Abstract
AbstractThe implementation of a research-based curriculum that enables students to develop essential capabilities for this complex world is challenging. There is limited understanding of the implementation of a research-based curriculum in a whole degree programme, and few studies examined how faculty members and students perceived such a curriculum. This study explored faculty members’ perceptions and students’ experiences of four research-based curricula in two research-intensive universities in Hong Kong. Based on document review, 18 faculty interviews, and 113 student interviews, we discovered an overall positive view of research-based curricula but also substantial differences between faculty members’ perceptions and students’ experiences. For example, faculty members emphasised the learning and critical evaluation of knowledge. In comparison, students focused on exploring specific interesting issues and collecting and analysing information without fully recognising the potential of research in generating, applying, and validating knowledge. Moreover, students’ experiences of research-based curricula contained a broader scope of activities than the curriculum perceived by faculty members. These gaps demonstrate that the fundamental goals of research-based curricula to develop ‘powerful knowledge’ and induct students into disciplinary ways of thinking have yet to be fully achieved. The study implies a need to enhance communication between students and faculty members and build a consensus on designing and supporting undergraduate research across the curriculum.
Funder
Research Grants Council, HKSAR
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference42 articles.
1. Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge University Press.
2. Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696156
3. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Open University Press.
4. Beckman, M., & Hensel, N. (2009). Making explicit the implicit: Defining undergraduate research. CUR Quarterly, 29(4), 40–44 https://www.mcgill.ca/senate/files/senate/beckman__hensel_making_explicit.pdf
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage publications.