Cultivating Advanced Technical Writing Skills through a Graduate

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Cultivating Advanced Technical Writing Skills through a GraduateLevel Course on Writing Research Proposals Brian D. McCarthy and Jillian L. Dempsey* Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3290, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: A graduate-level course focused on original research proposals is introduced to address the uneven preparation in technical writing of new chemistry graduate students. This course focuses on writing original research proposals. The general course structure features extensive group discussions, small-group activities, and regular in-class small-group peer review. Since the introduction of this course, it has been found by student surveys, faculty feedback, and student success in winning graduate fellowships that the course is a valuable graduate education component. Detailed here are the course structure, pedagogical approach, and course evaluation. KEYWORDS: Graduate Education/Research, Upper-Division Undergraduate, Curriculum, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Communication/Writing, Professional Development

■

INTRODUCTION The necessity of technical writing often first becomes pronounced during a chemist’s graduate studies. Beyond writing of manuscripts and a thesis, many graduate programs require students to write original research proposals in order to cultivate skills associated with proposing new ideas. This requirement is particularly helpful for those students who go on to be academic faculty because writing grants and proposing new research is a crucial part of running a laboratory. Upon arrival at graduate school, students are expected to complete diverse writing requirements. For example, the Inorganic Chemistry Division at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) had, in 2016, the following writing requirements for their Ph.D. students: • Two original in-field research proposals in the first two years of research • Prospectus describing student’s first two years of research • Ten page out-of-field original research proposal • Thesis Unofficially, students are expected to author and coauthor manuscripts, assist with grant proposal preparation, and apply for their own funding in the form of graduate student fellowships. The last of these is usually the first significant opportunity for young chemists to get real-life grant-writing practice. Perhaps the largest program is the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP), which requires an original research proposal in its application. This plethora of writing requirements and expectations for graduate students, which continues into their professional careers (particularly for academic chemists), raises an important question: when do students learn the necessary skills, © 2017 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

particularly good grant-writing skills? A number of undergraduate-level writing courses or in-class exercises have been proposed;1−7 however, it is unclear what percentage of students have exposure to these classes. As an example of the collegiate technical writing training of our students, first- and second-year students in the UNC-CH Inorganic Chemistry Division (Fall 2016) were surveyed (Table 1). The responses indicated a mix of formal classroom Table 1. Summary of Prior Technical Writing Learning Experiences in College Experience Category

N (of 17)a

Dedicated technical writing class Writing grant proposal(s) Formal technical writing instruction as part of another class Writing manuscript(s) Writing lab reports

2 6 8 11 17

a Respondents were first- and second-year students in inorganic chemistry at UNC-CH in Fall 2016.

instruction and hands-on practice. Of the 17 students, only two reported taking a dedicated technical writing class, while eight reported that they received some technical writing instruction as part of another course. In summary, while graduate students need good technical writing skills, we have found that their preparation prior to graduate school is uneven. Additionally, students were unlikely to have received significant exposure to the added complexities Received: November 21, 2016 Revised: April 7, 2017 Published: May 9, 2017 696

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00903 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 696−702

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 2. Course Structure Class Introduction to Technical Writing Overview of the Proposal

Description

Homework

Course overview, concise writing exercises

Experimental Approach

“Find the gap, fill the gap” structure, strategies for finding ideas, intellectual merit, broader impacts, organization Students pitch ideas in small groups, section structure, goal statements, gap and fill the gap statements Section structure, review example of establishing expertise, peer review

Outcomes and Impact

Section structure, peer review

Peer Review Workshop Extra Module 1: Citation Software Extra Module 2: Effective Figures

Peer review Demonstration of how to use Mendeley citation software

Goals and Importance

Identify proposal topic and 3−5 reasons topic is beneficial to society Draft Goals and Importance section Draft Experimental Approach section, incorporate feedback Draft Outcomes and Impact section, incorporate feedback Complete proposal Add references using citation software

Class discussion of designing effective figures

constructive peer review, which helps them be more critical of their own writing and is a useful skill for scientists in general. On the basis of student feedback and our observations (see Evaluation of Course Goals and Course Evolution), peer review groups are assigned for each class. Each group typically consists of two students enrolled in the course and one dedicated reviewer who is either a teaching assistant, class instructor, or prior student of the course. Groups are also designed to maximize the mixing of first- and second-year students, as we have found that second-year students often assume a leadership role within the small groups and act as role models for the younger students. This group structure allows for more peer review time per proposal and provides expert feedback from older students (or teaching assistants/faculty) and mentoring/ guidance for first-year students in how to give constructive criticism. In-class peer review is guided by peer review rubrics tailored for each session (provided in the Supporting Information). These rubrics were introduced to help peer reviewers confirm inclusion of all critical components of each research proposal section and text clarity. We have found by observation that they enable novice writers to be more constructive and critical in their feedback to peers. The peer review rubrics have been shortened over the course history to one page or less, as it was found students lacked enough time to fill out anything longer. When it was clear that students missed crucial portions of a proposal, specific guiding questions were added to the rubrics as reminders that those sections should be added during editing. Over time, the peer review sessions (and rubrics) have been modified to deemphasize discussion of typos and emphasize conversations focused on clarity and content. In other words, the rubrics seek to push students beyond typical editing toward a focus on whether the writing is a good, impactful, and clearly written research proposal. Typical peer review sessions consist of 20−30 minutes of quiet editing during which students edit proposals on the basis of the rubric and make notes regarding grammar, typos, and conciseness. This is followed by 20−30 minutes of active verbal discussion focused on the components included in the rubric.

of writing original research proposals, let alone formal training. This is perhaps reflected by the scarcity of pedagogical articles discussing exercises or classes that specifically teach students how to write original research proposals (we found one8). To address this clear need, in Fall 2013 the UNC-CH Inorganic Chemistry Division implemented a required writing seminar series focused on writing original research proposals for first- and second-year students. We had five desired outcomes: 1. Teach technical writing skills in the context of grant writing 2. Provide students with frequent constructive feedback 3. Give students the tools to write third-year proposals 4. Help students prepare strong fellowship applications 5. Leverage the experience of course graduates to assist with peer review and instruction Herein are described the course structure and evaluation of course goals. While this course was tailored to writing of proposals for the NSF GRFP for which most of our graduate students at UNC-CH apply, the course can be readily extended to other fellowship opportunities. Provided in the Supporting Information are course materials and handouts.

■

COURSE DESCRIPTION The textbook Write Like a Chemist9,10 guided the course design and structure, specifically Chapter 1 (Learning To Write Like a Chemist) and Chapters 11−15 (The Research Proposal). While Write Like a Chemist is an extremely effective textbook, it is better suited toward independent learning. The class described here was configured around a discussion format plus smallgroup activities and peer review and as such is unique from the textbook format of Write Like a Chemist. To our knowledge, this is the first published report of adaptation of Write Like a Chemist materials into a class format. The overall class structure is presented in Table 2. Each class period was 75 minutes in length. Emphasis was placed on interactive lecture format and small-group discussions. As discussed below, volunteer upper-level graduate student teaching assistants were used throughout the course to aid in course preparation, in-class teaching, and peer review.

Class 1. Introduction to Technical Writing

After discussing the syllabus and overall class goals, the students are split into groups of two. A short passage from Macbeth modified to be extremely wordy is shown, and the students are challenged to improve the passage. Dramatic readings are requested from the class, followed by discussion of how lack of conciseness can negatively impact readability. Two sets of

Weekly Peer Review Groups as a Key Feature

Frequent in-class peer review is an important component of this course for three reasons: (1) to increase student engagement and learning;1−3 (2) to provide students with constructive feedback; and (3) to teach students how to give 697

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00903 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 696−702

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Students are encouraged to follow the strategies discussed in this class regarding finding new ideas.

small-group discussions follow in which students rewrite wordy passages to produce concise statements, following exercises in Chapter 1 of Write Like a Chemist.

Class 3. Goals and Importance

Class 2. Overview of the Proposal

With research topics in hand, students pitch their ideas in small groups and make the case for why their proposed topics are beneficial to society. Students are asked to discuss what they liked about their peer’s pitches and how they might be improved. After this small-group discussion, volunteers are asked to pitch their proposed topics to the whole class, and students are asked what they like about those pitches. The organization of each section in Write Like a Chemist is summarized in “move structures”, which are flowcharts describing the overall suborganization of each major section of a research proposal. Figure 1A depicts the move structure for the Goals and Importance section.

We have found that many young graduate students do not have experience coming up with new research directions; consequently, this class starts with small group (three or four students) discussion of strategies for thinking of independent proposal ideas. These groups are organized so that each group has a second-year student; this allows the older students to engage in direct discussion with the younger students about their experience tackling this process as first-year students. After 5−10 min of small-group discussion, the class is asked to describe what strategies were explored. Common strategies discussed include (1) examining recently published research articles for statements of what is not yet known, (2) reading review articles to gain an understanding of the current state of the field including gaps in knowledge, and (3) speaking with professors and older graduate students or postdocs to get a feel for what questions remain unanswered. After an acknowledgment that thinking of original topics is perhaps the hardest part of writing a proposal, students are strongly encouraged to follow the discussed strategies. In the following group discussion, the need for proposed research to fill a gap in knowledge is emphasized. This “find the gap, fill the gap” (Write Like a Chemist, Chapter 12) strategy is a key course learning objective and is heavily stressed. In a “find the gap” statement, the writer succinctly describes, for example, a specific current lack of knowledge, an as-yet unachieved outcome, or a problem existing with the state of the art. This statement is immediately followed by a “fill the gap” statement in which the writer states how the gap will be filled by the proposed research. The class is questioned about what components make up a research proposal (e.g., introduction, references, methods section, etc.), and the class suggestions are written on the blackboard. Once a roughly complete list has been generated, the class is asked which section should go first, second, etc., until the whole proposal structure has been outlined. A final important component of this class period is an extended discussion of the NSF review criteria of broader impacts and intellectual merit. These phrases are underscored because writing successful grant proposals requires demonstrating the fulfillment of these criteria. After each phrase is defined, the class is asked to suggest examples for each. We structure this discussion by having students read an abbreviated version of the NSF GRFP request for proposals, which includes the NSF’s stated desired outcomes and review criteria. Broader impacts are defined by the potential of the proposed work to benefit society and contribute to the funding organization’s specific desired outcomes. As broader impacts can be vague, we dedicate class time to a group brainstorming session of what might count as a broader impact. Less time is spent on intellectual meritwe emphasize that the proposed research must be original and contribute to an interesting unsolved research problem. The assigned homework for this class is (1) to identify a research topic and three to five reasons that the proposed research topic would be beneficial to society and (2) to find three to five literature citations relevant to the topic and use citation software to insert citations into the homework sheet.

Figure 1. Overall move structure of a research proposal from Write Like a Chemist,9 showing (A) Goals and Importance (original Figure 12.1, p 392); (B) Experimental Approach (original Figure 13.1, p 437), and (C) Outcomes and Impacts (original Figure 14.1, p 482). Adapted with permission from ref 9. Copyright 2008 Oxford University Press.

Just as for the overall organization of the research proposal, the class is queried about the subcomponents of the Goals and Importance section followed by rearrangement into a logical order. The move structure from Write Like a Chemist is then presented and distributed to the students as a handout. Sample goal statements from Write Like a Chemist (Chapter 12) are provided to the small groups, and the students are challenged to write their own goal statements on the topics 698

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00903 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 696−702

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

need to reiterate the original goals and importance and how the proposed work will have broader impacts and intellectual merit. The class then transitions to small-group peer review of their revised research proposals, again following a rubric (Peer Review Template 2 in the Supporting Information). The assigned homework for this class is to incorporate peer review feedback into the Experimental Approach section and to write the Outcomes and Impact section of the research proposal, four copies of which must be brought to the next class session.

they brought to class. The small groups are asked to share with the class their favorite self-written goal statements. Next, examples of how proposed research is “sold” to the reviewer (from pages 411−416 in Write Like a Chemist) are discussed as a class. For each example, the method of selling, such as emphasizing benefits and/or describing why there is a need for new knowledge, is identified. Finally, as a class, example “find the gap” and “fill the gap” statements are read aloud and discussed. In small groups, further examples are provided from Write Like a Chemist (Chapter 12), and each group tasked with identifying which of the sentences are the “find the gap” and “fill the gap” statements as well as any signal words the author used to bring attention to these statements. After group discussion, students are asked to write their own “find the gap” and “fill the gap” statements and share them with their small group. A few examples are solicited to be shared with the whole class. The assigned homework for this class is to draft the Goals and Importance section of the research proposal. Students are required to bring four copies of this draft to the next class session.

Class 6. Peer Review Workshop

The final class is dedicated entirely to peer review. Students are provided with a sheet summarizing the complete Write Like a Chemist research proposal move structure and a peer review rubric (Peer Review Template 3 in the Supporting Information). The assigned homework for this class is to complete the research proposal and submit the fellowship application (if applicable). A final proposal is submitted to the course instructor by e-mail. Extra Modules

Two additional skill sets taught during this course are reference management and creation of effective figures. These skills are complementary to technical writing and enhance the course. Each module requires about 15 minutes and is incorporated into one of the previously discussed classes when time permits. Module 1: Reference Management. The use of reference managers to organize papers and insert citations into documents is discussed. After surveying the various options available, we chose to center our presentation on the free reference and citation manager Mendeley. Students are shown how to import references into Mendeley and subsequently organize, read, and annotate those references. Students are then shown how to add citations and a bibliography to a Microsoft Word document using the Mendeley Word plugin. Module 2: Effective Figures. As a class, the use of figures and visuals to convey complex ideas is discussed. Relevant published resources for designing effective scientific figures are suggested,11−13 and several examples of “before and after” figures are used to demonstrate how to better depict complex topics. This discussion is extended to the special considerations for figures in proposalsspecifically, how to use figures to communicate why the research deserves funding (e.g., see Figure 2). The presentation slides used for this module (with accompanying annotated discussion) are included in the Supporting Information.

Class 4. Experimental Approach

The class is led through the construction of the Experimental Approach section, following the move structure in Chapter 13 of Write Like a Chemist (Figure 1B). Differences between how an established research professor and a young graduate student would tackle this section in terms of sharing prior accomplishments and preliminary results are highlighted. Students are encouraged to succinctly describe their past research experience as means of establishing expertise, along with any publications or public presentations resulting from this research. Secondyear graduate students are encouraged to share what they have already accomplished on the project in a preliminary results section. First-year students, who have generally not started on a research project, are urged to approach the preliminary results section differently. It is suggested that first-year students describe the recent progress made in the research groups they wish to join as a way of sharing preliminary project results. After sharing of prior accomplishments and preliminary results, the method of writing converges for the first- and second-year graduate students. We discuss what components should be included in the description of how the student will actually carry out the proposed research. Students are encouraged to discuss potential obstacles and how those obstacles will be overcome as a method of demonstrating their mastery of the subject material. For the second half of the class, students are divided into groups of three (as described above) for peer review of their Goals and Importance section. Copies of a peer review sheet with guiding questions (Peer Review Template 1 in the Supporting Information) are provided to each student. The assigned homework for this class is to incorporate peer review feedback into the Goals and Importance section and to write the Experimental Approach section of the research proposal, four copies of which must be brought to the next class session.

■

EVALUATION OF COURSE GOALS AND COURSE EVOLUTION This course was taught for the fourth time during the Fall 2016 semester. Using data collected over the last several years, we evaluated the course in four ways: (1) oral feedback, (2) class surveys, (3) surveys of graduates of the course to obtain information about how the class influenced them as they wrote their in-department third-year proposals, and (4) success of students in winning fellowships. We received positive feedback regarding the course from faculty both at UNC-CH and at other universities. At UNCCH, two other chemistry divisions have begun teaching similar courses for their graduate students based on our course materials. In addition, we have received requests from faculty at universities across the country for copies of the course

Class 5. Outcomes and Impact

This class is opened similarly to the prior one, with a group discussion of what components make up the Outcomes and Impact section and how these should be organized (Write Like a Chemist, Chapter 14; Figure 1C). Emphasis is placed on the 699

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00903 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 696−702

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 3. Summary Data for End-of-Course Surveys from 2013 to 2015 Scoresb by Year (N) a

Goals Ranked

2013

2014

2015

To provide structure for writing proposals To help students gain technical writing confidence To teach students technical writing skills To provide useful feedback on student proposals through peer review

8.9 (17)

9.1 (17)

8.4 (16)

7.9 (17)

8.7 (17)

8.1 (16)

8.4 (17)

8.9 (16)

7.9 (16)

7.9 (17)

8.8 (16)

8.8 (16)

a Students were instructed, “Listed below are the goals of this writing course. Please rank how well these goals were met.” bRankings were based on a scale ranging from 1 (“very unsuccessful”) to 10 (“very successful”).

indicated that the small-group peer review sessions were more useful when they were longer, had fewer proposals to read, and preferably had a dedicated peer reviewer who was an older student that had previously written a winning proposal. After 2013, we addressed this by more regularly recruiting prior students of the course to peer review, particularly those who had written strong proposals. During the three years for which end-of-course survey data were collected, students were also asked whether the following were true because of the class: (a) writing a proposal felt less daunting; (b) peer reviewing other people’s writing improved their own writing; and (c) they felt they were writing a higherquality proposal than they would have without the class. Each year a clear and large majority of students indicated that all of these were true. In 2015, identical surveys were collected on the first day of class and the last day of class. Students were asked a series of questions regarding their technical writing skills and giving/ receiving feedback to/from peers. Surprisingly, comparison of the pre- and postcourse surveys indicated little change. The difference was most pronounced when compared by year. While the average of the second-year students revealed modest gains across all categories, average results for the first-year students showed decreases or marginal improvements. Puzzled by these results, we surveyed the students of the Fall 2015 class again. Revealingly, this survey indicated that (a) students generally became more critical of their own writing style during the course, (b) students generally became more comfortable with technical writing, and (c) students reported that technical writing was more challenging than they originally thought. Our hypothesis is that the marginal or no improvements reported by the first-year students in Fall 2015 can be explained by their realization during the course that technical writing was more challenging than they thought compared with when they took the precourse survey. One goal of this writing course was to help students write better third-year proposals. Third- and fourth-year inorganic chemistry studentsstudents who had taken one or both of the 2013 and 2014 courseswere surveyed after both years had completed their third-year division requirement to write a 10 page out-of-field original research proposal. Out of 10 respondents, all reported that the course affected their thirdyear proposal writing in a positive way. Students gave a variety of reasons for this positive impact, with half indicating that the course helped them organize their proposals. Other responses indicated that the course resulted in general improvement in

Figure 2. (A) Example of a figure done in a style more appropriate for a journal article. Technical terms are used, and the overall design is conservative. (B) Example of the same figure reworked in a manner more suitable for a grant proposal, where the goal is to convince the reviewer that the research deserves funding. Technical detail is reduced in recognition that reviewers may not be experts in the field, and color is used to highlight the attractive parts of the proposal.

materials. These faculty heard about the structure and success of this course directly and indirectly. At time of submission, we had three years’ worth of end-ofcourse surveys. Each year, students were asked to rank how well four course goals were met on a scale from 1 (very unsuccessful) to 10 (very successful) (Table 3). The goals were consistently ranked as having been met. Students were also asked “Was this course valuable to you?” and given a sliding scale of 1 (absolutely not) to 10 (absolutely yes). Across the three years, students consistently marked the class as useful [2013, 8.8 (N = 17); 2014, 9.4 (N = 17); 2015, 8.7 (N = 16)]. Each year we also asked students for more detailed feedback on the course structure and content. Overwhelmingly, students reported that the peer review sessions were the most helpful portion of the class. They reported that the peer review feedback helped them improve their own writing and that giving feedback on their peer’s proposals was also very beneficial. The course structure has evolved in response to course evaluation feedback. At the end of the 2013 class, students 700

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00903 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 696−702

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

writing, helped students write about broader impacts of the proposed research, and helped them write more concisely. Finally, we have observed an increase in the number of Inorganic Chemistry Division students at UNC-CH who win graduate fellowships through the NSF GRFP (Figure 3). While

Goal 4: Help students write strong graduate fellowship proposals. Modest gains in the number of NSF GRF winners within the Inorganic Chemistry Division were observed upon course implementation. Goal 5: Leverage the experience of course graduates to assist with peer review and instruction. The availability of course graduates, among them a sizable pool of NSF GRFP winners, rapidly increased each year the course was offered. This also permitted the sharing (with permission) of strong proposals written by older students in prior years of the class with younger students as examples of excellent technical writing. Overall, the course goals were met well. Obtaining feedback via end-of-course surveys has permitted regular improvement of the course each year. For example, during the first year of the class, two whole periods were dedicated to learning how to use reference management software. On the basis of feedback, this material was condensed and is now taught in only 15−20 minutes. Peer review sessions have also continually been improved on the basis of course surveys. The use of a student teaching assistant (TA) throughout this class has also offered benefits. As this is not a full-semester class and our faculty instructor has a normal teaching load, the use of a TA reduced the faculty workload and provided the TAs with an opportunity to hone their technical writing and teaching skills. As the course has continued over time, prior students of the course have come forward with interest in becoming course TAs. This has provided a steady source of TAs and has brought fresh perspectives to the course content and teaching style. The modular nature of each class period has readily permitted multiple TAs plus the faculty member to teach different sections. While the course was originally conceived to provide instruction for only first- and second-year students, we have realized that this course is a significant opportunity for older students to gain formal technical writing instruction and editing experience.

Figure 3. Numbers of winning and honorable mention NSF GRF proposals by graduate students in the UNC-CH Inorganic Chemistry Division. These data do not include first-year graduate students who won a fellowship prior to arriving at graduate school. Data prior to 2014 were obtained from the NSF GRFP database;14 first- or secondyear graduate winners listing the inorganic chemistry subfield at UNCCH as their current institution were counted.

the total numbers of honorable mentions and winners have remained small, we are encouraged by this trend. It should be noted that during the award years of 2010 to 2017 the total number of fellowship awards made by NSF (excluding honorable mentions) remained consistent.14 The success of the course in meeting the stated goals can be summarized as follows: Goal 1: Teach technical writing skills in the context of grant writing. Course surveys indicated that students believed that their technical writing skills improved because of this course and that writing research proposals felt less daunting. Students consistently strongly rated this course as valuable to them. Goal 2: Provide students with f requent feedback. Course surveys consistently demonstrated that students found the peer review sessions to be very helpful for improving their proposals and technical writing. This is consistent with suggestions that peer review increases student participation and promotes learning.1−3 On the basis of feedback, improvements made include decreasing the peer review group size, regularly incorporating advanced older students as dedicated peer reviewers, and utilizing custom peer review rubrics to guide constructive evaluation. Goal 3: Give students the tools to write their third-year proposals. Surveying two years of students who had taken the course and had completed their third-year proposal requirement suggested that students felt the process was easier and more approachable because they had taken this course.

■

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of this course has revealed that it has been successful in cultivating advanced technical writing skills among our graduate students. A key feature of this course is regular in-class small-group peer review. Peer review results in improved student engagement and learning1−3 and also dramatically reduces the editing load of faculty members. Unlike a previously reported undergraduate-level course that relied on a faculty member for the majority of high-level feedback,8 this course could take advantage of senior graduate students and course teaching assistants to distribute the workload of peer review and thereby provide students with more opportunities to improve their writing. Unexpected benefits were also realized from this course in terms of the volunteer student teaching assistants. These assistants, drawn from older graduate students in the division, resulted in reduced workload for the primary faculty instructor (hence hopefully encouraging implementation of this course!) and the opportunity for new perspectives on course improvement. These teaching assistants themselves received the benefit of additional technical writing practice and a chance to hone their editing skills. We hope that this example encourages other graduate programs to implement similar graduate-level grant-writing courses. This should result in the creation of a more 701

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00903 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 696−702

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(13) Rougier, N. P.; Droettboom, M.; Bourne, P. E. Ten Simple Rules for Better Figures. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003833. (14) National Science Foundation Award Offers and Honorable Mentions List. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/grfp/AwardeeList. do?method=loadAwardeeList (accessed Nov. 1, 2016).

experienced and capable post-Ph.D. workforce and should be particularly valuable in preparing students for academic careers.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00903. Instructor class outlines, peer review rubrics, handouts, and homework assignments (PDF, DOCX) Annotated presentation slides on Introduction to Technical Writing, Writing Tutorial #3, and Effective Figure Design (PPTX)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Jillian L. Dempsey: 0000-0002-9459-4166 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS B.D.M. is grateful for support from the Department of Energy Office of Science Graduate Fellowship Program (DOE SCGF), made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, administered by ORISE-ORAU under Contract DE-AC05-06OR23100. We gratefully acknowledge teaching assistants Wesley Swords, Kelley Rountree, Anginelle Alabanza and Daniel Kurtz for their contributions to this course.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Rangachari, P. K. Teaching Undergraduates the Process of Peer Review: Learning by Doing. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2010, 34, 137−144. (2) Nicotera, C. L.; Shibley, I. A.; Milakofsky, L. K. Incorporating a Substantial Writing Assignment into Organic Chemistry: Library Research, Peer Review, and Assessment. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 50. (3) Guilford, W. H. Teaching Peer Review and the Process of Scientific Writing. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2001, 25, 167−175. (4) Rossi, F. M. Writing in an Advanced Undergraduate Chemistry Course: An Assignment Exploring the Development of Scientific Ideas. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 395. (5) Hunter, A. D. A Capstone Writing Experience in Polymer Chemistry: Writing a Proposal for an Instrument Purchase. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1424. (6) Bressette, A. R.; Breton, G. W. Using Writing to Enhance the Undergraduate Research Experience. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1626. (7) Schepmann, H. G.; Hughes, L. A. Chemical Research Writing: A Preparatory Course for Student Capstone Research. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1024. (8) Cole, K. E.; Inada, M.; Smith, A. M.; Haaf, M. P. Implementing a Grant Proposal Writing Exercise in Undergraduate Science Courses To Incorporate Real-World Applications and Critical Analysis of Current Literature. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1316−1319. (9) Robinson, M. S.; Stoller, F. L.; Costanza-Robinson, M. S.; Jones, J. K. Write Like a Chemist; Oxford University Press: New York, 2008. (10) Kovac, J. Write Like a Chemist: A Guide and Resource (Marin S. Robinson, Fredericka L. Stoller, Molly S. Costanza-Robinson, and James K. Jones). J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 170. (11) Kamat, P.; Hartland, G. V.; Schatz, G. C. Graphical Excellence. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2014, 5, 2118−2120. (12) Rolandi, M.; Cheng, K.; Pérez-Kriz, S. A Brief Guide to Designing Effective Figures for the Scientific Paper. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 4343−4346. 702

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00903 J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 696−702