Action Research: Integrating Chemistry and Scientific Communication

Jun 21, 2018 - Teaching and Learning HUB, Faculty of Science, Stellenbosch ... (2) When topics are presented as separate entities, students do not ...
1 downloads 0 Views 853KB Size
Download PDF
Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Action Research: Integrating Chemistry and Scientific Communication To Foster Cumulative Knowledge Building and Scientific Communication Skills Ilse Rootman-le Grange* and Liezel Retief Teaching and Learning HUB, Faculty of Science, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa

Downloaded via UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 23, 2018 at 22:20:44 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Collaboration between chemistry lecturers and literacy lecturers led to the development and implementation of an interdisciplinary project with the object of addressing two pertinent challenges in chemistry education. The first challenge is the tendency of students to approach different topics in science as separate units of knowledge, which hinders cumulative knowledge building. The second challenge is the effective incorporation of scientific communication skills into science curricula. In the course of this project students completed various assignments in the fields of chemistry and scientific communication, while exploring the characteristics and properties of individual ionic compounds. Feedback on the first two iterations of this project was obtained by electronic surveys. The results revealed that the project succeeded in enabling students to appreciate the interconnectedness of various topics within the chemistry curriculum. It also supported the development of students’ scientific communication skills and helped them realize the significance of these skills in a science context. Furthermore, it revealed the importance of concerted communication by the lecturers with the students to maintain the collaboration between the different disciplines. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary, Communication/Writing, Nonmajor Courses, Curriculum

■

INTRODUCTION Chemistry, like most other natural sciences, has a hierarchical knowledge structure. This denotes that an understanding of certain primary concepts is a prerequisite for being able to understand more advanced concepts. In addition to this, the constructivist view is that learning is an active process during which the mind interprets new information in terms of existing understandings.1 The challenge of interpreting new information is however escalated when students compartmentalize subjects, or even certain topics within a specific subject.2 When topics are presented as separate entities, students do not intuitively make the connections between existing understandings and new information. With a subject such as chemistry, where the content is already complex and abstract, this has a direct impact on their ability to learn new concepts.3 It is therefore crucial that effort is made to make explicit the connectedness of concepts and the hierarchical knowledge structure of chemistry to support students’ learning of the subject. Related to this challenge of compartmentalization is the issue that students often fail to see the relevance of stand-alone modules that teach scientific communication and writing skills. As a result, they struggle to acquire these skills and frequently also fail to apply the skills they have learnt, when required in other contexts, e.g., chemistry modules. In an effort to address these issues, the literature calls for an embedded approach to integrate such academic literacy skills into science curricula.4−6 Furthermore, Pearson et al.5 argue that science and literacy share some principal cognitive processes, namely, “setting purposes, asking questions, clarifying ambiguities, drawing inferences from incomplete evidence, and making evidence-based arguments”. © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

They suggest that these shared processes can support the development and implementation of an embedded approach. Studies have also shown that inquiry driven literacy activities result in students learning how to read and write more scientifically, while mastering the subject content.5,7 A vast amount of research has been conducted on the enhancement of scientific communication, as well as writing and literacy skills within the science disciplines, especially through writing-to-learn initiatives.8,9 According to a database developed by Reynolds et al.,9 59 publications in the chemistry field alone were published between 1975 and 2010. This journal in particular has published several examples of such initiatives that were specifically applied within the chemistry discipline. Some of these include the following: the development and incorporation of a series of assignments into a general first-year course, with the object of enhancing science literacy;10 the development of a two-course model to introduce third- and fourth-year students to chemistry literature and develop their communication and critical thinking skills;11 the introduction of a program into the second year, to promote cooperative learning, communication and presentation skills, as well as information resourcing and analysis;12 a course developed and taught by a team consisting of the university’s chemistry librarian and a chemistry lecturer, addressing chemistry information literacy, written and oral communication skills, professional ethics, and career preparation;13 the development of assignments regarding the use of the Wikipedia Received: December 13, 2017 Revised: May 14, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00958 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

second iteration, implemented in the first semester of the 2015 academic year, are discussed followed by a discussion of the results from a second student survey.

resource, to teach students how to critically evaluate the chemistry content, as well as contribute to it.14,15 Although these initiatives were successful, the studies were either done in isolation within the various chemistry departments, or with the aid of individual staff members such as librarians. In one of the most recent papers on this topic, Stewart et al.16 bring forward the need to move away from isolated approaches and develop initiatives that stretch further than a single department or module. They discuss their initiative at the University of Toronto to create a more concerted effort, which led to the establishment of the faculty-coordinated program, “Writing Instruction and Training”. The purpose of this program was to teach graduate students how to assist undergraduate students, focusing on developing their scientific writing skills. The lecturers for the first-year chemistry module of an Extended Degree Program (EDP) in science, the authors of this paper, also wished to move away from an isolated approach. However, in contrast to Stewart’s approach and in an effort to address the challenges mentioned above, the authors of this paper were looking to develop a synergistic approach between their own chemistry disciplinary experts and the language specialists at the university. The authors had access to the university’s language center for language support in teaching and learning, and this presented the opportunity for collaboration, resulting in the design of a literacy embedded science project, the pet ionic compound (PIC) project. Through this collaboration, the authors hoped to address two main aims through implementation of the PIC project, namely, to make use of the expertise of both parties to successfully embed the literacy skills in the chemistry curriculum, and to create a hierarchical knowledge building opportunity to address the issue of knowledge compartmentalization in the existing chemistry curriculum. In this paper the evolution of the PIC project over a two-year period is discussed with regards to its development and implementation, considering the student feedback that was received. The following research questions were asked: (1) What are the students’ overall experiences of the PIC project as an embedded approach to teaching and learning? (2) To what extent does the PIC project succeed in improving students’ awareness of the hierarchical knowledge structure of chemistry? (3) To what extent does the PIC project increase students’ awareness of the relevance and importance of scientific communication skills within science disciplines?

■

Participants

In the first iteration of the PIC project, 180 first-year science EDP students participated, and in the second iteration 150 first-year science EDP students participated. The EDP in science registers students who did not meet the minimum requirements to be accepted into their preferred threeyear program in the science faculty. It extends the usual threeyear science degree, by including an additional year that precedes the standard mainstream program. This year is dedicated to foundational modules, which prepare students for specific mainstream modules. The purpose of the EDP is to broaden access of students from disadvantaged educational backgrounds; therefore, the program has a strong focus on the development of academic literacy. It is underpinned by the philosophy that access to further studies requires more than just the mastering of content. As such, the chemistry module (Chemistry 176) in particular defines outcomes such as the improvement of “speech and language skills” and effective communication “by using visual, symbolic and/or language skills in various modes” in the context of science. In order to further support the attainment of some of these objectives, science EDP students also attend a compulsory module on scientific communication skills (Scientific Communication Skills 146), as part of their first-year curriculum. This module is presented by literacy specialists from the university’s language center. During the first year of the four year EDP all lectures are offered in parallel groups to accommodate the two official academic languages of the university, namely, English and Afrikaans. Students therefore had the opportunity to complete their project in either of these languages.

■

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

For the purpose of the project each student had to construct a unique ionic compound, referred to as their PIC, from a list of preselected cations and anions. Students were not allowed to select the same combination of cation and anion. Students were grouped into subgroups of three, in which they worked together at various stages of the project. The project consisted of a number of short individual assignments that were based on the topics discussed during their lectures. These included assignments such as writing a short summary of the rules for the naming of ionic compounds; researching the toxicity of their PIC; researching the discovery and industrial value of their PIC; and calculating various properties of their particular compounds, for example, to determine the molarity of a solution of their PIC. A table containing the complete list of assignments and their related lecture topics, as well as the module responsible for each topic, is included in the Supporting Information. By having the students choose their own PICs, the lecturers aimed at developing a sense of ownership and increased engagement with the project. Additionally, this gave students access to a large number of different examples where the same concept was applied. Moreover, it allowed them to work together without being able to simply copy from each other. Furthermore, the timeline for the assignments aligned as closely as possible with

METHODOLOGY

Action Research

Action research is a suitable research methodology in situations where educators wish to improve their classroom practices.17 According to McMillan and Schumacher18 it is characterized by the intersection “between systematic inquiry (i.e., research) and its use by practitioners”. Action research is an iterative, cyclical process consisting of several stages, including planning, implementation, observation, and reflection.17,18 After each implementation phase of the innovation, its success is evaluated, and changes are made before implementation of the next phase. This process is repeated. This study reports on the first two iterations of the PIC project. The first iteration of the project, which was implemented in the second semester of the 2014 academic year, is described, and the feedback obtained from students via an electronic survey is discussed. On the basis of these results, the changes made to the B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00958 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

response rates, the data was analyzed semiquantitatively. The quantitative results were used as a guide for the analyses of the open-ended questions through qualitative coding. On the basis of the data obtained from the first iteration, changes were implemented before the onset of the second iteration.

the lectures, during which the relevant chemistry concepts were discussed. During the first iteration of the project, students completed all their assignments electronically in Google Docs. They shared access to their online documents with their subgroup members and their lecturers. This allowed the members of a subgroup to comment on each other’s work as they progressed through the project. The lecturers could also follow these online discussions and comment on the assignments, as well as give group feedback on specific issues during contact sessions. From the various sources of feedback, students had the opportunity to improve their attempts before writing their final assignment, their PIC portfolio. This portfolio was constructed by taking a process writing approach, facilitated by the lecturers of Scientific Communication Skills 146 throughout the course of the semester. It also contained a complete reference list and a journal entry in which students reflected on what they had gained from the project. For the final PIC portfolio students had to create one coherent report on the characteristics of their PIC in which the knowledge they gained from all the individual assignments was integrated. The purpose of this format was to support the aim of addressing the challenge of knowledge compartmentalization in Chemistry 176. Studies on the gamification of course content have shown improved student engagement which, in turn, holds the potential to promote student learning.19 Therefore, in a further effort to improve the students’ engagement with this project, an element of competition was also included. For this purpose, students worked in their subgroups of three. After each student had submitted their final individual project, the formal competition process started with each subgroup identifying the favorite PIC among their three projects. As a group, they then presented an excerpt from this project to their Scientific Communication Skills 146 class. Each class had to identify their favorite presentation, which resulted in six subgroups going into a final competition round. In the final round, each of the subgroups presented again, this time to the whole EDP cohort. Students voted for their favorite presentation, and the winning subgroup, as well as the two runner-up subgroups, received small prizes and certificates.

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Addressing Research Question 1

The first research question of this study dealt with the students’ experience of the PIC project. On the basis of the stages of this action research study, the survey results that were obtained from the students after the first iteration is discussed. This is followed by a reflection on the implications of the results and how this led to the changes that were made for implementation of the second iteration. Last, coming full circle, the survey results from the second iteration are discussed and compared to those of the first iteration. Figure 1 summarizes the quantitative results obtained from the Likert scale questions of the first iteration. From the results in Figure 1, students seemed to have had a positive experience of the PIC project. Of the students who responded, 90% indicated that their general experience was good. Of this group 63% scored the project in category 3, suggesting that improvements could be made. 86% of the students also indicated that the assignments aligned well with the content of the Chemistry 176 module, while 82% indicated that the project aligned well with the Scientific Communication Skills 146 module. Although a majority of students were positive regarding the use of the Google Docs platform, 31% responded negatively and 12% indicated not feeling comfortable using it at all. From the qualitative data it was clear that some students struggled to adapt to using the platform and found it not well-suited for the purposes of this project. Below are two quotations from students, as reported through the open-ended feedback of the surveys. “The PIC project is a very good idea and it helps a lot, but it would work better if a platform other than Google Docs was used in the future, since many students experienced issues with it.” S31 (2014, translated from Afrikaans) “Google Docs made it difficult to do the project in the correct way, according to the instructions of the Scientific Communication [Skills 146] module.” S41 (2014, translated from Afrikaans) The majority of the students responded positively to the questions related to peer assessment. However, 16% indicated that their peers never commented on their assignments, while 13% indicated that the comments they received were not beneficial. Furthermore, 16% indicated that they never used the comment option in Google Docs, and 6% indicated that they did not find it beneficial to comment on their peers’ work at all. These results show that the use of peer assessment and feedback opportunities were successful; however, some aspects could be improved to ensure that more students benefitted from this as a learning opportunity. From the qualitative feedback gathered by means of the openended questions and upon reflection by the lecturers, three other areas were identified that needed to be addressed. First, several students indicated a problem regarding receiving contradicting communications from the lecturers of Scientific Communication Skills 146 and Chemistry 176.

■

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES After completion of each iteration of the project students were invited to complete an anonymous and voluntary online survey. This survey contained both Likert scale and open-ended questions. The Likert scale questions consisted of four response categories per question. Only categories 1 and 4 were labeled, ranging from less positive responses (category 1) to more positive responses (category 4). These labels included the following: “negative” and “positive” for questions related to their general experience of the project; “no, not at all” and “yes, completely” for questions related to the relevance of the modules, the comfort of using the platform, and the benefit of peer assessment; “no, not at all” and “yes, for every assignment” for making use of the comment option. The survey contained three open-ended questions. The first two open-ended questions dealt with the students’ perception of whether the PIC project was helpful to develop their understanding of chemistry concepts, or helpful to develop their scientific communication skills. The third openended question provided opportunity for any other general feedback. Response rates for the first iteration were 30% (52 students) and 27% (40 students) for the second iteration. Due to these low C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00958 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 1. Summary of the responses to the Likert scale questions in the survey related to the first iteration. The indicated values represent the percentage of responses for each category in relation to the total number of responses obtained for that specific question. Categories range from less positive responses (category 1) to more positive responses (category 4).

abstract summarizing the most important findings about their PICs, as obtained through the separate assignments. Abstract writing, which is an essential skill in all sciences, also served as good preparation for their presentations, during which they had limited time to report on and discuss the most important aspects of their projects. Communication. In an effort to address the issue of contradicting communications between lecturers, two changes were made. First, students took a comprehension test on the project instruction sheet to ensure that they had studied the document and knew what was expected of them. Second, one lecturer took responsibility for communicating instructions regarding the project to the students. This communication took place via SUNLearn, and all other lecturers were included in these discussions. PIC Options. In an attempt to address the issue students had with the assignments on the commercial and industrial value of their PICs, lecturers encouraged students to broaden their search and report on the individual cations, anions, or closely related compounds. Upon completion of the second iteration of the PIC project, the students were again invited to complete an electronic survey. The results of this survey are summarized in Figure 2. The survey results obtained on the second iteration, although still indicating an overall mostly positive experience of the PIC project, did show some differences with regards to the first iteration. Again, 90% of the students indicated that the PIC assignments did align well with the Chemistry 176 module’s content, and 69% agreed likewise about the content of the Scientific Communication Skills 146 module. However, there were noticeably more students (31%), as compared to the first iteration (18%), who indicated that it did not align well with the Scientific Communication Skills 146 module, though there was no qualitative feedback to directly support this observed negative shift. Upon reflection by the lecturers, however, it was suggested

“...although there were problems with the layout of the task as both Scientific Communication Skills [146] and Chemistry 176 had their own requirements.” S37 (2014) “It was very interesting to learn about the other [chemical] elements, but the communication between Scientific Communication [Skills 146] and Chemistry [176] definitely needs to be improved.” S27 (2014, translated from Afrikaans) Second, students struggled with the format of the final portfolio. They found it difficult to create a coherent story from the separate assignments, due to the broad range of topics that were covered. As a result, the lecturers needed to play a much greater role in assisting students with coherently structuring the content in their portfolios than was initially anticipated. Last, some students struggled with the assignments on the commercial and industrial value of their PICs, since their chosen combinations of cations and anions resulted in compounds with very limited or no commercial application. The lecturers therefore needed to re-evaluate the lists of preselected cations and anions from which students could create their PICs. On the basis of the feedback collected during the first iteration of the project, changes were made for the second iteration of the PIC as follows. Peer Assessment and the Electronic Platform. The decision was made to facilitate the project through the university’s Moodle-based Learning Management System, called SUNLearn, rather than through Google Docs. Through the peer assessment functionality in SUNLearn (the Workshop tool), students could submit their assignments in electronic format, after which they were randomly allocated to peer assess each other’s assignments online. The lecturers also created assessment rubrics to guide students through the peer assessment process. Final Assignment. Instead of compiling all the individual assignments into one coherent document (the original portfolio), it was decided that students should instead write an D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00958 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 2. Summary of the responses to the Likert scale questions in the survey related to the second iteration. The indicated values represent the percentage of responses for each category in relation to the total number of responses obtained for that specific question. Categories range from less positive responses (category 1) to more positive responses (category 4).

data, highlighting the development of skills such as group work and learning from mistakes. “The PIC project allows students to develop their group work skills through peer assessment.” S40 (2015) “Yes, by assessing other people’s assessments I learned from their mistakes, sometimes mistakes that I had made myself.” S37 (2015, translated from Afrikaans) The problem of miscommunication between the two modules did not seem to be completely solved, as the following quote suggested. “The assignments for the PIC project and the assignments we received from the Scientific Communication Skills 146 lecturers were not always the same and this proved to be very confusing since no one could tell us exactly what to do.” S37 (2015, translated from Afrikaans) However, in contrast with the previous iteration, this was the only comment that mentioned a problem with communication. The lecturers also experienced that students were less confused, since they received significantly fewer queries regarding the assignments and requirements for the project. Regarding the final assessment, the students did not comment directly on the activity of writing an abstract, but the lecturers experienced this as a very positive and worthwhile exercise. There were also fewer inquiries from students on how to approach this activity, as compared to compiling the original portfolio, which led lecturers to believe that the students also saw more value in this activity.

that this decrease could partially be attributed to the fact that all communication regarding the PIC project was facilitated by a chemistry lecturer. In addition, the students submitted their assignments for the project on the Chemistry 176 module’s SUNLearn site. Consequently, the students might have experienced the project as belonging to the Chemistry 176 module and, in so doing, compounded the issue of compartmentalization. From the results, 85% of students indicated that they were comfortable using SUNLearn and the Workshop tool, as compared to 69%, who indicated that they were comfortable with Google Docs, in the first iteration. Only 3% were completely uncomfortable using SUNLearn in comparison with the 12% in the previous iteration. This was also visible in the qualitative results. In contrast to iteration 1, not a single student referred directly to SUNLearn or the Workshop tool in the open-ended survey questions. Negativity around peer assessment seemed to have increased from the previous year, with a 23% of students indicating that they did not find the assessment of their peers’ assignments beneficial at all and 33% indicating that they did not find the assessment of their assignments by their peers to be helpful. From the qualitative feedback, such as the comment below, the lecturers were able to reflect on possible reasons for this negativity. “The feedback system of peer assessment could have benefitted students if it had been released to students after completion, which never happened.” S27 (2015) The lecturers realized that this negative experience could likely be attributed to challenges that they themselves experienced with facilitating the peer assessment through the Workshop tool. Lecturers had difficulties making the results of the peer assessments available to students. As a result, students had the opportunity to peer assess each other, but in some instances they could not access the feedback that had actually been given to them. Despite the increase in negativity regarding peer assessment, some valuable positive feedback was obtained from the qualitative

Addressing Research Question 2

The second research question that was addressed by this study dealt with the compartmentalization of topics in chemistry. The researchers wanted to investigate whether having an extended project with a continuous theme would help students to make connections between the various aspects covered in the curriculum. Students should experience the chemistry curriculum as a E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00958 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

such a collaboration, was imperative to not compound the issue of compartmentalization. All attempts should be made to ensure that the students do not experience the modules involved in such a project in their individuality, but as in support of each other. Therefore, one of the recommendations, which the researchers suggest for future iterations of the project, is to create a separate online space for the project on SUNLearn, rather than the current space where it is embedded in the Chemistry 176 module. This separate space should be clearly linked to both the modules that are currently involved in the project, but it should not be situated in one module specifically, in order to increase the association of it belonging to the Chemistry 176 as well as the Scientific Communication Skills 146 modules. A further suggestion is to expand the collaboration of this project to also include Computer Skills 176, another module that already forms part of the Science EDP. This collaboration could potentially support the students with the knowledge of using the appropriate software as well as the skills that are required to do the presentations of their final PIC projects. The findings of this study indicate that the PIC project is a valuable initiative that begins to address some of the unique challenges that many first-year students, especially those enrolled in EDP, have to face. We propose that the concept of this project can serve as a model to develop similar embedded projects in other natural science disciplines, and that it can be applied at different levels of education.

unit of concepts building on one another, instead of seeing it as a host of different disconnected topics. From the qualitative data obtained from the survey, students commented specifically on how the PIC project helped them to gain a deeper understanding of the various topics they investigated. Not only did they begin to understand how the various chemistry concepts related with each other, they also discovered how such compounds interacted with the environment and the role they played in the broader field of natural science. Students indicated that the PIC project promoted more than just rote learning. It also gave them insight into concepts other than what was discussed in class or in the textbook; it helped them truly understand the application of the calculations that typically form part of an introductory chemistry module. Students also commented very directly on the impact the project had made with regards to enhancing their awareness of the hierarchical knowledge structure of chemistry. “Yes, it combined some of the work we discussed in class into one document. Thus, we could see how all the various sections were related.” S13 (2014, translated from Afrikaans) “It helped me to learn and to integrate the concepts. Everything is connected in one way or another.” S31 (2015, translated from Afrikaans) Addressing Research Question 3

The third research question addressed the contextualization of scientific communication skills in a chemistry curriculum through the collaboration between two previously separate modules. From the qualitative data obtained from the survey, it was clear that the students felt that the project exposed them to scientific academic writing, as well as gave them an opportunity to improve this skill. They approved of the fact that the PIC assignments provided them opportunities to get feedback on their writing skills. They also found that these skills aided them in communicating their findings and the information learned in the Chemistry 176 module by means of appropriate scientific language. “My language and scientific communication skills improved a lot, as many words were needed along with my calculations to bring across my answers and reasoning in a relevant fashion.” S30 (2015) “The PIC project was an interesting way for me to learn with my group about chemistry. It helped me to understand the concepts of both subjects better.” S56 (2014, translated from Afrikaans) “Yes, it helped tremendously. It helped me to think like a scientist and give feedback so that my language skills were at a good level. I look forward a lot to attempting scientific reports in the future.” S21 (2014, translated from Afrikaans)

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00958. Table containing the project assignments and their related lecture topics as well as an indication of which module was responsible for each assignment (PDF)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Ilse Rootman-le Grange: 0000-0001-9799-7553 Liezel Retief: 0000-0003-0283-4861 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Ed Jacobs for the development of the PIC project concept and for his support during the implementation of the first iteration of the PIC project. We would also like to acknowledge the Centre for Teaching and Learning at Stellenbosch University for awarding us a grant through the Fund for Innovation and Research into Learning and Teaching (FIRLT), for supporting the development and implementation of this project. Last, we would like to thank Hanelie Adendorff for her valuable input and feedback on our initial drafts for this paper, as well as Ydalene Coetsee (Scientific Communication Skills 146), who contributed to the management of the project.

■

CONCLUSIONS In this paper the results of a two-year action research study on a novel interdisciplinary project are presented. From the results, the PIC project was shown to be successful in addressing two core issues, namely, the compartmentalization of knowledge within a chemistry module, as well as realizing the value of skills taught in supporting modules. Specifically, the PIC project increased students’ awareness of the hierarchical knowledge structure of chemistry, as well as its real life applications. Furthermore, it improved their scientific communication and writing skills and succeeded in emphasizing the role of the support modules within the broader science curriculum. The lecturers also found that the importance of effective communication regarding the different modules, when attempting

■

REFERENCES

(1) Taber, K. S. Chemistry lessons for universities?: a review of constructivist ideas. University Chemistry Education 2000, 4 (2), 63−72.

F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00958 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(2) Taber, K. S. Building the structural concepts of Chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2001, 2 (2), 123−158. (3) Gulacar, O.; Bowman, C. R. Determining what our students need most: exploring student perceptions and comparing difficulty ratings of students and faculty. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15, 587−593. (4) Jacobs, C. Collaboration as pedagogy: Consequences and implications for partnerships between communication and disciplinary specialists. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 2010, 28, 227−237. (5) Pearson, D. P.; Moje, E.; Greenleaf, C. Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other. Science 2010, 328, 459−463. (6) Osborne, J. Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science 2010, 328, 463−466. (7) Norris, S. P.; Phillips, L. M. How Literacy in Its Fundamental Sense Is Central to Scientific Literacy. Sci. Educ. 2003, 87, 224−240. (8) Rivard, L. P. A Review of Writing to Learn in Science: Implications for Practice and Research. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (9), 969−983. (9) Reynolds, J. A.; Thaiss, C.; Katkin, W.; Thompson, R. J., Jr. Writingto-Learn in Undergraduate Science Education: A Community-Based, Conceptually Driven Approach. CBE Life Sciences Education 2012, 11, 17−25. (10) Miller, D. M.; Czegan, D. A. C. Integrating the Liberal Arts and Chemistry: A Series of General Chemistry Assignments To Develop Science Literacy. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 864−869. (11) Klein, G. C.; Carney, J. M. Comprehensive Approach to Development of Communication and Critical Thinking: Bookend Courses for Third- and Fourth-year Chemistry Majors. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1649−1654. (12) Mc Goldrick, N. B.; Marzec, B.; Scully, P. N.; Draper, S. M. Implementing a Multidisciplinary Program for Developing Learning, Communication, and Team-Working Skills in Second-year Undergraduate Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 338−344. (13) Jones, M. L. B.; Seybold, P. G. Combining Chemical Information Literacy, Communication Skills, Career Preparation, Ethics, and Peer Review in a Team-Taught Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 439−443. (14) Martineau, E.; Boisvert, L. Using Wikipedia to Develop Critical Analysis Skills in the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 769−771. (15) Walker, M. A.; Li, Y. Improving Information Literacy Skills through Learning To Use and Edit Wikipedia: A Chemistry Perspective. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 509−515. (16) Stewart, A. F.; Williams, A. L.; Lofgreen, J. E.; Edgar, L. J. G.; Hoch, L. B.; Dicks, A. P. Chemistry Writing Instruction and Training: Implementing a Comprehensive Approach to Improving Student Communication Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 86−92. (17) Towns, M. H.; Kreke, K.; Fields, A. An Action Research Project: Student Perspectives on Small-Group Learning in Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (1), 111−115. (18) McMillan, J. H.; Schumacher, S. Research in Education: Evidence Based Inquiry, 7th ed.; Pearson: Boston, 2010; p 511. (19) Antunes, M.; Pacheco, M. A. R.; Giovanela, M. Design and Implementation of an Educational Game for Teaching Chemistry in Higher Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 517−521.

G

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00958 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX