Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Comprehensive Approach to the Development of Communication and Critical Thinking: Bookend Courses for Third- and Fourth-Year Chemistry Majors Geoffrey C. Klein and Jeffrey M. Carney* Department of Molecular Biology and Chemistry, Christopher Newport University, Newport News, Virginia 23606, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: Communication and critical thinking skills are integral to the undergraduate chemistry major. A bookend, two-course model has been implemented to supplement chemistry subfield knowledge with the development of these skills. The third-year course introduces the chemical literature and addresses these skills through the synthesis of a literature review and oral presentation by summarizing and evaluating articles in a self-selected chemical topic. In the fourth-year capstone course, communication and critical thinking are further enhanced by the production of a student-designed research proposal and the dissemination of experimental results of the proposed research through a final manuscript-style report and an oral presentation. A robust assessment plan for communication skills using faculty-designed rubrics and an end-of-semester student symposium are currently in place. Preliminary assessment of authentic student artifacts and student perception, through exit surveys and course evaluations, indicated substantial growth in these areas. The two courses provide the opportunity for chemistry majors to attain the skills necessary to function as scientists whether they plan to attend graduate school, professional school, or enter industry. KEYWORDS: Upper-Division Undergraduate, Curriculum, Communication/Writing, Problem Solving/Decision Making, Student-Centered Learning
S
thinking, problem solving, and safe laboratory technique, have also recently been developed.4,8 Skill development has been used in multiple upper-level courses before, often with the first course acting as a preparatory prerequisite for a second course in which the assignment is continued or completed.6,8 Although those designs have their advantages, it was our desire to construct courses that focus on each of the skills outlined in the ACS−CPT and to strengthen their impact by placing them at the beginning and end of the upper-level curriculum. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example of specifically placed bookend courses linked by communication and critical thinking skill development in the upper-level curriculum. The benefit of this design is in the comprehensive capabilities that arise when students are introduced to these skills in the first of two writing-intensive courses in their third year. Students can learn, develop, and then apply these skills in multiple upper-level chemistry courses across the various subdisciplines. Some examples of how students currently apply these skills in upper-level courses are in various assignments, such as the writing of physical, analytical, and instrumental chemistry laboratory reports in the format of a research article, presentations in inorganic chemistry, and writing grant proposals for synthetic routes to
kill development is recognized as an important aspect of undergraduate education and a main goal of chemistry programs.1 As a relatively new program in chemistry, our curriculum was built with the guidelines published by the American Chemical Society’s Committee on Professional Training (ACS−CPT) in mind. In addition to the in-depth chemistry courses and electives typical of an ACS-certified program, our program has integrated two major-required, writing-intensive courses that are specifically structured to introduce and develop skills required of professional chemists, namely, written and oral communication and critical thinking. In the first course, students are introduced to the chemical literature as they write and present a literature review of a topic in chemistry, and in the second course, students design a research project, write a proposal, implement the project, and present the results, both orally and in a manuscript-style written report. Chemistry programs are continually addressing the need to improve undergraduate skills by developing a variety of upperlevel courses. In an effort to improve student writing ability, courses or assignments have been created that emphasize writing reviews,2,3 research article-style laboratory reports,4 and grant proposals.5 A desire to improve oral communication has led to the design of courses that focus on improving presentation style and poster creation.6,7 Student-designed laboratory experiments, which serve to develop skills in critical © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400595j | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
more in-depth involvement between the students and faculty member. This involvement includes occasional workshop days, where half of the class attends to review and discuss their latest drafts with their peers and faculty, and one-on-one meetings later in the semester. A final major difference is that the review is written, reviewed, and revised section-by-section. In the first week (Table 1), students are introduced to the course goal and told that the material for the review must
target molecules in advanced organic chemistry. These developed skills are then honed in the second writing-intensive course at the end of their undergraduate career. This increases student exposure to communication in chemistry and our pedagogical approach. Additionally, students obtain a sense of ownership and deeply engage in the study of their projects. Increased contact, as well as the in-depth exploration of chemistry topics and experiments, mitigates the concern over devoting six credits to these courses in lieu of possible chemistry electives. Because our courses also combine to fulfill a university writing-intensive requirement, exposing students to content knowledge and scientific writing skills they would not receive if they were compelled to fulfill this requirement outside of our department, no other chemistry courses needed to be sacrificed in order to implement this curriculum. Herein, we describe two courses designed to bookend the last two years of the undergraduate curriculum. The learning outcomes for each of the courses is for students to be able to convey scientific information with accuracy and clarity in both the written and oral form, as well as the ability to pose important questions, collect and interpret data, and draw conclusions consistent with that data. This two-course model that links specific skills, allows for greater flexibility in the choice of research topic than a comparable consecutive twocourse, or one-course, model in which the topic remains constant. It also allows for an opportunity to implement assessment at two distinct points in a student career.
Table 1. Schedule for Third-Year Course Week
Classroom Topic/Activity
1
Course Introduction, Library Instruction, Topic brainstorming Scientific Articles, Writing Summaries Academic Integrity, Peer Review Summaries Oral Presentations, Writing Introductions Brief Student Presentations Peer Review, Writing Methods
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
■
DESCRIPTION OF THE THIRD-YEAR COURSE Our upper-level writing-intensive curriculum begins with a 3credit course taken in the fall semester of the third year, which has an average enrollment of 16 students. The course goals are to develop the written and oral communication, critical thinking, and the literature search skills of our students by introducing them to the elements of the writing process in chemistry. These skills are developed while using the framework of researching and writing a review article on a topic in chemistry. The topic is one chosen by the students with the guidance and final approval from the instructing faculty member. The final course products are a written literature review (usually 20−25 pages), compiled as a portfolio including all prior drafts, and an 18 min presentation of their work to their peers and department faculty. The design of the course is similar in structure to the one described by Schepmann and Hughes;2 however, there are a number of key differences. Although that course was designed to be a preparatory course for a directly related capstone research project, our course is unified to a fourth-year research course only by learning outcomes and not by research topic, establishing more flexibility for students and faculty. Therefore, the end product of their course is the introduction and background section of their capstone research project. Our end product is a standalone paper that includes an introduction, a complete methods section including experimental design, results summarized from three articles in a particular field, and a student-synthesized discussion of how those three articles helped further the knowledge of that field. Faculty still take advantage of this course in promoting their own scholarly agenda by using the course as a way to have their research students delve deep into the literature background of their current or future project to provide the context of their work. Another difference is that 3 h per week over a 14-week semester, as opposed to 1 h over a 10 week quarter, allows for a
Peer Review, Writing Results and Discussion Peer Review, Publication Process
9
Writing a Conclusion
10 11
Peer Review, Writing an Abstract Individual Meetings
12
Student Practice Talks
13
Student Practice Talks
14
Oral Presentation, Portfolio Compilation
Student Assignment SciFinder Assignment Write an Article Summary, Topic Focus Question Write Research Overview Prepare presentations Write Introduction (Peer Draft) Revise Introduction (Professor Draft) Write Methods (Peer Draft) Revise Methods (Professor Draft), Write Results and Discussion (Peer) Revise Results and Discussion (Professor), Write Conclusion (Peer) Revise Conclusion (Professor) Write Abstract (Peer), Revise Abstract (Professor) Prepare presentation, Revise/Edit paper Prepare presentation, Revise/Edit paper Final Edits, Compile Final Portfolio
comprise three primary research articles. Each review is written and reviewed in sections; Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, and Conclusion. One class meeting in the first week is held in the library, to inform the students of the in-print and online library holdings, how to perform SciFinder searches, and accessing journal articles through interlibrary loan. A brief assignment on SciFinder searching is given,9 the students are encouraged to consider their choice of topic and begin collecting references to serve as their primary research articles. As students are considering the choice of their review topic, classroom topics include the structure of a research article and writing article summaries.10 Some of the key elements of scientific writing are described,11 and the students are told to write to their reviews to inform their peers, a class of undergraduates majoring in chemistry, as the intended audience. Writing to teach others is considered a key task in developing critical thinking.12 Academic integrity is also discussed, with emphasis placed on proper paraphrasing technique and introducing students to research and scholarly misconduct.13 At the end of the second week, topics are selected and planning of the literature review begins. Most students found determining a general area of chemistry for their review easy, B
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400595j | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Article
DESCRIPTION OF THE FOURTH-YEAR COURSE The upper-level writing intensive curriculum culminates with a senior-level capstone course typically taken in the student’s final semester prior to graduation. The course has an average enrollment of 15 students. The goals of this course are to build upon those skills gleaned in the third-year course and add a student-designed research project to develop field-specific competencies, such as critical thinking related to troubleshooting, in the laboratory. The specific course objectives are to write a grant proposal, implement a self-directed research project, write a final manuscript-style project report, and present findings at the semiannual departmental conference. Throughout the semester, students are challenged to evaluate and apply scientific findings, troubleshoot experimental approaches, and engage in authentic research. The 15-week semester is broken into three distinct modules: research proposal development, research project implementation, and communication of results (Table 2).
but had difficulty in narrowing that area into a manageable review. In order to assist in this, students were instructed to design a specific focus question to guide them in selecting appropriate material for inclusion. After the focus question and three primary articles were approved by the instructor, the students used these materials to write a brief one-page summary of their topic. This summary serves as an outline for a sixminute oral presentation in which the student introduces their topic to the class. These presentations were also an opportunity for students to become familiar with the rubric that is used to score their longer, end-of-semester oral presentations. The literature review is written in the form of a progressive paper during the remaining weeks of the semester.14 Prior to each section, the necessary content is reviewed and welldesigned and poorly designed examples are discussed.10 The appropriate aspects from the overall literature review rubric are also discussed. An added benefit of writing in this manner removes some student anxiety around creating a product of this length. It also spreads the typically heavy grading load of a writing-intensive class into more manageable portions for the instructor. The first draft of each section of the review was peerreviewed prior to being submitted to the instructor. Seeking to create an interactive environment for draft revision, one in which both writer and reviewer could learn more about the writing process, a suggestion for a peer-review workshop was adapted from Engaging Ideas.12 Student pairs would collaborate in their review of the drafts of another pair. Reviewers would reference the rubric and instructor provided guiding questions that focused on elements of organization and clarity. Student response has been positive, many saying that they learned more about corrections for their drafts while reviewing the drafts of others. After receiving comments, students would make appropriate revisions and submit a second draft to the instructor. The instructor would then offer comments and suggestions before the final draft was submitted as part of the final portfolio. Students were required to submit all drafts and reviewer’s notes in the final portfolio. These comments were then graded as part of the class participation grade for the reviewer. By having it count toward their grade, students were motivated to make meaningful suggestions in their reviews. The final few weeks of class are used to prepare the presentation, revising and editing the final draft, and compiling the portfolio. One-on-one meetings with the faculty to discuss section revisions and a presentation outline replace the regular class meetings for 1 week. Students then give practice talks during class time with 6−7 students present to create a more comfortable environment in which the faculty member can model constructive criticism. The final presentations are given in the style of a symposium on the last weekend in the fall semester, simulating a professional experience. Two faculty members are present at each talk for the purpose of assigning a grade and departmental assessment. The final portfolio, compiled to show the students the effort and process involved in scientific scholarship, is submitted during the last week of classes and graded by the instructor. The final draft is read by another faculty member for the purpose of assessment, with no impact on course grade. To sharpen the skills of identifying key points and impact of chemistry research, as well as practice critical thinking by adopting a role different from their own, a final exam is given that asks students to write the deleted abstract for a recently published journal article chosen by the instructor as though they were the authors of the paper.
Table 2. Outline of Course Modules and Semester Activities for Fourth-Year Course Module
Topic
Activities
1
1−4
Weeks
Research Proposal Development
2
5−12
Project Implementation
3
13− 15
Communication of Results
Research Topic Selection, Write Grant Proposal, and Project Approval Biweekly Progress Reports, Elevator Talk, and Oral Presentation Skill Development Manuscript-Style Project Report and Presentation of Results at Departmental Conference
The design of the first module is similar to previous models presented by Iimoto and Frederick.8 In this paper, they describe the use of a seminar and an integrated laboratory as a twocourse capstone sequence. During the seminar portion of the capstone sequence, students develop proposals to be executed in the integrated laboratory course. Having completed the first of our bookend courses, our students have experienced the development of a review paper summarizing scientific literature based on a specific chemical topic. This prior exposure to the scientific literature allows for the condensed development of a proposal in the first module of our fourth-year capstone course. Our students produce research proposals during the first four weeks of the semester compared to ten weeks in the Iimoto and Frederick course design. Furthermore, the completion of the research proposal early in the semester provides for a more meaningful research experience compared to other curriculum models. The eight-week exposure to intense, meaningful research enhances the impact of the research projects on both the students’ and faculty members’ scholarly portfolios. Students are first tasked with selecting a topic for their proposed self-directed research project. They are encouraged to select a topic related to their third-year review article, undergraduate research topic, or one that is related to a laboratory exercise completed in a previous course. The students work with the instructor to focus the topic and objectives of the proposed work to ensure possible completion during the second module of the course. The final proposal requires the inclusion of a proposed budget, funded by the department. It is important to note that the overall budget for this course is comparable to other laboratory courses taught in the chemistry curriculum. The proposal is written in the form C
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400595j | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Project topics have encompassed the many subfields of chemistry. Examples of student projects include: • Integrin Signaling Differentiation in Caenorhabditis elegans. • 3-Acylation of Indole without Protecting Groups in the Synthesis of Violacein. • The Combined Effects of Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Content on the Solubility of 17β-Estradiol in Pure Water. • Quantitative Analysis of BHT and BHA in Breakfast Cereals by Gas Chromatography−Mass Spectrometry. • Molecular Dynamics Investigation of Solvation of TrpCage Miniprotein in H2O and D2O. • Copoly(imide siloxane oxetanes) for Particle Adhesion Mitigation. • Determination of Specific Gravity of Crude Oil by the Falling Drop Method. • Organic Synthesis of a Calcitriol Intermediate. These projects have served as a springboard for many faculty generating written material for potential papers and grants. Success in the completion of the specific aims of each project has varied over the past two years. The course instructor and faculty mentors focus on the process of troubleshooting and the reporting of the limitation of results for those projects that were unable to meet all specific aims. Despite incomplete project objectives, the measurable progress builds confidence and better prepares students for scientific careers after graduation. In addition, this research-supportive curriculum has already provided students and faculty the opportunity to expand their scholarly pursuits. Student comments on the course evaluation illustrate their appreciation for the application of scientific knowledge and important field-specific competencies (skills) required of active chemists in the real world.
of a progressive paper, similar to the review paper in the thirdyear chemical literature course. This form of writing lowers the activation energy necessary to complete the grant proposal by having students write the paper in sections. Each section is peer-reviewed prior to submission of a final draft to the instructor. After the development and approval of the proposed selfdirected research project, students spend the next eight weeks implementing their plan. Faculty mentors are employed to provide subject expertise and oversight on the experimental portion of the course; they do not contribute to the determination of student course grades. With the faculty mentors help, the instructor monitors progression toward the completion of the laboratory work. Overall, the faculty mentors spend approximately 1.5 h/student/week during the project implementation stage of the course. Students are required to work at least 5 h a week toward the completion of the project. They work closely with the course instructor and faculty mentors to judiciously allocate time toward the completion of the project, as outlined in their research proposal. As with any research project, students experience numerous experimental problems that must be overcome. Students, with the help of faculty mentors, critically evaluate results of the unsuccessful experiments to logically develop refined methodologies. Success in the completion of this module lies in the ability to troubleshoot experimental problems and the effective use of time. Progression toward the completion of a project is monitored with the submission of student biweekly reports, an outline for which is available in the Supporting Information. These reports provide the instructor with the amount of time spent on the project, a summary of results, and an updated project timeline. This portion of the class gives the impression of project ownership to the students while maintaining faculty oversight appropriate to the academic setting. Over the course of the semester, the students are required to meet a total of 15 times with the instructor of record during the regularly scheduled class meeting time. This time is used to further develop written and oral presentation skills established in the third-year chemical literature course. One example assignment is the presentation of an elevator talk. As chemists, we must be able to discuss our work in 3-to-5 min time periods to a variety of stakeholders (e.g., public, program officers, and scientific colleagues). This exercise requires the students to present their research proposal, including the specific aims and anticipated results, in the time it takes an elevator to rise three floors. This encourages students to be intentional about the information presented and to be clear and concise in the presentation of their work. In addition, students work with the instructor on developing their 15 min presentation of their final research results. As the senior capstone course comes to a close, students finalize the communication of their results for the submission of a manuscript-style project report. This report is written in the same progressive paper writing style as previous papers in both this course and the third-year chemical literature course. The continued use of this writing process reinforces a proven method for the development of successful scientific papers. Peer review is once again used in a way that goes beyond basic editing. Students utilize leading questions provided by the instructor to help classmates develop each section of the final paper. The course culminates with the submission of the final paper and the presentation of the research results in the departmental conference held at the end of the semester.
■
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT The bookend, two-course model for development of written and oral communication and critical thinking skills relevant to chemistry students is still in its initial stages. The chemistry faculty has developed a robust assessment program to monitor progression toward meeting student learning outcomes associated with the demonstration of effective written and oral communication. The assessment consists of two separate instruments: (1) assessment of authentic student artifacts and (2) graduate exit survey question that examines students’ selfreported progress in written and oral communication. Written and oral communication rubrics have been developed and appear in the Supporting Information. The written communication criteria include the ability to clearly address the chemical topic and its significance, discuss the experimental and instrumental methods employed to generate results, discuss and summarize the data and results in terms of the selected chemical topic, ability to sum up the work, offers own evaluation and indicates further research needed to address problem, writing technique, use of appropriate figures and tables, and proper citations per the ACS Style Guide.15 The oral communication rubric assesses the students’ ability to provide a clear introduction and clear visual presentation, communicate technical aspects, analysis and interpretation of results, summarize main idea, and adequately deliver an effective presentation. A description of each level of competency of the oral and written communication outcomes can be found in the rubrics provided. D
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400595j | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Table 3. Summary of Written and Oral Communication Results
Written Communication (30a) Oral Communication (50)
Third-year Average (±Std. Deviation)
Fourth-year Average (±Std. Deviation)
Mean Difference
p Value
Effect Size Cohen’s d
20.4 (±3.3) 41.8 (±3.4)
22.9 (±2.6) 43.3 (±5.1)
+2.5 +1.5
