. Students should be introduced to literature and the search and review of literature at an early stage. Williams surveys good recipes for managing research-based literature [24]. Raffa [25] reports astonishing experiences with a 14-week research writing course for postgraduates where all but one student group managed to publish their coursework in established international journals, and that they successfully published 11 journal papers in the duration of five years. The course instructor was of course included as last author on all these papers. The reported study was in the field of pharmacy. However, in engineering subjects, including computer science, such achievements are next to impossible. It is rare for even Ph.D. students to publish journal papers during their threeyear study. Furthermore, it takes much more than 14 weeks to develop an idea and generate knowledge that is publishable in reputable journals. TABLE I THE RESEARCH AND WRITING ABILITIES AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF THE ACADEMIC LADDER. academic level research ability writing ability Faculty (professordraw historical lines journal paper student) connect ideas across multiple funding disciplines proposal assess feasibility convey to different audiences Ph.D. Student independent and novel idea conference place research in world context paper academic argumentation thesis Master student literature search and review tech note some novel and independent dissertation thought peer-review analysis Undergraduate student lab labor report development methodological writing

Fame can also be achieved in terms of media coverage. The general public never seems to get tired of the “(underdog) students invent X, or discover Y”. Media should be exploited whenever appropriate. Often, undergraduate research projects gets coverage in the Oslo University College online bulletin which is ready by nearly 10,000 people on a daily basis. Occasionally, the news spread outside of campus. On one occasion a story from our local university bulletin was picked up by the major national newspaper Aftenposten [26] and was presented as the top story on their online edition for several hours. As a consequence, the story spread like wildfire and eventually ended up in about 20 national newspapers and magazines, at least four international newspapers including the major Danish daily Politiken. The students appeared on

San Juan, PR


Session M5G

WHAT CAN STUDENTS DO?

core subjects

theory

We have found that students predominantly can do development, i.e., programming (for computer science students) and some other labor-intensive tasks such as monitoring or executing experiments. The content of the student contribution should be relevant to, and consistent with, the main emphasis of the study program in which they are enrolled. This is the area where they are likely to provide a worthwhile contribution. It is important that the students have fun and that the development has a clear and distinct goal. There is an endless number of problems that can be approached once they are identified. We have found it useful to base such research around topics and technologies and problem scenarios that student are already familiar with. Examples include mobile-phone text messaging, automatic email sorting, etc. Students are already domain experts and little effort is needed to explain the research question. The right students hopefully approach familiar domains with enthusiasm and embrace the work by taking ownership of the project. At Oslo University College students have successfully worked with problems in the domain of mobile human computer interaction (HCI), where students have implemented test beds for various experiments on mobile device input, and helped conduct such experiments. Our experiences with HCI as a suitable research platform are consistent with those of Pastel [28]. Students have also contributed novel ideas and different viewpoints that have affected the direction of the projects. Several conference papers have resulted from such work [29-34]. Students are often familiar with the concept of open source and this concept share many similarities with research [7], and can hence be a suitable vehicle for conveying ethical research practices. •uneployable (re-training)

skill

•academic

Reseach •engineer university (lifelong learning) Teaching university

•Industrial innovator

•engineer

research

development

academic emphasis

FIGURE 5 AN IMPRESSIONISTIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC EMPHASIS VERSUS SKILL-BUILDING EMPHASIS IN THE CURRICULUM.

skilled research

average

theoretic research

low

theoretic development

skilled development

more

student career

student motivation

advantage

personal

Usefulness (society)

high

public

several radio program and was nominated and became finalists for a national student software price (Rosing student award). All in all, the above story did not go unnoticed among fellow students and the interest in doing research based work sky-rocketed that year. There are also other examples of student projects reaching beyond the school gates [27]. These events are rare, but when they happen, they boost the selfconfidence of the students in question. Furthermore, fellow students, and even teachers, get inspired by such publicity.

less

teacher effort

FIGURE 6 AN IMPRESSIONISTIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH EMPHASIS VERSUS SKILL-BUILDING EMPHASIS IN THE CURRICULUM.

FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Figures 5 and 6 illustrate impressionistically the relationship between the research-emphasis versus skill-building emphasis in the engineering curriculum. I.e., the research emphasis is depicted as a factor orthogonal to the dimension of skillbuilding emphasis. In Figure 5 the horizontal axis represents the research emphasis from large (left) to low (right) and the vertical axis represents the degree of skill building from emphasis on skill-building (bottom) to emphasis on theory (top). The traditional undergraduate curriculum will typically fit in the middle left side of the diagram, where the traditional teaching universities would be located in the upper parts of the lower right quadrant and the traditional teaching universities in the lower parts of the top-right quadrant. Traditional teaching universities educate traditional engineers with solid skills, where the research universities have more focus on theory. However, by introducing the research dimension one can visualize the impact. Instead of educating simple engineers students are better equipped for becoming industrial innovators, traditional academics or simply just better equipped at facing lifelong learning. Figure 6 illustrates that the introduction of research into the curriculum comes at the expense of additional teacher effort and resources [35]. There is of course some concern whether the invested effort measures up to the acquired results that are often disappointing for both students and teachers [11, 19]. The teacher has to cope with the students’ lack of experience and knowledge. Furthermore, a successful inclusion of research into undergraduate programs require a high student motivation [20]. Acquired engineering skills add value to the professional development of the students as well as direct usefulness to society, i.e., public usefulness as opposed to personal usefulness. CONCLUSIONS Undergraduate research is possible, but only for a limited number of students with the right motivation and skill. Feasible contributions from students include development (programming) and writing of methodological parts of research papers. The content of the student involvement must be relevant and related to the work for which the students are trained. We have found that including students as co-authors on papers is a key-factor for motivating students and that the media can be an effective allied. It is important that the

San Juan, PR


Session M5G research conducted has a limited scope in which the students are already familiar. Technologies that students are familiar with are good candidates, for example, mobile technology. Human computer interaction is a research area where it is particularly feasible to involve undergraduates. Working with students takes significant effort, but students can also contribute novel ideas and fresh viewpoints. REFERENCES [1]

O'Neill-Carrillo, E., Velez-Reyes, M., Irizarry-Rivera, A., and Marrero, E., "The Power of Undergraduate Research," IEEE power & energy magazine, 1, 3 (2003), pp. 29-36.

[2]

Davoodi, H. and Just, F., "Collaborative Undergraduate Research," in the proceedings of 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Puerto Rico, 1999.

[3]

Sabatini, D. A., "Teaching and Research Synergism: The Undergraduate Research Experience," Journal of Professional iIssues in Engineering Education and Practice, 123, 3 (1997), pp. 98-108.

[4]

Gates, A. Q., Teller, P. J., Bermat, A., Delgado, N., and Della-Piana, C. K., "Meeting the Challenge of Expanding Participation in the Undergraduate Research Experience," in the proceedings of Frientiers in Education Conference, 1988.

[5]

Crowe, M., "Creative Scholarship through Undergraduate Research," AAC&U peerReview, 8, 1 (2006), pp. 16-18.

[6]

Joslin, D., Lumala, I., Riggs, C., and Suzawal, V., "Promoting undergraduate research in teching-oriented colleges and universities," Journal of Computing Science in Colleges, 21, 1 (2005), pp. 201-202.

[7]

Becker, K., "Cutting-edge research by undergraduates on a shoestring?," Journal of Computing Science in Colleges, 21, 1 (2005), pp. 160-168.

[8]

Lopatto, D., "Undergraduate Research as a Catalyst for Liberal Learning," AAC&U peerReview, 8, 1 (2006), pp. 22-25.

[9]

Elgren, T. and Hensel, N., "Undergraduate Research Experiences: Synergies between Scholarship and Teaching," AAC&U peerReview, 8, 1 (2006), pp. 4-7.

[10] Haugland, K., "Drives det forskning på HiO?," HiO-nytt, (2006 [11] Greendyke, R. B., "Graduate level research from undergraduate students: the lessons learned by student and professor alike," in the proceedings of 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA, 2002. [12] Godoy, L. A. and Valeiras, N., "Initiative to Strengthen Publications by Young Faculty," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 127, 3 (2001), pp. 116-121. [13] Bohart, A. C. and O'Toole, C. M., "Student Perceptions of the Relationship Between Publishing and Teaching," Teaching of Psychology, 7, 1 (1980), pp. 12-16. [14] McCaughey, R. A., "But can they teach? In praise of college professors who publish," Teachers College Record, 95, 2 (1993), pp. 242-258. [15] Malachowski, M., "Undergraduate Research as teh Next Great Faculty Divide," AAC&U peerReview, 8, 1 (2006), pp. 26-27.

[19] Rohila, S. A., Trajkovski, G., Kumar, A. N., and Popyack, J. L., "Undergraduate research - students' rewards and challenges," Journal of Computing Science in Colleges, 21, 2 (2005), pp. 166-171. [20] Ward, K., "Research with undergraduates: A survey of best practices," Journal of Computing Science in Colleges, 21, 1 (2005), pp. 169-176. [21] Youn, T. I. K., "The Academic Job Market Is Bad for All of Us," Academe, 91, 6 (2005), pp. 27-31. [22] Martindale, T. and Wiley, D. A., "Using Weblogs in Scholarship and Teaching," TeachTrends, 49, 2 (2005), pp. 55-61. [23] Caywood, C., "I Want to Be in Print!," School Library Journal, 10 (1996), pp. 52. [24] Williams, S., "Guiding students through the jungle of research-based literature," College Teaching, 53, 4 (2005), pp. 137-137. [25] Raffa, R. B., "An Elective Course on Writing and Publishing a Review Article," Pharmasy Education, 2, 2 (2002), pp. 51-58. [26] Kvilesjø, S. O., "Hurtig-SMS med bare tre taster," Aftenposten aften, (2003), pp. 18. [27] "Gjev pris til oslostudenter," Teknisk Ukeblad, 20 (2004), pp. 39. [28] Pastel, R., "Integrating Science and Research in a HCI Design Course," in the proceedings of SIGCSE'05, St. Luis, 2005, pp. 31-35. [29] Sandnes, F. E., Thorkildssen, H. W., Arvei, A., and Buverud, J. O., "Techniques for fast and easy mobile text-entry with three-keys (dictionary based)," in the proceedings of NIK2003 - Annual National Norwegian Computer Science Conference, Oslo, Norway, 2003, pp. 205-216. [30] Sandnes, F. E., Thorkildssen, H. W., Arvei, A., and Buverud, J. O., "Techniques for fast and easy mobile text-entry with three-keys (nondictionary based)," in the proceedings of HCISS'37 Hawaiian International Conference on System Science, Big Island, Hawaii, 2004. [31] Sandnes, F. E., Zheng, W. Z., and Shaikh, R. M., "An approach to teaching interaction design and usability principles: a mobile text entry perspective," in the proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Education and Research ICEER, Tainan, Taiwan, 2005. [32] Blaafladt, A., Johansen, B. R., Eide, N. E., and Sandnes, F. E., "A textmining approach to helpdesk and e-mail support," in the proceedings of NIK'2004 Norsk Informtaikk Konferanse (Norwegian Computer Science Conference), Stavanger, Norway, 2004. [33] Eide, N. E., Blaafladt, A., Johansen, B. R., and Sandnes, F. E., "DIGIMIMIR: A Tool for Rapid Situation Analysis of Helpdesk and Support E-mail," in the proceedings of Large Installation and System Administration Conference SAGE LISA 2004, Atlanta, U.S.A., 2004, pp. 21-32. [34] Hussein, A. T. and Sandnes, F. E., "A Tool for Automated Continuous Student Assessment in Numerical Methods Courses," in the proceedings of ICEE International Conference on Engineering Education, Manchester, U.K., 2002, pp. 0250. [35] Polack-Wahl, J. A. and Squire, P. N., "Overcomming obstacles to undergraduate research at a small institution," Journal of Computing Science in Colleges, 18, 5 (2003), pp. 128-135.

[16] Watkins, D., "Learning and Teaching: a cross-cultural perspective," School Leadership and Management, 20, 2 (2000), pp. 161-173. [17] Chan, S., "The Chinese learner - a question of style," Education & Training, 41, 6/7 (1999), pp. 294-304. [18] Odell, B., "Science Matters," American School and University, 77, 11 (2005), pp. 296-298.

San Juan, PR
