In the Classroom
A Capstone Writing Experience in Polymer Chemistry: Writing a Proposal for an Instrument Purchase
W
Allen D. Hunter Department of Chemistry, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555-3663
Both chemistry faculty and employers regularly lament the poor writing skills of chemistry graduates. In written assignments, students utilize skills different from those tested on conventional exams—skills that may more closely resemble those used by professional chemists and may better reflect the strengths of nontraditional chemistry students (1). For these reasons, contributors to this Journal have suggested several different approaches for incorporating more writing into the chemistry curriculum (2). In this paper is outlined an example of a chemical writing assignment that helps students integrate the theoretical content of the lecture with practical considerations, has had a strong positive student response, and is relevant to the “real world”. A major part of introductory polymer chemistry is studying the various instrumental methods used to characterize polymer structures and molecular weight distributions. I have members of my polymer chemistry class write a paper on one such instrumental method of their choice. The form of this paper is a formal written proposal arguing for or against the purchase of one model of such instrumentation.1,2 To place this exercise in context, they are asked to imagine that they are the senior chemist working for a small plastics formulator/ distributor. The first parts of the proposals are similar to a conventional chemistry term paper in which they outline the theory and principles of operation. The second half, however, is more unusual. They identify commercial vendors of their instruments, whom they contact by mail or phone for quotes and product information.3 They critically evaluate this information, especially as to how it relates to the general theory and to the apparent capabilities and ease of use of the specific instruments.4 They are also asked to estimate capital and operating costs for the instrument5 and to decide whether the acquisition of each instrument would be in their company’s best interests. If they decide that it is, they are asked to recommend a specific make and model. The resulting reports are typically 15 to 20 typed pages in length and are worth 20 to 40% of the term’s grade. Recently, I have modified the instructions to have the class compare their final proposals, rank the costs and perceived values of the various instruments, and make a joint group recommendation as to how the limited company budget should be spent. W Supplementary materials for this article are available on JCE Online at http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/issues/1998/ Nov/abs1424.html.
1424
Although students sometimes complain about the work involved in this capstone writing project, they all acknowledge the utility, relevance, and even fun of the exercise. Most gratifyingly, I regularly hear from former students who are now working in industry or are in graduate school, telling me how valuable to them this writing experience was! Acknowledgments I would like to thank Youngstown State University for Research Professorships (for 1993/94 and 1994/95) and Faculty Development Time (1994/1995 and 1996/97), parts of which were used to develop this curriculum material. Notes 1. I have also had my upper-level students write term papers about other topics (e.g., about a major class of commercial polymer or a novel inorganic polymer) but the instrumentation proposal seems to get the best student response and seems the most relevant to their future professional needs. 2. The complete text of this exercise as handed out to the students is available in the Web supplement to this article and from the author. 3. Vendors and their sales staffs have generally been very helpful, sending the students complete packages of product brochures, price lists, and even formal quotes. 4. As do even experienced scientists, the students find the critical evaluation of the packages from competing vendors the most difficult part of this exercise. 5. The students are often particularly surprised at how expensive each sample is to run and what a small fraction of the total five-year cost of owning an instrument its purchase price can be.
Literature Cited 1. Tobias, S. They’re not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier; Research Corp.: Tucson, AZ, 1990. Tobias, S. Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most Don’t; Research Corp.: Tucson, AZ, 1992. 2. See, for example: Wall, F. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1943, 20, 580. Hermann, C. K. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 47. Wilson, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 1019. Beall, H.; Trimbur, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 720, 478. Cooper, M. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 476. McHale, J. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 313. Sherman, L. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, 993. Thoman, C. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 859. Williams, E. T. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 389. McGowan, C.; Sendall, P. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 391. Comeford, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 392. Schmidt, M. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 393. Rossi, F. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 395. 3. Weissmann, K. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 110.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 75 No. 11 November 1998 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
