Wrapping up summer research (#1417)

Topics/tags: Rants

Yesterday was the last day of summer research at Grinnell. I generally have mixed emotions on the lat day of summer research; I expect many faculty do. On the one hand, it’s nice to know that I finally have a bit of a break before the start of classes [1]. On the other, I genuinely enjoy working with my students, so it’s sad to move on from the daily conversations.

These days, wrapping up from summer research also means that I’m likely to feel a bit lonelier. Oh well; at least I have things planned for the next few weeks.

Wrapping up summer research also means wrapping up the paperwork from summer research. In order to receive our compensation for summer research, we need to fill in reports on our summer research students and turn in grades. I have at least one colleague who questions the legality of requiring the reports; after all, we’ve done the primary work already. Still, an agreement is an agreement, and we agree to fill out the damn forms.

I hate filling out the summer research forms. In part, that’s because it generally seemed that no one read them. I’m pretty sure that at least some of mine included the legendary thesis footnote—If you read this and tell me you read this, I’ll buy you a drink. [2] However these days our Director or Assessment [3] almost certainly reads them. But I also disklike filling them out because it ends up being a lot of repeated work; most of my answers vary little from student to student. But the biggest reason I hate them is that I hate the questions. While I greatly respect the person who first developed this form, I find the options inscrutable. Let’s consider a few. If you want to see more, you can also read the form [4].

Independence

• Student is largely passive; depends on instructions and needs supervision
• Student works independently with little supervision
• Student has independent ideas; works with little or no supervision
• Student takes ownership of project, works as a scholarly collaborator Not Applicable: The student did not have an opportunity to demonstrate this attribute due to the nature of this project or other factors.

What’s the difference between little supervision and little or no supervision? Can you really work independently without having independent ideas? Isn’t someone who is providing independent ideas also taking ownership?

While the Independence question has three similar the student did well responses, the next question seems to assume much less of our students.

Research Design

• Student can follow a structured plan if provided, but does not contribute to the design of the project.
• Student can propose a research plan or method, but is unable to evaluate it or to consider alternative approaches.
• Student can propose several methods but cannot judge between them.
• Student can make reasonable decisions about design and methodology.
• Not Applicable: The student did not have an opportunity to demonstrate this attribute due to the nature of this project or other factors.

[D]oes not contribute to the design. [Unable] to evaluate it. Cannot judge. How about Makes excellent decisions and provides supporting evidence for those decisions?

Here’s another one that seems to suggest that our students are generally not good at research.

Evidence

• Student does not use evidence
  
• Student uses evidence without judging its quality
  
• Student selectively employs evidence to fit preconceptions
  
• Student considers relevant evidence fairly
  
• Not Applicable: The student did not have an opportunity to demonstrate this attribute due to the nature of this project or other factors.

What about Student looks for new sources of evidence? or Student considers unexpected implications of evidence? And where are the questions about kinds of evidence the student might use? Student can gather multiple kinds of evidence following disciplinary standards?

Skipping ahead a bit, let’s consider the student’s approach to the context of the work.

Factual and Theoretical Context

• Student does not relate findings to the appropriate disciplinary context
  
• Student usually relates findings to the appropriate disciplinary context
  
• Student consistently relates findings to the appropriate disciplinary context as a means of analysis
  
• Student consistently relates findings to the appropriate disciplinary context and understands the relationship of findings to other disciplinary contexts
  
• Not Applicable: The student did not have an opportunity to demonstrate this attribute due to the nature of this project or other factors.

Why does the student have to consider other disciplinary contexts to earn the top rating, particularly given that we have Multiple Perspectives and Holistic Understanding as other categories?

Here’s another one I dislike, mostly because of how reductive it is.

How did the students work together on this project?

• Students worked collaboratively throughout the project to produce a single final, graded product
• Students each worked independently on different aspects/components/questions, but collectively produced a single final, graded product
• Students worked collaboratively, but each focused on different aspects/components/questions and produced separate final, graded products
• Students worked independently or in parallel on different aspects/components/questions and produced separate final, graded products
• Other (please explain)

It’s research! There isn’t always a product. And, in many ways, the process is as important as the product. For summer research, I’d prefer to grade my students on their work ethic, their initiative, and their engagement with the project.

Even if I’m grading their work, I don’t think the work should be all at the end (final). Their proposal is important. Their presentations throughout the semester are important.

As the questions above suggest, shouldn’t I be grading students on their independence, their research design, their use of sources, and more? Why should I care about this nebulous final product?

There are so many questions (fifty-seven [5], I believe) that it’s hard to devote the mental energy to answering these questions well, particularly when you have to answer them for multiple students. I hate knowing that I’m probably not being as careful to rate my students as I might be [6].

It also bothers me that some questions shouldn’t be repeated across students. For example, there are questions about the work environment, challenges and barriers, and recommendations for the future that are unlikely to vary from student to student. Having to provide the same information again and again is not a good use of my time.

Most of all, I hate this form because it has no clear purpose. Michelle used to tell me that, as a Physician, she wouldn’t request a test unless the results of the test would change how she approached an issue (e.g., an illness). Do our answers to these questions affect how we run MAPs? Can they? I understand that the final questions about CWLOs [7] might be useful for our acreditation reports. But why do we want to know about, say, their use of evidence?

Postscript: After finishing this rant, I found myself convinced that I’d written something similar before. After all, I’ve been dealing with the joy of these surveys for decades. However, it appears this is my first time. Will wonders never cease?

[1] Let’s see. Next week I have a three-day workshop on restorative practices. The next week I have a Chairs’ retreat and some meetings related to pre-orientation programs. The week after that I’ll need to spend getting my classes ready. And then the semester starts. Whoops.

[2] No one ever did.

[3] I’m no longer sure of their official title.

[4] You an also see the form itself or the form in PDF

[5] Heinz!

[6] I was going to write as I should be. However, given the ambiguous phrasing of many of the responses, it’s not clear that I’m compelled to be careful.

[7] College-wide learning outcomes.

Version 1.0 of 2026-08-01.