Five Phases for Integrating the Scientific Method and Communication Skills with Research Experiences 253rd National American Chemical Society San Francisco
Brandon T. Vernier, Matthew N. Srnec, Amy N. Carlson, Gavin A. Buckholtz, Ellen S. Gawalt, and Jeffrey D. Evanseck Center for Computational Sciences and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Duquesne University PAPER NUMBER: CHED 1955 SESSION: The Role of Research Experiences in the ACS Certified Degree SESSION TIME: 1:30 PM - 4:35 PM DAY & TIME OF PRESENTATION: Tuesday, April, 04, 2017 from 2:35 PM - 2:55 PM ROOM & LOCATION: Salons 3/4 - San Francisco Marriott Marquis
Chemistry @ Duquesne University
• 16 faculty members; 40 Ph.D. graduate students • 100 chemistry and biochemistry majors – More than 90% (juniors and seniors) actively engage in research – Thesis (undergrad) Program; ca. 15 defend theses per year – More than 75% join Ph.D. programs
Undergraduate Research • Research is an elective (0-2 credits/semester) • Research-based fellowships and scholarships – John V. Crable (2) – Frank and Patsy Deverse (1)
• Undergraduate Thesis Program – Join by end of sophomore year – More than 90% engage – Three semesters minimum of research • CHEM 490W or CHEM490H (class credit)
– Public presentation, e.g., national or regional ACS – Write and defend an undergraduate thesis • CHEM 499 or CHEM 499H
Summer Research Program
• Unique summer research program (>70 STEM, 20 years) • Integrated chemical theory, computation and experiment • 40 Chemistry and biochemistry students – – – – –
10 National Science Foundation REU (CHE-1659823) 10 National Institutes of Health SRE (R25 DA032519-01) 10 National Science Foundation S-STEM (DUE-1259941) 5 Single investigator grants 5 Other schools and departments
Safety • Annually, everyone must review a 180-slide PowerPoint covering details about chemical hazard symbols, proper handling of gas cylinders and liquid nitrogen, radiation, emergency procedures, and waste disposal. • Following review, a 24-question test is administered and it must be passed to be able to work in lab. • Annual safety meeting to increase awareness. • Chemistry has a Student Safety Committee comprised of about 10 members. They give 5 minute presentations before every seminar discussing different safety topics.
Safety • Student Safety Committee also holds an annual safety inspection of each lab prior to the inspection performed by EHS to ensure issues are addressed. • Each lab is responsible for training their undergraduates the standard operating procedures, and ensuring that they are aware of all hazards related to the chemicals they will use. • EHS performs weekly lab inspections, checking that eye washes are accessible, chemicals are labeled, and waste is disposed of properly. • Standard PPE required - gloves, goggles, lab coat, etc.
Issues • Unnecessary multiplication of effort on a large scale of 40 students (summer) or 20 students (semester) • Scientific method – Lacking focus, clarity and reflection – Overly confident, skip or rush significant elements
• Speaking and writing skills – Inconsistent quality – Lack of confidence
• Advanced instrumentation – Little or specialized training
Framework of Innovation • Create unified approach to undergraduate research – Focused and efficient use of resources – Weekly meeting to complement laboratory research
• Deliver essential skills (behaviors) – Scientific method • Five phase interconnected approach • Thoughtful, reflective, systematic, and critical thinking
– Scientific speaking and writing • Short, frequent, well-defined exercises
– Advanced instrumentation workshops • Optical spectroscopy, super computing, NMR, AFM and Mass Spec
Implementation • Initial Group (class) Meeting – – – –
Define expectations, pre-questionnaire Evaluate the initial understanding of the scientific method How to write and speak scientifically, examples, resources Training on Phase 0 (Background, focus, language)
• Weekly Group Meeting – Training on next week’s Phase-n (n = 1-4) – Half of the students give 5-minute presentations followed by feedback and evaluation by faculty and other students (verbal and written) per phase – Two weeks to complete a phase
Five Phase Approach • Phase 0 – Scientific problem
• Phase 1 – Hypothesis
• Phase 2 – Specific Aims
• Phase 3 – Instrumentation, methods, error
• Phase 4 – Data, results, interpretations, conclusions
Five Minutes • • • • •
Difficult task and demonstrates true understanding Force conciseness and clarity Use your own words. This is not memorization. Try Tweeting, or 140 characters per entry (idea) Three reasons for using the Twitter rules: 1. Modern form of communication 2. The 140-character limit forces people to be creative and focused in their writing. Many have noted, "They are fond of constraints that inspire creativity” 3. It has been suggested that 140 characters is the maximum length that the average person will choose to read
Phase 0 1. State the scientific problem Pharmaceutical drug design is significant to fighting diseases
2. Define your interest and how you will contribute to the bigger picture Control of stereoselectivity in organic synthesis is crucial to designing effective drugs
3. Give any general and generic background that is necessary Important to understand the mechanism of a,b-unsaturated carboxylic acid decarboxylations
4. Clearly explain how your contribution will impact science, engineering, or society Understanding factors that control decarboxylations, can lead to the development of new catalysts and the eventual treatment of diseases
Phase 1 1. Briefly recapitulate the scientific problem Nothing more than a reminder
2. State your hypothesis Testable and reasonable
3. Cite and briefly summarize articles critical to the scientific problem and your hypothesis Only key papers, findings, and suggestions
4. State how your hypothesis connects back to the scientific problem of interest Important to focus and not lose track of problem
Phase 2 1. Give your specific aims and/or research objectives that support your hypothesis Independent objectives designed to test the hypothesis
2. Summarize and/or review the critical articles that support your specific aims Only key papers, findings, and suggestions
3. State how each specific aim connects back to your hypothesis Important not lose track of scientific method
Phase 3 1. Describe the methods, instrumentation, and protocols used Why selected, capabilities, and limitations
2. Critique the error and give a possible error analysis Be as quantitative as possible
3. State any limitations upon interpretations Do not over interpret. Stay within experimental parameters. Avoid wishful thinking.
Phase 4 1. Construct appropriate figures and tables Essential elements of presenting data
2. Give your results, interpretation, error analysis, and conclusion Be realistic. Again, do not over interpret
3. Discuss how the data backs your specific aims and either supports or refutes your hypothesis Make sure you are testing the hypothesis
Complete Presentation
Pre-questionnaire • 7. On a scale of 1-5 (1 = poor, 3 = satisfactory, 5 = excellent), how well of a scientific speaker are you? • 8. On a scale of 1-5 (1 = poor, 3 = satisfactory, 5 = excellent), how well of a scientific writer are you? • 9. In today's society, how important do you consider these skills on a scale of 1-5 (1 = not important, 3 = relatively important, 5 = very important)?
Final Survey • 5. After this 10-week experience, how effective of a scientific speaker are you on a scale of 1-5 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)? • 6. After this 10-week experience, how effective of a scientific writer are you on a scale of 1-5 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)? • 9. How much has your presenting improved throughout the 10-week program on a scale of 1-5 (1 = no improvement, 5 = significant improvement)? Speaking Writing Improvement • Average 3.57 3.37 4.10 • St. Dev. 0.53 0.44 0.99
Conclusion • The students entered the program with little confidence in their writing and speaking abilities • Students lacked a full understand the scientific method • Necessary to slow the students, improve critical thinking • Students are high achieving and driven. Their written and oral presentations were strong, but self-evaluation is lower than from the group • Weak point is when dealing with data, accuracy, and error • Students self-report improvement after the experience • Overall success of the program has been implemented into Duquesne’s curriculum for undergraduate research
Acknowledgment • • • • •
Prof. Thomas Wenzel Center for Computational Sciences Bayer School of Natural and Environmental Sciences Duquesne University National Science Foundation – DUE-1259941 (S-STEM) – CHE-1659823 (REU) – CHE-1126465 (MRI)
• National Institutes of Health – 1 R25 DA032519-01 (SRE)
