In the Classroom
Chemical Research Writing: A Preparatory Course for Student Capstone Research
W
Hala G. Schepmann* and Laura A. Hughes Department of Chemistry, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR 97520; *
[email protected] Fourth-year projects and theses are well-established graduation requirements in higher education. Desired outcomes include increased depth and breadth of knowledge, development of independent thinking, improved laboratory skills, and improved ability to communicate project goals and results. Often, chemistry programs emphasize the laboratory research, providing minimal instruction regarding communication of the research project. However, a review of the literature indicates that several chemistry programs incorporate a writing component into their core courses; and a few offer a writing-specific seminar course or include writing requirements in their capstone course (1). Described herein is a chemistry research writing course that differs from those noted earlier in that it precedes research initiation and serves to prepare students for their capstone project. In 1990, acknowledging the value of conducting and presenting scientific research, this university’s chemistry department added a year-long capstone research project as a requirement for graduation. Students, under the guidance of a faculty member, were expected to select a topic, conduct a literature search, perform experiments, and present their work to the department in written and oral formats. The department quickly recognized that students lacked the writing and presentation skills required to effectively communicate their capstone projects, despite having completed three academic quarters of writing and communication courses as freshmen and numerous lower- and upper-division laboratory courses. Furthermore, students demonstrated poor comprehension of their projects and had difficulty searching the chemical literature, identifying key articles, and determining and interpreting the central ideas of the articles. In 1996, the department addressed these deficiencies by creating two upper-division one-credit courses as prerequisites for the capstone course focusing on chemical information and chemical research writing, respectively. These courses were to prepare students to conduct their capstone research and develop communication skills critical for their future scientific careers. Currently, the chemical information course is offered in the spring quarter of students’ second year. The course primarily focuses on searching and retrieving chemical information from online sources including Chemical Abstracts and the ACS full-text database. The chemical research writing course is offered to students in the spring quarter of their third year. Students are taught how to conduct and write a literature review directly related to their capstone project. Over the past nine years, the development of the course has been influenced by the limited class time (one hour per week for ten weeks) and the desire to provide students with direct and frequent interaction with the department’s eight faculty members. Furthermore, the assignments needed to be appropriate for students conducting a laboratory research project (i.e., those pursuing an ACS certified degree) as well as those carrying out a library research project (i.e., students seeking 1024
Journal of Chemical Education
•
a non-ACS certified degree). Presented herein is a writing course model, specifically dedicated to preparing students to conduct a capstone research project, which can be readily adapted into existing chemistry curricula. Course Structure and Pedagogy The chemical research writing course helps prepare students for their capstone research by improving their understanding of their project and by teaching them how to define clear research goals and methods. Students write a review article, based on a minimum of three related primary research articles, that serves as the introduction and background sections of their capstone paper. They assume a chemically literate audience consisting of their peers. Additionally, ACS majors prepare a research proposal based upon their upcoming capstone project. Completing the literature review in the spring of their third year allows students to immediately initiate their research at the start of their fourth year. Based on their research area of interest, students are assigned a faculty advisor who reads and grades their written assignments. This provides significant student–faculty interaction while easing the overall teaching load on any single faculty member, ideal for small departments. Preparation for the course begins in the winter term of the students’ third year. Students attend a briefing on faculty research, review a list of potential research topics and meet personally with several faculty members. These prerequisites ensure that research advisors and topics are assigned prior to the start of the course. The course schedule is outlined in Table 1. One of the texts used for the course is A Short Guide to Writing About Chemistry (2). It is concise and easy-to-read and describes how to search the literature, read and summarize a science article, write a literature review and research proposal, and prepare an oral presentation. The ACS Style Guide (3) is used primarily as a resource for preparing figures, tables, and references. Additional materialsW provided to the students include former students’ writing samples in each of the chemical subdisciplines (all students who have their work displayed sign a consent form), handouts detailing the criteria and format of scientific papers, and peer and advisor evaluation forms. Our current pedagogical approach develops students’ writing skills by using a step-by-step process to prepare a literature review. The first class provides a refresher on conducting a literature search. To select the most appropriate papers, students are encouraged to first read secondary sources such as literature reviews and then focus on abstracts of primary sources. The main emphasis of this session is defining and identifying plagiarism (4). Since research topics vary widely and are not repeated in subsequent years, the plagiarism encountered is not of students copying one another’s papers or
Vol. 83 No. 7 July 2006
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
In the Classroom
Table 1. Course Schedule Week
Topic
Assignment
1
Conducting a literature search Defining and identifying plagiarism
Research topic: selection Consent form: dissemination of student paper
2
Components of a research article Critical reading of a scientific article Summarizing scientific literature articles
Summary: primary research article
3
Writing a research article
Literature review: outline
4
Review of advisor comments: research article summary Writing a research plan General guidelines for research papers
Literature review: first draft
5
Critiquing a literature review
Peer evaluations: literature review
6
Review of peer evaluations General revision guidelines
Assessment: peer evaluators Literature review: second draft Research proposal: first draft
7
Writing an abstract
Peer evaluations: literature review
8
Review of advisor and peer evaluations: literature review and research proposal
Peer evaluations: literature review and research proposal
9
Peer review of abstracts
Assessment: peer evaluators Abstract: first draft Final paper
Preparing and delivering oral presentations
___
10
downloading a paper from the Internet. The plagiarism encountered is that of directly copying or incorrectly paraphrasing the articles being reviewed. To combat this, students are provided an excerpt from the literature along with several potential summaries that demonstrate the different types of plagiarism (4). In addition, students are required to submit copies of their literature articles along with their written drafts. The following session (week 2) provides students with a brief introduction on the components of a scientific paper and their function, suggestions on how to read an article effectively by identifying its key ideas and summarizing them in their own words, and guidelines for writing a literature summary. The goal is to teach students how to distill information from the primary literature and summarize it by determining a paper’s key claims, specifying methods the authors used to address them, and then stating the results and their importance. Five components of good writing (accuracy, clarity, brevity, consistency, and interest) (5) are reviewed with specific writing examples and their corresponding improved versions. Students are then placed in groups and given a literature summary (written by a former student) to critique and edit. This has been effective in helping students gain a better understanding of their assignment and in identifying the key components of a good summary. In the next session (week 3), students submit a two-page summary of one of their primary research articles. To ensure student comprehension of their topic, both the summary and subsequent outline are evaluated by their advisor. In weeks three and four, students are taken through an eight-step process to writing a literature review (Table 2). They begin by writing a working title (step 1) and then dewww.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
velop an outline for their paper (step 2). Students are provided the basic organization for the paper (abstract, introduction, literature review, research proposal, conclusion) but are encouraged to write key words and topics before focusing on the sequence of their outline. An in-class review of former student outlines helps clarify the expectations for the assignment and gives guidance for standard outline formatting. Step three, writing the first draft, is often the most challenging. First, general writing suggestions are given including dealing with writer’s block (6), as well as how to produce good writing by using a peg sentence or peg paragraph to guide the content of a paper and how to use a “fog index” and active verbs to ensure clear writing (7). This is followed by a review of the components of a research article (introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references). Specifically, the function, contents, organization, and length of the individual components are discussed. The major difficulty for students
Table 2. Eight-Step Process To Write a Literature Review Step 1
Focus Write a working title
2
Develop an outline
3
Write a first draft
4
Prepare illustrations, tables, and figures
5
Revise and edit first draft
6
Draft an abstract
7
Revise title and abstract
8
Seek outside review and re-revise
Vol. 83 No. 7 July 2006
•
Journal of Chemical Education
1025
In the Classroom
has been to differentiate the type of information and degree of detail to be included in the introduction (introductory background information and current state of general knowledge) versus the body of the paper (review of specific methods employed and results obtained by researchers). Students are directed to extract and summarize only the methods and experiments pertinent to their literature review topic. Step four is the preparation of illustrations, tables, and figures. These serve to clarify the writing and are useful in preparing oral presentations. Once a draft has been prepared, step five involves first revising followed by editing the paper. Major emphasis is placed on differentiating between revising (making global changes to the content and organization of the paper) and editing (correcting sentence structure and grammar) (8). Steps six and seven introduce drafting an abstract and revising the title and abstract to ensure they are accurate, brief, and informative. The final step of the writing process is seeking outside reviewers and re-revising and editing the paper. For those conducting a laboratory research project, research proposal writing is also described. In the fifth week, students submit the first official draft of their paper. Each student’s paper is reviewed by two of their peers. The class period is spent discussing how to critique a scientific paper. Emphasis is placed on critiquing the writing, not the writer, and how to effectively and respectfully phrase comments. Students are provided an evaluation formW containing a series of questions to solicit specific comments and to guide them in the peer review process. Reviewers may assign a maximum of five points for each paper and students are only informed of their cumulative score. The following week (week 6), reviewers and writers pair up and discuss their papers and comments. In an attempt to encourage active reviewer participation, each writer subsequently critiques each of their reviewers and assigns them up to five points based on the utility of their review. A class summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the students’ papers is compiled. Finally, students conduct a personal assessment of their paper detailing specific areas needing improvement and clarification. In week seven, students submit an updated draft of their literature review and research proposal for advisor evaluation and peer review (different student reviewers are assigned with each round). The class session covers how to write an effective abstract. Students are given a practice exercise in which they read an anecdote and write an abstract for it (9). The class then compares the content and length of the students’ abstracts. Subsequently, a series of three-minute exercises are conducted in which students describe their paper to a classmate followed by their partner describing the paper topic back to them. The subsequent class session (week 8) is spent compiling and discussing advisor and peer review comments of the updated draft. In week nine, students conduct in-class peer evaluations of abstracts. The following week (week 10), the final paper is turned in along with all previously graded assignments. This session focuses on preparing and presenting scientific oral presentations and reviews the department’s evaluation criteria for capstone presentations. Suggestions are given regarding organization of information, slide design, dress, body language, and pace. 1026
Journal of Chemical Education
•
Course Assessment Multiple surveys were developed to assess students’ perception of their writing and oral presentation skills and their use and understanding of scientific literature. Surveys were given the first and last week of class. The post-course survey contained additional questions specific to the course content. Students also completed the standard chemistry department course evaluation. Another survey was given to the graduating students to determine how useful the writing course had been to their capstone project. In addition, the chemistry faculty was surveyed to determine whether the course was accomplishing its objectives of improving students’ scientific writing and oral presentation skills and comprehension of their capstone projects.
Course Surveys In the first part of the two course surveys, the students responded to the statements using a rating system in which 1 = low, 3 = moderate, and 5 = high. The responses were then averaged for comparison purposes. In addition, the percentage of students who responded with a 4 or a 5 was calculated and compared below. Twenty-two students started the course and eighteen completed it. There was 100-percent participation in both surveys. The students’ confidence in their scientific writing skills increased substantially after the course (3.32 vs 3.89 and 45% vs 72%). The course focuses on writing skills with only one class period devoted to oral presentations. Despite this limitation, the students’ confidence in giving scientific oral presentations increased (3.00 vs 3.50 and 27% vs 56%). The greatest benefit of the course was the significant improvement in the students’ understanding of their capstone research project (2.53 vs 3.94 and 21% vs 71%). In the second part of the two course surveys, the students responded to the statements using a rating system in which 1 = highly disagree, 3 = uncertain, and 5 = highly agree. Both before and after the course, the students strongly agreed that scientific writing and communication skills are important for their future careers. They also recognized the importance of communicating scientific findings. The post-course questions surveyed the students on whether the course improved their scientific writing skills, their understanding of scientific papers, their critical writing skills, and their comprehension of their capstone project. In all these areas the students strongly agreed that their skills had improved (≥ 4.17 and ≥ 89%). Regarding the usefulness of peer revision and editing, students felt that having their paper reviewed by another student was more helpful (3.78 and 61%) than serving as a reviewer for another student’s paper (3.39 and 44%). Post-Capstone Surveys Both the ACS certified and non-ACS certified graduating students were surveyed but their responses were tabulated separately. The ACS students conducted laboratory research either at this university or during a summer internship, whereas the non-ACS students wrote literature reviews on a chemistry topic that interested them. There were ten ACS students and four non-ACS students, all of who participated in the survey. In this survey, the students responded to the state-
Vol. 83 No. 7 July 2006
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
In the Classroom
ments using a rating system in which 1 = highly disagree, 3 = uncertain, 5 = highly agree, and N兾A = not applicable. Both sets of students felt that the chemical information course prepared them to conduct literature searches for the chemical research writing course and their capstone work. They also agreed that the writing course helped them conduct their capstone research and write their capstone paper. In contrast to those students who had just completed the writing course, neither group of graduating students found the writing course useful in preparing them to give an oral presentation. Of the two texts used, the students found The ACS Style Guide the most useful; not as helpful was A Short Guide to Writing About Chemistry. The ACS students used peer editing of their capstone paper, in comparison to half of the non-ACS students (4.90 vs 3.00 and 100% vs 50%). The students found that many of their chemistry classes were helpful in preparing them for the writing requirements of the writing course and their capstone projects. In particular, both groups found that organic chemistry was helpful in preparing them for their oral presentation, as they are required to give a number of presentations in that course. Notably, in recent years the department has increasingly emphasized the importance of written reports and oral presentations throughout the curriculum.
Faculty Surveys The chemistry department’s eight faculty members participated in the survey. They were asked the same questions about both groups of students (ACS and non-ACS) and the scores were tabulated separately. Each faculty member was asked to base their replies on the student graduates they had advised over the last three years (a total of 11 ACS and 21 non-ACS students had graduated with a chemistry degree over this time period). The faculty responded to the statements using a rating system in which 1 = none, 3 = moderate, 5 = high, and N兾A = not applicable. In this case, the percentage of responses showing moderate or better improvement (“3”, “4”, or “5”) was calculated and compared. The students were considered to have improved dramatically in two areas (≥ 3.63 and ≥ 88%): understanding their capstone projects and giving oral presentations. In particular, the ACS students were more likely to initiate their research than students from previous years (3.67 and 100%). The faculty also saw moderate improvement in both the writing course papers and the capstone papers over the last three years (≥ 3.25 and ≥ 75%). Course Assessment Summary All of the surveys given to the students allowed them to comment on their responses and give feedback on the course. This is also a part of the department’s standard course evaluation form. Overall the remarks were positive, with the students finding the course useful for both their subsequent coursework and their capstone projects. However, there were three comments that came up repeatedly: first, that the quantity of work was too much for a one credit class; second, there was not enough time for the assignments; and third, that more time should be devoted to oral presentations. A review of the comments on the department’s standard course evaluations over the last three years matched both the positive remarks and the suggested improvements noted in the surveys. www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
In light of these suggestions, the department has decided to make the writing course a two term sequence (one credit per term) that will immediately follow the chemical information course, now to be taught in the fall term. This will provide students extra time to search the literature and complete their written assignments and allow for an additional advisor review of the paper. The increased class time will be used to practice oral presentations and discuss research ethics issues. Discussion The greatest difficulty noted by students was understanding their selected topic. As a first step, students were encouraged to obtain published literature reviews on their topics. Surprisingly, when asked at the end of the term how many students used a published literature review, not one had done so. Our plan for the following year is to review several examples of published literature reviews and to require students to obtain at least one literature review related to their topic. This will provide students a comprehensive view of their topic and help keep them from selecting topics either too difficult to comprehend or with insufficient background materials available. One challenging aspect encountered by the instructors was obtaining adequate across-the-board student participation in the peer review process. Modifications that have been moderately successful are noted earlier in this article. To further maximize the effectiveness of the peer reviews, future student writers will be asked to note three areas of concern in their paper. Reviewers will then be required to specifically address these concerns in their comments and suggestions. In addition, reviewers will be required to write a brief summary of the paper to confirm general comprehension of the topic. Conclusion The writing course has clearly become an effective vehicle for improving student scientific writing skills. Both students and faculty have found the course to be of value for promoting research and communication skills. Having students begin their literature research the term before they begin their capstone work has led to greater understanding of their projects. This has increased students’ confidence in their ability to do research, which results in a more productive year. Furthermore, the faculty has an opportunity to interact with students prior to initiation of research. This allows the advisor to assess each student’s strengths and weaknesses and to address them early in the project. With the upcoming change to a two term writing course, further improvements in both the capstone paper and projects, and particularly in students’ confidence in giving oral presentations, are anticipated. Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge Steven Petrovic for his useful comments regarding the evaluation forms, Susan Koralek for tabulating the evaluation responses, Lynn Kirms for reviewing the article, and the Survival Skills and Ethics Program at the University of Pittsburgh for supporting material and for funding in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health (NS39805).
Vol. 83 No. 7 July 2006
•
Journal of Chemical Education
1027
In the Classroom W
Supplemental Material
PowerPoint files of the course lecture notes, handouts detailing the criteria and format of scientific papers, student writing samples, peer and advisor evaluation forms, and course evaluation forms are available in this issue of JCE Online. Literature Cited 1. Whelan, R. J.; Zare, R. N. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 904– 906. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 899–903. Gallagher, G. J.; Adams, D. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 1368– 1371. Schildcrout, S. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 1340– 1343. Bressette, A. R.; Breton, G. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1626–1627. Paulson, D. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1047–1049. Widstrand, C. G.; Nordell, K. J.; Ellis, A. B. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1044–1046. Tilstra, L. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 762–764. Alber, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 478– 480. Kovac, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 120–124. Rossi, F. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 395–396. Schmidt, M. H. J.
1028
Journal of Chemical Education
•
Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 393–395. 2. Beall, H.; Trimbur, J. A Short Guide To Writing About Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Longman: New York, 2001. 3. The ACS Style Guide, 2nd ed.; Dodd, J. S., Ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997. 4. The Writing Center University of Wisconsin–Madison Quoting and Paraphrasing Sources Page. http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/QuotingSources.html (accessed Apr 2006). 5. Mellon, M. G. J. Chem. Docum. 1964, 4, 1–5. 6. O’Connor, M. Writing Successfully in Science. In The ACS Style Guide, 2nd ed.; Dodd, J. S., Ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997; p 8. 7. Lane, J. C. J. Chem. Docum. 1964, 4, 126–130. 8. Hughes, B. The Writing Center University of Wisconsin– Madison Integrating Writing into Your Course Emphasizing The Right Thing At The Right Time: Differentiating Between Global And Local Concerns In Student Writing Page. http:// mendota.english.wisc.edu/~WAC/page.jsp?id=104&c_type =category&c_id=18 (accessed Apr 2006). 9. Day, R. A. How to Write & Publish a Scientific Paper, 5th ed.; Oryx Press: Arizona, 1998; pp 29–32.
Vol. 83 No. 7 July 2006
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
