In the Classroom
An Integrated Communication Skills Package for Undergraduate Chemists W. J. Kerr* Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, Thomas Graham Building, 295 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G1 1XL, Scotland, UK; *
[email protected] R. E. G. Murray Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1QE, Scotland, UK B. D. Moore and D. C. Nonhebel Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XL, Scotland, UK
Introduction and Background The UK higher education sector produces graduates with a high level of knowledge in both theoretical and practical chemistry. In contrast, communication skills development has traditionally been less well advanced in the chemistry curriculum. However, it has been argued for some time and there is a growing acceptance that there is a need for structured guidance on communications (1). Educational researchers and teachers of chemistry alike have argued that knowledge of chemistry in itself is not enough; it is now well established in the literature on chemistry education that skills relevant to chemistry should be developed in the undergraduate degree. In fact, there is evidence that developing these skills can enhance the cognitive development and performance of chemists (2). Additionally, it is our experience that students have begun to realize the value of developing what have been called “transferable skills”. Employers have also begun explicitly to value communication skills. All of this evidence provides a foundation for the wide range of communication skills courses that have evolved in the past decade to meet this perceived need (3). For educators in chemistry the question is how best to develop effective communication skills training. The descriptive papers in the literature offer a variety of purposes, modes of delivery, and assessment or non-assessment. The research papers show that claims for the effects of these courses can be supported by evidence of skills development and improved learning of chemistry. There has also been recognition by chemistry educators of the need to integrate communication skills in the curriculum, even at the expense of other subjects (it should be noted that, in most cases, the UK undergraduate chemistry curriculum is fixed, with only a few elective classes) (1). At Strathclyde the Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry collaborated with the university’s Centre for Academic Practice (center for staff and educational development) to develop a communications skills course which, by drawing on different strands of research and practice, would be both educationally sound and relevant to chemists and would have a firm theoretical basis. Advice was also taken from industrial contacts. The result is a range of communications skills activities that run over three years of the four-year undergraduate degree. The Strathclyde course is an integrated course, not only in the sense that all its components are interrelated, but also in the sense that the communications activities are related to other course work. This paper outlines each of the three units, providing the practical guidelines and, more briefly, the theoretical underpinning that chemistry lecturers can use in their teaching.
The Strathclyde Integrated Communication Skills Package
Unit 1: Team Business Game (2nd Year of Undergraduate Study) This unit is structured around a role-playing business game (UNISIM)1 where the students form management teams (5–6 people) of a company engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of chocolate bars. The nonchemical context of this exercise was deliberately chosen to allow the introduction of communication and team skills training without any association with more formal course work, which allows each student to be perceived as an equally valuable team member regardless of theoretical chemical ability. Moreover, it was perceived that this modest introduction to the factors involved in managing a business enterprise would be valuable and relevant to the students’ potential future roles as chemists in industrial environments. In order to provide a challenging environment students are carefully grouped into “companies” with “unfamiliar” classmates (i.e., those who do not normally work together in laboratory or tutorial classes). Furthermore, to help the competitive nature of the exercise, all participants are aware that of the normally 12–13 teams the most financially successful “company” at the end of Unit 1 will be awarded prizes from the Department (£15.00 gift tokens to each team member). In terms of timing, this unit takes place within one week during four consecutive afternoon periods, each lasting four hours (total 16 hours). Throughout the whole period of the game the teams are required to make a series of decisions affecting company strategy under strict time constraints. Consequently, the “companies” are encouraged to create a management structure that will allow them to process rapidly abundant information relating to market research, sales, and financial accounts. The UNISIM business game provides staff with all the data for distribution to teams, processes the financial decisions of each “company” through a self-contained computer package, and provides continual updates on the performance of each team. At periods during the exercise additional tasks are also set, which stimulate the students to discuss and construct policies on, for instance, labor and public relations and the external profile of the company (e.g., advertising campaigns, new product names). Issues concerning the source and supply of raw materials and specific technical plant problems can also be introduced. These latter tasks are largely invented by the staff and, based on the decisions and actions of each “company”, facilities within the UNISIM computer package are
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 2 February 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education
191
In the Classroom
utilized to impose financial rewards or penalties on the teams. Under the coordination and direction of two academic staff members of the chemistry department, postgraduate students act as counsellors to teams and hold regular debriefing sessions during the exercise (usually one counsellor will direct three teams). At the beginning of the exercise the primary role of the postgraduate counselors is to help the students manage their financial information. In the latter stages, the postgraduates arrange short meetings to prompt the undergraduates to reflect on and assess their collective team performance and the way their personal communication skills are developing within the context of the game. Additionally, the students complete a simple psychometric test (Self-Perception Inventory) (4 ) to establish which category of team worker they fall under; this introduces them to such tests, which are used extensively in industry. Students are encouraged to reflect not only on this psychometric profile but also on their perception of their performance. Over the past seven years this unit has given students valuable practice in the arts of negotiation, collaboration, and delegation and also highlighted for them the varied talents that can be drawn on within a small group. These processes can be encouraged by the competitive environment that is created during the game period. A particular advantage of the game is that it allows introduction of controversial discussion material (e.g., employee relations, political and environmental issues), which is normally absent within a traditional undergraduate science degree course.
Unit 2: Poster Presentation Exercise (3rd Year of Undergraduate Study) The objective of the Poster Presentation Exercise is to provide the opportunity for students to develop written and graphic presentation skills and to extend and utilize their team abilities in a new, and chemically related, context. Working in teams of 5–6, the students produce a poster that argues the case for the provision of further funding for an important area of science. The topics available to the teams relate to significant breakthroughs made in the recent past, allowing the students to make a strong argument with the benefit of hindsight. In the initial session of this unit, the students are given guidance on how best to present information graphically and, more specifically, in poster format, by the staff member who is coordinating the unit. As well as detailing what is required of each team, this meeting focuses on such aspects as the use of text (type and size), the use of other material to communicate information (e.g., graphs, diagrams, and pictures), volume of information, and overall layout. This is supported by showing the students previously prepared posters and having them consider the comparative effectiveness of these presentations. Each team will have an academic staff member as their supervisor for this unit, and before the start of the event each academic supervisor gives the unit coordinator a textual summary of a potential poster project. The teams then use these summaries to choose which project they would most like to carry out. The topics for the posters can be as wide-ranging as desired and may well reflect the research interests of the department where the event is being run. A few examples that have been used as topics in the past are (i) The Use of Antibodies as Catalysts for Organic Synthesis, (ii) The Chem192
istry of Coal Desulfurization, (iii) Methods for the Analysis of Trace Explosives, (iv) Template Polymerization, (v) Raman Spectroscopy of Single Cells, (vi) Buckminsterfullerenes, (vii) Identifying the Geographical Origins and Estimating Common Sources of Cannabis sativa L, and (viii) Chromium Carbenes—“Miracle Reagents in Organic Synthesis”. To distribute the individual topics, lots are drawn to establish the order in which each team will announce and have their project of choice allocated to them. No project can be carried out by more than one team. Therefore, in the event that the favored project of a team has already been allocated earlier in the distribution process, the team should go to their next project of choice. After the topics have been allocated, the teams meet with their academic supervisor to discuss the scope and potential detail of the poster. They are then provided with leading literature references with suggested subtopics. Working within their teams the students then delegate individual literature searches and plan the poster format and content. On the basis of the large amount of information gathered, they discuss and decide the overall scope and pitch of their presentation. Short written summaries suitable for integration into the poster are prepared. The students then decide how the written work should be combined with other visual materials such as graphs, drawings, photographs, and models in order to present their case in the most effective fashion. The poster preparation, like the Business Game, is carried out within a limited period of time. After distribution of poster topics on the afternoon of the opening day, students have until the morning of fifth day to complete their work (a total of four days). However, as this exercise runs during the formal teaching semester, owing to lectures and other classes, the students have less than 4 full days to accomplish their task. The completed posters are displayed together in the foyer to the chemistry department. The final stage of this exercise is the adjudication of the presentations. Here a peer-assessment mechanism is combined with the assessment of an “expert” panel. In the peer process the teams rank each other’s posters from the top mark for that judged to be the most meritorious down to a mark of one point for the lowest-ranked presentation. The expert panel usually consists of two members of the academic staff, a member of the technical staff of the department, and an invited (nonchemist) guest; this last role has been assumed by members of the university’s administrative staff as well as by staff from other departments within the university. The expert panel also rank the posters in descending order. However, their marking is given a weighting of a factor of five over the marks given by the individual student teams (i.e., each mark is multiplied by 5, from the top mark down to the lowestranked poster, which gets 5 points rather than 1). The team with the highest cumulative point total is judged to have prepared and presented the winning poster. Industrial sponsorship2 finances the winning team prizes (£15.00 gift tokens to each team member) at the end of Unit 2. This unit encourages the students to consider the most appropriate mechanism by which scientific information can be communicated by visual means to a nonexpert audience. It highlights how the nature and quality of presentation can strongly influence the effectiveness of transfer of chemical ideas and theories. Additionally, the experience of searching
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 2 February 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
primary literature is particularly advantageous, as the students embark on Industrial Placement periods3 soon after this program and, later in the degree curriculum, carry out full 18week research projects. The peer-assessment process allows the students to critically appraise the posters produced by their colleagues. The four-person “expert” panel also provides its assessment coupled with considered feedback to each participating team. Finally, a selection of the student posters are displayed throughout the remainder of the academic year in the department.
Unit 3: Oral Presentation Skills (Final Year of Undergraduate Study) The objective of this unit is to enable students to develop their oral presentation skills. The unit is introduced by staff at the University of Strathclyde’s Centre for Academic Practice at a 3-hour seminar, where the students discuss and practice presentation skills in small groups (usually eight 3–4 person groups participate in a given session). Points covered include pace, voice intonation, body language, tension, visual aids, content, structure, and audience and purpose assessment. Videotapes of former student presentations (with the students’ written permission) are also used as illustration. After the introductory sessions the class is divided into 10-person groups. Each student then plans and prepares a 5-minute talk, usually on subject matter from the Industrial Placement period,3 from which the students have just returned. Within the 10-person groups and in the presence of two chemistry staff tutors, each presentation is videotaped. When all the students have been recorded, each presentation is reviewed by the whole group. The student whose presentation has just been watched reflects on his or her own performance. This is followed by constructive criticism from the rest of the group and, finally, from the staff tutors. The staff also rate the students on specific aspects of their presentation and Was that an effective presentation? Title ........................................................................... Audience ........................................................................... Objective ........................................................................... TEXT
Yes Begins with statement of main point 5 Begins with forecast of whole structure 5 Develops good structure 5 Links parts explicitly 5 Illustrates points with examples 5 Convinces me of his/her argument 5 Keeps me interested 5 Ends with summary 5 Ends with restatement of main point 5 Signals the end 5
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Yes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PRESENTATION Finishes on time Uses voice well Varies speed for a purpose Varies volume for a purpose Pauses for a purpose Uses eye contact to keep me involved Uses gestures to make points clear Uses audio-visual aids to clarify Uses handouts to clarify COMMENTS
provide short written comments on a form that was introduced during the introductory sessions (see Box: “Was that an effective presentation?”). These videotape sessions normally take place within one week of the opening seminars and require 3–4 hours. The overall atmosphere of the sessions is enhanced if the students are also employed as the camera operators to videotape each other. The role of the staff tutors throughout the video sessions is to chair the discussion and to prompt and focus students’ feedback. The feedback form can be used as a focal point. Initially, staff development for the chemistry lecturers involved in tutoring this unit took the form of attendance at the introductory sessions at the Centre for Academic Practice. After reflecting on their videotaped performance and feedback the students give a final presentation in front of a larger audience consisting of (usually less senior) undergraduates and lecturing staff. For these sessions the students are placed in 20-person groups (two 10-person groups from the video activity are combined), with two chemistry staff tutors, and the talks are required to be slightly longer (7 minutes). The final stage of this unit normally takes place within one week of the video sessions and lasts 3 hours (bringing the total time spent on this unit by each student to 9–10 hours). Since the students usually give presentations based on some aspect of their Industrial Placement period, this event has the added advantage of being a useful information forum for students who are about to embark on similar industrial training periods. The overall exercise is designed to help students overcome their apprehension about speaking in front of an audience. The initial seminar familiarizes them with the mechanics of planning, preparing, and delivering a talk and provides guidelines for how to overcome nervousness. At the next stage, students view their own personal lecturing style on videotape and by discussion with their peers identify positive aspects of their presentation and areas of potential improvement. The final session gives students an opportunity to present what is often their first formal seminar. This unit also provides preparation for a longer presentation given by each student after the completion of the final Honours research project later in the same academic year. Evaluations and Conclusions Positive feedback and evaluations were provided by students, academic staff, and industrial contacts and employers. The three units that make up the Communication Skills program together provide a coherent course that we believe improves the quality and range of thinking of our chemistry undergraduates. Assessment forms completed by the students indicate that they value the course highly and they express the opinion that it will help in the development of their future academic or industrial careers. From the point of view of chemistry graduates this program is both relevant and successful: CHEMISTRY GRADUATE In my opinion, acquiring these (communication) skills during my studies at university has been invaluable due to the highly motivated working environment in today’s Pharmaceutical Industry, where communication and team work are essential skills I have to use on a daily basis. George G. Kirk, B.Sc. 1992, Ph.D. 1995 Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Macclesfield, Cheshire
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 77 No. 2 February 2000 • Journal of Chemical Education
193
In the Classroom
Academic staff within the Department of Chemistry act as tutors at various stages of the Communication Skills program. Viewing the program at close quarters and perceiving the enhancement of student performance in various other areas of the undergraduate curriculum, in particular research project presentations, the lecturing staff are strongly supportive of these developments: PROFESSOR OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY Before participating as a tutor on the Communication Skills course I was unsure about its real value to students. However, having now been involved in a number of activities within the course my views are clear and firmly based. Coupled with our Industrial Placement scheme there is no doubt that the course offers a vital educational experience for our students, which complements their academic studies. David C. Sherrington University of Strathclyde
External support for the Communication Skills program has been forthcoming in the shape of prize sponsorship and highly positive feedback from industrial chemists and personnel employees in the same area of industry: INDUSTRIAL HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER With many scientific courses, the element of communication is missing and graduates miss out on this important area of their development. I am pleased to see that the communication modules are integrated into the Chemistry degree and that particular emphasis has been placed on presentation and team building skills both of which are very important.… The students on the degree course having undertaken communication skills training will undoubtedly have an advantage… [T]he course is a refreshing development in an undergraduate science degree. Gabrielle Collins Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development
Finally and notably, following the recent Teaching Quality Assessment (TQA) exercise by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, the Communication Skills courses were highlighted as one of the main strengths in the undergraduate teaching programs in chemistry at Strathclyde; the department was given the highest classification of Excellent for their teaching provision. What began as a partnership between the Centre for Academic Practice and the Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry has been integrated into the department’s mainstream teaching: each unit in this package is delivered by chemistry lecturers (chemistry postgraduates help to manage one unit) and examples of chemistry undergraduate presentations are used as illustrative examples. Moreover, because the package is staffed by different members of the chemistry department over the years, adaptations can be made in the delivery of each unit. As new lecturers are drafted to coordinate a unit, an increasing number of the department staff become familiar with the principles and practices of the course. Integration is further strengthened by the inclusion of the communications skills package in the department’s course
194
handbook for each undergraduate year. The handbook outlines the communication skills unit to be undertaken in that year. Assessment, both formal and informal, by lecturers and by peers, is seen as a means of signaling to the students that the communications course is not just a stand-alone course, an extra in the main chemistry curriculum, but is another aspect of the professional practice of chemistry. Evaluation and feedback suggest that this package does improve the communication skills of undergraduate chemists while also raising their awareness of the relevance and value of communication skills for chemistry. Notes 1. The UNISIM Business Game is available from UNISIM Sales, P.O. Box 10, Wetherby, West Yorkshire LS23 7YY, UK; Complete UNISIM Pack @ £20.00, Tutor’s Manual @ £3.00, Player’s Guide @ £5.00 for 10 copies, Financial and Management Information Guide @ £5.00 for 10 copies. 2. Currently these finances are provided by Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development, Medicines Research Centre, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 2NY, UK. We gratefully thank N. Aston, H. A. Kelly, and D. Middlemiss for their support. 3. On completion of year 3 of the undergraduate chemistry curriculum the chemistry students embark on an Industrial Placement period of, normally, one year. The students are employed as full-time members of industrial companies throughout the UK, on mainland Europe, and farther afield. Following the completion of this Industrial Placement period the students return to the University of Strathclyde to complete the final year of their degree studies.
Literature Cited 1. Fox, M. F.; Glasse, M. D.; Latham, R. J. Chem. Br. 1990, 26, 43–45. 2. Johnstone, A. H.; Percival, F.; Reid, N. Studies Higher Educ. 1981, 6, 77–84. Ver Beek, K.; Louters, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 389–392. 3. Habeshaw, S.; Steeds, D. 53 Interesting Communication Exercises for Science Students; Technical and Educational Services Ltd.: Bristol, 1987. Hanson, J. R.; Hoppé, J. I. Educ. Chem. 1995, 32, 133. Hanson, J. R.; Hoppé, J. I. Educ. Chem. 1995, 32, 23–24. Blandamer, M. J. In Innovations in Science Teaching. Standing Conference on Educational Development; Exley, K.; Moore, I., Eds.; Standing Conference on Educational Development: Birmingham, UK, 1993; Paper 74, pp 17–19. Wieder, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 1053–1055. Hollister, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 1013–1015. Hazen, R. M.; Trefil, J. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 392–394. Pontin, J. A.; Aricó, E.; Pitoscio Filho, J.; Tiedemann, P. W.; Isuyama, R.; Fettis, G. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 223–226. Dougherty, R. C.; Bowen, C. W.; Berger, T.; Rees, W.; Mellon, E. K.; Pulliam, E. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 793–797. Bailey, R. A.; Geisler, C. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 150-152. Drake, B. C.; Acosta, G. M.; Wingard, D. A.; Smith, R. L. Jr. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 592-596. Herrington, A. J. In Constructing Rhetorical Education; Secor, M.; Charney, D., Eds.; Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1992; pp 91–115. 4. Belbin, R. M. Management Teams; Why They Succeed or Fail; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, 1992.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 77 No. 2 February 2000 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
