1EEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. E-13, NO. 1, JULY 1970

prior preparation for each experiment. Laboratory re-ports were reduced to simple log records of experimenta-tion and brief statements of conclusions. Neatness,coherence, and minimum length were emphasized. Eachreport on an experiment was turned in before leaving thelaboratory meeting in which the experiment was per-formed.

It soon became apparent that the elapsed time of atleast one hour between the lecture and laboratory workhad considerable value. The student had time to absorbthe ideas learned during the lecture-discussion, and notblindly follow his laboratory instructor's directions ashe tends to do when a laboratory lecture immediatelyprecedes laboratory work.

In the 15-weeks of the laboratory course, in whichone lecture-hour period and one 2-hour laboratory pe-riod were scheduled each week for each student, elevenSTEPs and four DAREs were covered. One DAREfollows about every three STEPs, and provides anopportunity for each student to investigate in greaterdepth any of the aspects of the STEPs wherein he hadunanswered questions. He was urged to select DAREtopics of real interest to himself and within the capa-bilities of the variety of equipment available in thelaboratory. Planning summaries were supposed to be

of limited length and to cover the three subdivisions:topic, purpose, and plan. For DAREs, the only pro-gramming information the student was given was, atmost, a mention of pertinent topics. This advice wasprimarily for the benefit of inexperienced or less crea-tive students who had not learned how to establishoriginal objectives. No final examination was given, butstudents often referred to the last DARE as a "SUPER-DARE."

CONCLUSIONSExperience with this cooperative instruction system

for a number of semesters has been most encouraging.Prior to its adoption in the introductory electricalengineering laboratory course, student and instructorcomments were predominantly disparaging: instructorshad shown contempt for assignments to teach thecourse, and the majority of students had said the coursewas inconsequential, irrelevant, or immaterial.

In recent semesters, many new instructors have be-come cordial to the course and often ask to be reassignedto teach it. Many students praise the course and theinstructors. For example, one student wrote that it wasthe best laboratory course he (a second-semester sopho-more) had ever taken.

A Case Study of an Undergraduate

Research Project

DENNIS C. MICHELS, STUDENT MEMBER, IEEE, ANDROBERT M. ANDERSON, MEMBER, IEEE

Abstract-A case study of an undergraduate research project ispresented. The account is written from two points of view, one of thestudent and one of the professor. It describes the authors' individualand personal experiences before, during, and after the project. Someof the technical aspects of the project are included, but the primaryemphasis is on the values to be received from participating in anundergraduate research experience.

E, the authors, feel that we have been a part ofan experience that we would like to share withother undergraduates and professors. What

follows are two personalized accounts of our experience;one from the student point of view and one from theprofessorial point of view. The reader should realize thatthese two accounts have been written and edited inde-

Manuscript received August 28, 1969.The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering,

Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind.

pendently and that each of us has tried to be as candidas possible. It is our hope that this report (telling it likeit is) may be of some benefit to others who are contem-plating initiation of an undergraduate research project.

ACCOUNT BY D. C. MICHELSBackground Information

Starting in the high school years, I was draw-n to acollege prep curriculum and geared my studies for engi-neering and science. In 1961, electrical engineering wasmy choice of study. From that date until June, 1963, 1had a rough time settling down and my grades droppedslowly but surely. Upon notification of being droppedfor academic reasons, I was faced with three alterna-tives; come back again on probation, take a year off, orfulfill my military obligation. I chose to explore the

10

MICHELS AND ANDERSON: CASE STUDY OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH PROJECT

military side of life and enlisted in the U. S. Air Force.After one year of radio maintenance training, I wasassigned to a SAGE radar site near Peoria, Ill. Locatednear Bradley University, Peoria, Ill., I enrolled in off-duty education in order to make up for some poor gradesat Purdue.

I was married in August, 1965, to a Purdue graduate inelementary education. In May, 1966, my orders foroverseas duty dropped into our lives. Before going over-seas to a remote site on the Korean DMZ, my record atBradley University and the University of Wisconsin,Madison, (correspondence course) stood at 29 semesterhours in 21 months. While overseas, I applied for read-mission to Purdue University and was accepted forJune, 1967, on probationary status. That first summerand following semesters brought my index from a low of3.72/6.0 to a 4.4/6.0, allowing me to get off probation.

Announcement of the ProjectDuring spring semester 1968, announcements went

out for research assistants in the materials area. Jobopenings were announced by bulletin board and classannouncement. Responding to the class announcement,a friend of mine applied for the National Science Foun-dation research grant. Later he advised me of it andstated that he had decided to work for his father. Heurged me to apply for the position. The work was in thearea of binary thin films and their electrical properties.Prof. Anderson was looking for someone in electronics,preferably a veteran. Since I qualified in both cases, Idecided to give it a go. However, there was one stickyepisode that caused a little apprehension on my part.

During the previous semester, I had enrolled in acourse under Prof. Anderson and, discovering that I wasin grade trouble (an F in Prof. Anderson's course), hadelected to drop the course. Now I was knocking on thatsame professor's door asking for a research grant! Aftertalking for awhile, Prof. Anderson said that if I couldget cleared for the NSF grant, I was acceptable to him.I did apply, filled out all the necessary papers, and wasinterviewed by Prof. Freeman who was in charge of theNSF grants.Knowing that my low-grade index would hamper my

chances in receiving the grant, I also sought summeremployment in Indianapolis with the Brown ArchitectCompany. I had more or less geared myself to theIndianapolis job when I received two letters. Onewasfrom Indianapolis offering me a summer job, and theother was a letter notifying me of my receiving the NSFgrant! I chose research!

Project Ground RulesProf. Anderson and I met to discuss the guide lines of

the project and what was to be accomplished in thethree months time. Here again I was apprehensive ofwhat working for a professor would be like. Would hebe the engineer and I the technician? Would I really getto do any engineering work?

My fears were groundless as Prof. Anderson turnedout to be a "cool" professional who knew what hewanted, but was also willing to delegate responsibility.He stated that within the guidelines I was on my ownand that he did not want excessive running to him atevery drop of a screwdriver. Excessive, in his words waseveryday. Prof. Anderson seemed to radiate a hardnosepersonality to newcomers. However, if one got to knowhim, he turned out to be a very likeable person. He didnot want to be bothered with the everyday problemsand encouraged me to solve my own problems using mybackground and engineering logic.

I welcomed the chance to really do something on myown and, perhaps, prove myself! My job was to re-search, design, fabricate, and test a strain-inducingdevice capable of inducing strains in thin films up to 1percent. After reading some of the literature on thinfilms and on industrial strain gauges, I realized that thiswas going to be no easy nut to crack! At this point I wasscared stiff of even trying to start. I had no idea ofwhere or how to start.

But start I did and Prof. Anderson told me to workout the ideal strain surface. He had heard of another re-search group using a triangular substrate for loadingand suggested that I work out the loading equations.

In researching the loading equations, I spent fourhours determining the correct shape of a uniform strainsurface. It took the form of a triangle, but with concavesides, and I proceeded to inform Prof. Anderson of myefforts. He looked at my calculations and studied thederivations for almost five minutes. He then announcedthat I seemed to have evolved a new geometry, dubbed"Michels geometry," which violated that old standby,Euclidean geometry. After regaining my composure, hepointed out my mistake and told me to carry on. I be-lieve he understood my feeling of being caught flat-footed and he told me to shrug it off and be more careful.From that point on, I settled down and started produc-ing results.

I found that if you take the time to talk to professors,not only in your own field of engineering, but in anyfield, they are more than eager to guide you and helpyou. My help came from professors in mechanical,metallurgical, and aeronautical engineering.

Finally my idea took shape, and I started to fabricate.I had found that the most suitable form of cantileverloading was an isoceles triangle, and that a good startingsubstrate was plexiglass.

Middle Phase of the ProjectI learned the other techniques of mask making,

vacuum flash evaporation, photoresist processes, andmany other processes. This was done on a one time"I'll show you and then you're on your own the nexttime. . ." basis.

During this period I felt the most like a true engineer,as I was invited to exchange ideas with Prof. Andersonin an informal way. Many times we resorted to "chalk

11

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, JULY 1970

talk" using the blackboard to express our ideas. On asticky problem, we both tackled it. With his consider-ably greater engineering knowledge, he came up withmost of the solutions. However, I felt that my observa-tions and actual working with the systems acted manytimes as a sounding board or a catalyst that led to thesolution needed. Prof. Anderson made me feel that I didhave valid assumptions and sometimes I could throwan idea out that he had not thought of yet. I truly en-joyed this free flow of engineering talk between studentand mentor. We progressed to the point where Prof.Anderson knew I could handle most situations andwould solve the problems on my own. Our meetingsdropped off from two sessions per week to one everyeight or nine days. Perhaps I made a mistake here inassuming too much freedom in my work.A few times I ran into problems or circumstances that

should have led to my consulting with Prof. Anderson,but I did not. I found that toward the termination ofthe project, I had a much wider scope of raw data than Icould reasonably correlate. Many variables, such assubstrate material, thickness of film, thickness of sub-strate, different geometry of film layout, and heating ofsubstrate led to this wide range of data and finalgraphs. At this point I found that I had gone too far innot consulting Prof. Anderson, and there was no time tocorrect for the wide range of results. Prof. Anderson hadstated that he wanted an "engineering report" of sortson my lab work and final results.

Conclusion of the ProjectThe analysis was handled by both Prof. Anderson

and myself. He furnished a great deal of the theoreticalexplanations in the project. I supplied the actual ob-servations and the details of the project. From histheoretical analysis and my working observations, wefinally set down what we believed was taking place. Wearrived at the conclusion that although the informationaccumulated during the project was informative, we didnot have enough conclusive data to warrant publication.More than anything, we learned what not to do as wellas several better ways of doing certain parts of the proj-ect.

I finished the report and turned it in to Prof. Andersonprior to beginning the fall semester. I had obtainedpermission to use a copy of the report for interviewing.I found that the report did carry weight in my inter-views. Recruiters were interested in my familiarity withlab equipment, processes, and techniques. The reportinfluenced the number of job offers and also brought re-quests by the companies for copies.

Perhaps a more important result of the project wasthe confidence I gained in my own ability to really dothe work of an engineer while still in school. I felt thatI had learned to interact with a supervisor in a give andtake situation. I was not quite sure how far I could go injoking or even talking seriously with a professor. How-ever, throughout the entire project, I found that thelevel of communication was the same. It was not Prof.

Anderson talking to me as a technician, but as a "col-league" in a joint research effort. All communicationwas done informally in a relaxed atmosphere with a freeflow of ideas back and forth.The project also let me see what actual engineering

might be like; suffering in the frustrations and basking inthe light of success, more often the formner rather thanthe latter. I learned that this was the type of work Ireally wanted to do during my professional career.

Epilogue

Because of the companies' interest in my researchexperience and the number of additional job offersstemming from this research, I decided to apply foradmission to graduate school. In May of 1969 I wasaccepted for graduate study at Purdue University in theElectrical Engineering School, and I plan to graduate inthe summer of 1970.

During the spring semester, the Purdue Universitychapter of IEEE sponsored the IEEE Paper WritingContest. As I had my paper already completed, 1 madethe necessary changes and entered the local contest.My paper won first place and the chance to representPurdue University at the Chicago American PowerConference.

In April I traveled to Chicago with our Purdue Uni-versity IEEE counselor to compete against four otheruniversity representatives in the Central Division ofRegion IV. From that presentation came another firstplace and the chance to go onto the final competition atMinneapolis, Minn.This final competition was total Region IV of IEEE,

which encompassed 12 midwestern states and parts ofCanada. Here my paper took third place in internationalcompetition. At that point in the game, I felt as if I hadreally been the star, but the real stars were the peoplewho had faith in my abilities and gave me the chance toreally go out and achieve. My appreciation to Profs.Anderson, Freeman, and LaMothe for seeing my dreamsthrough cannot be put into words-only in feeling.

ACCOUNT BY R. M. ANDERSONBackground Information

In the spring of 1967, I completed all the requirementsfor the Ph.D. degree at the University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, and accepted a position in the School ofElectrical Engineering at Purdue University, Lafayette,Ind. That summer, before I moved to Lafayette, I wasnotified that the Purdue School of Electrical Engineer-ing was preparing an undergraduate research participa-tion proposal for submission to the National ScienceFoundation (NSF). I was invited to contribute a projectof my choice to this proposal. I accepted the invitationand proposed to investigate the suitability of usingsemiconducting thin films as strain gages. Some of myreasons for selecting this topic were the following. 1) Ihad decided to pursue research in the general area ofthin films; 2) I felt that the experimental and theoreticalabilities required to perform such a study would be well

12

MICHELS AND ANDERSON: CASE STUDY OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH PROJECT

within the capability of an undergraduate student; and3) I was somewhat familiar with a similar researchprogram currently underway at the University ofMichigan.

In September, 1967, I moved to Lafayette and beganmy academic career. That fall semester I taught ajunior-level course on signals and systems. Shortly afterthe semester started, I was informed that the NSF hadgranted us the undergraduate research contract and thatI should make an effort to locate an undergraduatestudent to perform the research study. The terms of thecontract called for an undergraduate student to workten or twelve weeks during the summer of 1968 at arate of pay of $60.00 per week. In addition to the money,the student could be given three credit hours of coursecredit for the work.

Announcement of the ProjectHaving heard that funds were available, I announced

to my junior class the opportunity that was availableand I tried to emphasize how such an experience wouldbe good for them. No one seemed particularly excitedabout the idea. The fall semester ended and the springsemester began. That semester I again taught a divisionof that same junior-level course plus a graduate-levelcourse in solid-state. I made the same announcement tomy spring semester junior class and got about the samereaction-nothing!Then midway through the spring semester, Dennis

came into my office to inquire about the possibility ofhis working for me on the NSF project. I was not par-ticularly excited about this idea. You see, Dennis hadbeen in my fall semester class for about five weeks, hadmiserably failed the first exam, and had dropped thecourse. We talked about his academic and militaryservice experience and about the proposed project. I donot know what his reaction was at that time but, quitefrankly, I was hoping that someone else would apply.(Another student from my fall semester class did cometo see me about the project. This student had receivedan A in my course and I was really anxious to have himwork for me. However, he could not afford to work allsummer at such a low rate of pay.) The simple fact wasthat Dennis was the only student that had applied andso I was faced with the choice of accepting him or cancel-ing the project. I chose to accept Dennis.

Project Ground RulesAt the start of any project, the principle investigator

must lay out a starting set of "ground rules" for the proj-ect. There are two aspects of the ground rules thatshould be of interest to the reader. The first aspect has todo with the interpersonal relationship between us andthe second with the technical details of the program.As I have noted, I was not completely happy with

Dennis as a potential researcher on the project. In viewof this fact, I felt it necessary to test his ability im-mediately at the outset of the project. The technicalground rules of the project were laid down to him and

will be mentioned briefly later. I told Dennis that Iwould give him as much freedom on this project as hewanted. What I really wanted to see was just how muchhe could accomplish on his own. Since his academicbackground was not outstanding, I felt it important totest his ability to complete an engineering project in thelaboratory. I tried to make it clear to him that I wastesting his ability. I stressed the fact that the results ofthis test would have a far-reaching effect on my opinionof him and would seriously effect any recommendationsthat I might write for him in the future. He seemed toaccept this challenge readily. At this point I was en-couraged by his attitude but I still was not confidentabout his ability.The technical ground rules concerning this project

were several. The problem was to examine the piezoresis-tive properties of flash evaporated thin films of bismuthtelluride (Bi2Te3). The material and fabrication proce-dure was chosen since in the spring of 1968 I had super-vised a Masters project that initiated the developmentof this technology. In order to examine the piezoresis-tive properties of the films, it was necessary for Dennisto design and fabricate a suitable test fixture. On thebasis of conversations with my friends at the UJniversityof Michigan, it was decided that a triangular canti-levered beam would be the most suitable configurationfor applying stress to the films. The actual design andconstruction of the stressing fixture and the attendantelectrical circuitry was left entrirely to Dennis.

Middle Phase of the ProjectBy the fourth week of the summer I was quite im-

pressed with Dennis's ability to work. He plunged intothe problem, sought out experts on each of the indi-vidual phases, designed appropriate apparatus, andinitiated the fabrication of the various fixtures. He didmake some mistakes along the way. One time, in adesign analysis, he violated the laws of Euclidean geo-metry. I did not consider mistakes such as these signi-ficant since he was making rapid progress and since hewas very enthusiastic about the project. His enthusiasmand industriousness were more than able to compensatefor the minor errors that he made. In fact, his outputwas so high that I found it difficult to keep up with whathe was doing and at the same time maintain my ownresearch work.

Later that sunmmer, I took about three weeks off fromwork (to heal a small injury incurred during a soccergame with some graduate students, to attend a confer-ence, and to take a vacation with my family). Duringthis time, Dennis continued on, completely on his own.

Conclusion of the ProjectWhen I returned to campus and we were about ready

to wrap up Dennis' project, we sat down and went overthe large amount of data that Dennis had acquired.There were some flaws in the data but the quantity ofdata that he had accumulated while I was gone wassufficient for us to draw some conclusions. Since Dennis

13

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, JULY 1970

had not yet taken our senior-level materials course, hewas very weak on interpreting the data. However, withonly brief explanations from me, he was able to graspthe crucial elements of the interpretation of the data.On the basis of those explanations, he was able to write afinal engineering report on the project. This report re-viewed the work he had done, the data he had obtained,the conclusions he had drawn from the data, and inaddition, his suggestions for future work on the problem.By and large, I felt Dennis did an exceptional job on

the project. The amount of publishable material that heacquired during the summer was not as much as itcould have been if I had been able to stay closer to theproject. This I think was my fault and not his.However, more important than the technical aspect of

the program was the fact that Dennis convinced methat he will make a fine engineer. I reflected this con-fidence in several recommendations that I wrote forDennis, and I would like to feel, that in some small part,these recommendations were responsible for his ac-ceptance in Graduate School at Purdue University andfor some of the attractive salary offers that he received.

EpilogueOur little story goes beyond the conclusion of the pro-

ject. In the spring of 1969, Dennis reworte his finalproject report and submitted it to the IEEE StudentPaper Contest here at Purdue University. He preparedhis oral presentation together with slides and a writtenpresentation completely by himself. The competitionduring the Paper Contest was rather fierce; but because

Dennis was talking about a subject that he knew in-timately and because of his newly found self-confidence,he was able to take first prize at the Purdue contest.Dennis was thus the Purdue representative to theCentral Division, Region IV IEEE Paper Contest heldin Chicago. He and I spent an evening going over hispresentation prior to his presentation at Chicago. I triedto help him smooth out his talk and to "beef up" someof the technical content. Dennis took a first place atChicago and wvent onto the Region IV competition heldin Minneapolis. Dennis placed third in the regional com-petition. To the best of my knowledge, no Purdue manhas placed this high in the IEEE Paper Contest in thelast 15 years, I viewed his success in the Paper Contestas a further confirmation of my high opinion of Dennis'abilities and capabilities.

I would be remiss if I did not also report to you thatDennis worked for me again in the spring of 1969. Iaccepted him most willingly and most gladly on thecontinuation of his project. He proved himself to me,thereby winning my full confidence and respect.While I do not know what Dennis has been writing in

his account of this research project, I think the moral ofour story is something like this. For a professor ofelectrical engineering, supervising an undergraduateproject can be most rewarding. It can be one of the mostimportant aspects in the education of an undergraduatestudent. It can bolster his self-confidence, increase histechnical competence, and give him a valuable experi-ence that will pay dividends when he interviews for hisfirst professional position.

14