Using Popular Nonfiction in Organic Chemistry: Teaching More Than

In the Classroom

Using Popular Nonfiction in Organic Chemistry: Teaching More Than Content Katie E. Amaral* and Ivan A. Shibley, Jr. Division of Science, Penn State Berks, Reading, Pennsylvania 19610 *[email protected]

A recent cover of this Journal was titled “The Many Faces of Chemistry” and included the faces of twelve professionals who use chemistry as part of their jobs (1). The editorial for the issue contained a summary of the skills required of chemists that could serve as a collection of learning goals for most chemistry courses: “When asked to describe personal skills essential to their current jobs, our correspondents mentioned communication/ interpersonal skills, problem-solving skills, teamwork, enthusiasm, leadership, content knowledge, curiosity, attention to detail, conceptual vision, creativity, persistence, and openness to new ideas. Many of these were mentioned several times; those listed first were mentioned more often than those listed last (2).” A striking feature of the list is that five skills were listed ahead of content knowledge. The following advice was proffered by Moore in the editorial: “Worry more about motivating [students] to take more chemistry courses and less about preparing them with specific content that they will need in those courses (2).” When faculty across eight different disciplines (chemistry was not included) were asked to rate the importance of a variety of skills that could be taught, the two disciplines most closely related to chemistry, biological science and math-statistics, rated “gaining factual knowledge” as the most important skill (3). In this Journal, debates about “content coverage” are often aired, which might lead the casual reader to think that a central dilemma in chemical education is what to cover in each course (4-6). Content is critically important to any course but a teacher focusing solely on content may neglect many other valuable skills. If an educator decides to teach in the way Moore recommends and wishes to teach more than content, popular nonfiction is worth contemplating. Using popular nonfiction as a pedagogical tool can excite students, help them think more broadly about the course content, and further develop communication skills. Although this article focuses on the use of popular nonfiction in organic chemistry, the basic ideas espoused here can apply equally well to most chemistry courses. Popular nonfiction works include articles or books written for a general audience about a scientific topic. Although the term popular nonfiction is used throughout this article previous authors have used the synonymous term “scientific popularization”. The term popularization seems to have had its first use in this Journal in 1932 in an article entitled “Writing Popular Chemistry” (7). In the article the author issued the following advice: “Woe be to the popularizer or expositor who goes at his task with the attitude of the teacher!” In this Journal, 58 years later, another piece was written entitled “Some Unsolicited Advice to Popularizers 400

Journal of Chemical Education

_

_

(and Teachers) of Science” (8). The author claimed that popularizers need to “leave in the wonder...”. Teaching methods often ignore the wonder. One possible explanation for focusing on content at the expense of excitement may be the “elephantiasis of the textbook” (9). Over the past fifty years the number of pages in a typical organic text has been increasing in a linear fashion (9). As more knowledge is generated, authors of textbooks seem to try to incorporate that knowledge by simply adding more pages. A commentary on the general chemistry textbook claimed that “[w]e will probably never get widespread agreement on how to reform General Chemistry until a truly new textbook is published” (10). The same could be said of organic chemistry. Several “provocative opinion” pieces have raised concerns about the textbook (11, 12), suggesting that overreliance on a text can compromise other worthy pedagogical goals. Textbooks play a vital role in the classroom, but relying solely on the textbook may deter the teacher from considering other laudable goals. Adopting popular nonfiction books as a supplemental text in organic chemistry helped the authors address broader pedagogical goals in two different organic courses. Many books are available, and part of the fun is the excitement of choosing one as a supplemental text. The two books described below serve as exemplars of popular nonfiction that mesh with specific pedagogical goals. Many other appropriate books exist, and many more choices are available for popular nonfiction than for traditional texts. A brief list consisting of several possible choices for a nonfiction text is included in the supporting material. One-Semester Organic Chemistry: The Omnivore's Dilemma The one-semester organic lecture course is designed for students in a number of majors who do not need as detailed a background in organic chemistry as biologists, biochemists, chemists, and chemical engineers. The students use a shortened fundamentals textbook as their main text in the course (13). Typically, the course enrolls about 30 second-year students. The popular nonfiction used in the one-semester course was Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (14). Pollan's book was chosen because the discussion centered on modern industrial and organic agriculture as well as the origins of the food that makes its way to the tables of Americans. These topics are of primary interest to the enrolled students, the majority of who are agricultural or nutrition majors. To stress the importance of Pollan's book significant class time is devoted to a discussion of the text and those topics that

_

Vol. 87 No. 4 April 2010 pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. 10.1021/ed800121n Published on Web 03/09/2010

In the Classroom Table 1. Example of a Student-Created Reading Guide •Should organic foods be allowed to have synthetic additives? Why or why not? •Gene Kahn suggested that big organic farms are good because all that land is not being doused with chemicals. Do you agree? Why or why not? Remember that the Goodman's farm 25,000 organic acres, which, in their estimates, eliminated 270,000 pounds of pesticides and 8 million pounds of petrochemical fertilizer. •One pound of prewashed lettuce in a bag contains 80 calories. It took more than 4600 calories of energy to grow, chill, wash, pack, and transport it. In other words, it took 57 calories of energy (aka fossil fuels) to grow 1 calorie of food. Is this acceptable? Why or why not? In light of current oil prices, do you think we should change this? If so, how? •What problems can scientific eating pose to people who follow it? •Part 3 says that the Naylor farm is a more industrialized farm compared to the Polyface farm. What are the drawbacks of both farms? •If organic junk food was produced, like an organic Twinkie, would you start eating the organic junk food? Do you think it would taste the same? •It was stated in the chapter that “today it takes between seven to ten calories of fossil fuel energy to deliver one calorie of food energy to the American plate.” What are your thoughts on this statement? •Do you think this book pertained well to organic chemistry?

extend from the material. At the beginning of the semester, the students separate themselves into three equal groups through the use of a sign-up sheet. Each group is required to create a reading guide for their classmates about one of the three sections in Pollan's text (see Table 1 for an example of a reading guide). The students use the course management system (ANGEL) to communicate with their group-mates as they create each guide with one student chosen to act as editor for the group. The editor ensures that questions are germane and not repeated. The final reading guides are sent to the instructor and placed on ANGEL for all the students to see at least one week before the discussion is held. The reading guides are meant to focus students on the ideas, comments, and quotes that will be discussed in class. The guides are wide-ranging and cover a variety of topics, including those of interest to the students. Three class days (one hour and fifteen minutes each) are spent discussing the individual sections using the reading guides as a starting point. Although the instructor is present and participates in these discussions, students generally control the direction and length of conversation on the various topics. Students are graded both on the quality of the reading guide they have created and the depth, breadth, and relevance of the class conversations. To avoid confusion, students are given a grading rubric at the beginning of the term that details the criteria upon which the students will be graded. The students are also broken into self-chosen groups (usually by major) of approximately four students each at the beginning of the term. Each group researches a topic related to The Omnivore's Dilemma, writes a short 3-5 page paper on the topic, and presents the results of their research to the class in a 10-15 min presentation. Thus, in addition to the three class days spent discussing the text, an additional two class days are spent on research presentations. As with the reading guides, each group chooses a person to act as editor for their paper. Although the editor is required to write a portion of the paper, typically the

r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

_

introduction and the conclusion, that portion is smaller than his or her group-mates because the editor ensures that each section transitions naturally and that no topics are repeated. The students are graded on their papers and presentations and receive rubrics at the beginning of the semester to guide their work. The reading guides, leadership in class discussion, presentations, and papers account for 25% of the students' grades in the course. Exams, including the final, account for the majority of the students' grades at about 60%. The other 15% of the students' grades derive from other assigned writing and class participation. If the assignments related to The Omnivore's Dilemma in this course were not assigned, approximately two more chapters of content could be covered. However, in this terminal chemistry course, it was deemed more critical to give students the opportunity to work on their written and oral communication skills in addition to giving them a direct connection to the course content. Two-Semester Organic Chemistry: Living Downstream Another course that used popular nonfiction book was the first semester of a two-semester organic sequence. This is a traditional three-credit lecture course that uses a standard textbook (15). The course typically enrolls 40-45 second- or thirdyear students majoring in biology, chemistry, biochemistry, life science, or chemical engineering. The popular nonfiction book chosen for the first course in the two-semester sequence was Sandra Steingraber's Living Downstream: A Scientist's Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment (16). The book casts a critical eye on the chemical industry that serves as a well-argued counterpoint to the plethora of facts about organic chemicals in the traditional textbook. Students taking the course prior to the inclusion of Living Downstream spent little time reading about the ramifications of using so many organic chemicals in the modern world. The book is introduced on the first day and students are told to start reading it because they are required to write a paper about the book. Students are provided the following information on the course syllabus: As an organic chemistry student you will be studying many chemicals that cause environmental contamination and thus human health problems. In a 3-4 page paper you will respond to Ms. Steingraber's claims in her book. You need to justify the use of organic chemicals while responding to Ms. Steingraber's claims about environmental toxicity. Your textbook provides some justification at the end of every chapter in the section `Focus On...'. You should read through all these and select two or three to make your case. Or perhaps you have other good examples to use from your own experience that will work in the paper. The paper will be graded on soundness of your argument, e.g. you should not attack Ms. Steingraber as a wacko environmentalist or a Pollyanna but instead respond to her ideas. Your grade will also depend on the clarity of your writing and the overall cohesiveness of your thoughts. A grading rubric will be supplied to help you gauge what your grade will consist of.

The paper constitutes 10% of the course grade and is equal to half the weight of an examination. The grading rubric (Table 2) is designed to provide students with a clear idea of the criteria by which they will be evaluated and helps guide them in their reading of the text. As opposed to the class time devoted to The Omnivore's Dilemma in the one-semester course, very little

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

_

Vol. 87 No. 4 April 2010

_


401

In the Classroom Table 2. Grading Rubric for Living Downstream Paper Assigned in the Two-Semester Organic Chemistry Course Grading Category

Points Points Possible Received

Above Average

Average

Below Average

Title

10

Title is interesting and creative.

Title is somewhat interesting.

Title fails to be creative or capture interest.

Clarity of Writing

20

The paper is well organized with a strong beginning, a well-developed middle, and an appropriate end. Student makes no errors of grammar or spelling.

The paper is organized with a beginning, a middle, and an end. However, the organization is not particularly strong. There are several errors of grammar and spelling.

The paper is poorly organized. The beginning, middle, or end may be missing. Spelling and grammatical errors often occur.

Soundness of Argument

20

The argument is logical, detailed, and well justified.

The argument is somewhat detailed and contains some justification but is somewhat vague and unclear in parts.

The argument is not carefully constructed, has obvious logical gaps, and is often vague and unclear.

Relation to Living Downstream

20

Many references to the book are included as well as at least two appropriate quotes.

Several references to the book are included as well as at least one appropriate quote.

Few references to the book are included and no quotes.

Chemistry Content

20

The organic chemistry content is completely accurate; chemical structures are included.

The organic chemistry content is mostly accurate; some chemical structures are missing.

The organic chemistry content is often inaccurate; no chemical structures are included.

Length

10

Paper is 3-4 pages in length.

Paper is less than 3 pages or more than 4 pages in length.

Total Points

class time is used to discuss the paper associated with Living Downstream because a predetermined amount of content must be covered prior to students enrolling in the second-semester course. The students are periodically reminded about the paper in class. For example, students completed one assignment online where they had to generate three different titles for their paper (17). Additionally, each exam given in the course contains a take-home portion and one question on the second exam asked the students to submit the opening paragraph of their paper. By including small assignments related to the paper throughout the semester, the students are reminded to keep working on it. Some class time is used after the papers are returned to discuss them and talk about Living Downstream, but the total amount of class time devoted to the assignment is less than fifty minutes.

textbook, where the majority of students in the one-semester course claimed to have only used the text as a reference to solve problems or never used it at all. Only four of the 30 students enrolled claimed to have read the chapters in the textbook either before or after class discussion. Most students in the traditional two-semester course read through the book after class and used it as a reference to help solve problems. Only ten of the 42 students surveyed claimed that they read the textbook prior to coming to class. Opinions varied about the nonfiction books, but the comments seemed to fall into one of four types: applicationintegration, improved communication, enthusiasm, and too much work (Table 3). The majority of comments were positive although some positive comments were tinged with a bit of frustration concerning the extra work involved.

Analysis

Suggestions and Summary

Students enrolled in both organic chemistry courses were surveyed at the end of the semester about the assignments using an Internal Review Board (IRB) approved protocol. When asked if they had read the book, at least half the students in each course claimed to have read “most of the book” or “all of the book”. Only two students out of 45 enrolled in the two-semester course, and no students in the one-semester course, claimed to have read “almost none of the book”. This is in direct opposition to the

By choosing books with well-structured arguments students are exposed to high-quality written communication that contains a definite point of view. Students reported that the popular nonfiction motivated them, helped them see connections between organic chemistry and their lives, and helped them develop communication skills. Each of these goals aligns with the list of skills provided by the chemists who were interviewed about their jobs (1).

402


_


_


_


In the Classroom Table 3. Representative Student Comments about Popular Nonfiction Type of Comment

Representative Quotes

Application-Integration

“At first, I thought the book idea was very bad. However, after I read it, I felt like it put some of the organic chemistry into my own world.” “[The book] gave some real life applications of how chemicals are used.” “[The book] allowed for integration of concepts into real life situations.” “It showed me how organic chemistry is applied in the real world and not just solving problems in the classroom.” “It gave me a better idea of what organic chemistry is and how often we deal with it in our lives without even knowing it.”

Improved Communication

“I think [the book] displayed how being able to write well can aid in a scientist relating their points and objectives.” “I learned how to be a better writer. I learned how to argue a point and make my points clear and understandable.” “Not only did I work on my group skills, I also learned more about the book, organic chemistry and my [selected paper topic].”

Enthusiasm

“[The paper] may not have improved my understanding however it did spark and heighten my interest in the subject.” “[I learned] how to make a `why does it matter' statement.” “I couldn't put [the book] down.” “Interesting facts about alkanes and alkynes.”

Too much work

“I don't think [the paper] was worth the effort I put in.” “`[The paper] gave me background info on those certain chemicals in the book, but didn't help so much with class material.” “I did not have time to read a book for a science class when there was a lot more important things to study.” “While I found the book interesting, it was very time consuming.”

In the two courses described in this article students are challenged to argue either in writing or orally. Assignments are designed to stimulate student response regarding the authors' claims. Asking students to evaluate an author's writing requires thinking at the highest level (evaluation) of Bloom's taxonomy (18, 19). Most textbook writing focuses on the levels of knowledge and comprehension (low on Bloom's taxonomy) with occasional applications contained in some problems at the end of the chapter. Students must understand course content to justify their arguments and evaluate those made by the authors. Students in the two-semester course are provided with a handout on argument adapted from Graff to help them construct stronger arguments (20). Students reported that the assignments related to the popular nonfiction helped them develop communication skills. The student must read the popular nonfiction carefully to grasp the author's arguments. Students then hone their own communication skills through assignments that require oral and written work. The study on disciplinary differences mentioned in the introduction found that biology and mathstatistics teachers place the lowest value of the eight disciplines studied on “developing skill in expressing myself orally or in writing” (3). While speech classes and writing classes are critical, oral and written communication skills are too important to relegate to only a few courses. Every faculty member in every course has the opportunity to develop communication skills. By carefully choosing a book that will interest students, an organic teacher can help excite students about the subject while also helping them learn to communicate. For only a small investment of class time, the yields in achieving course goals above and beyond “gaining factual knowledge” are possible. The advantages of popular nonfiction need to be weighed against the student resistance to such assignments. Developing


_

assignments to complement popular nonfiction often involves oral or written communication and therefore a rubric is usually required. An organic chemist utilizing popular nonfiction for the first time might consult either the faculty development office or the writing center for help on creating a rubric. A grading rubric is a classification scheme that helps guide an instructor when analyzing the products of students' work (21, 22). This scheme can have both quantitative and qualitative aspects (23). One of the most thorough articles on rubrics to appear in this Journal was by Oliver-Hoyo (24): a rubric is presented in the article, the intellectual standards required of the course are evaluated, and the applications to both critical thinking and communication are identified. The use of popular nonfiction will elicit some student criticism (see Table 3), but a clear rubric may help the instructor redesign assignments for the next time. The constraints regarding the adoption of a supplemental text (not enough time, too much effort to grade, and difficulty in constructing a rubric) are significant but not insurmountable. At the risk of sounding too optimistic about the benefits of using popular nonfiction, the challenges and opportunities presented by using popular nonfiction as a required part of a course have made the authors better teachers by helping to create better learners. Literature Cited


1. Staff, E. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1562–1586. 2. Moore, J. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1559. 3. Cashin, W. E.; Downey, R. G. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 1995, 64, 81–92. 4. Goldsmith, R. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 638–639. 5. Tai, R. H.; Ward, R. B.; Sadler, P. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1703–1711.

_


_


403

In the Classroom

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

Ryan, M. A.; Kellams, S. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1980, 57, 128. Davis, W. J. Chem. Educ. 1932, 9, 1874–1875. Schwartz, A. T. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 754–756. Kerber, R. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, 719–720. Gillespie, R. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 484–485. Ruis, S. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, 720. Cohen, S. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 120. McMurry, J. Fundamentals of Organic Chemistry; Thomson: Pacific Grove, CA, 2007. Pollan, M. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals; Penguin Press: New York, 2006. McMurry, J. Organic Chemistry; Thompson, Brooks-Cole: Belmont, CA, 2008. Steingraber, S. Living Downstream: A Scientist's Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment; Random House: New York, 1997. Shibley, I. A., Jr; Nicotera, C. L.; Milakofsky, L. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 50–53.

404


_


_

18. Anderson, L. W.; Krathwohl, D. R. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.: New York, 2001. 19. Bloom, B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain; David McKay, Co. Inc.: New York, 1956. 20. Graff, G. Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 2003. 21. Brookhart, S. M. The Art and Science of Classroom Assessment: The Missing Part of Pedagogy; ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report: Washington, DC, 1999. 22. Moskal, B. M. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2000, 7, 3. 23. Allen, M. J. Assessing General Education Programs; Anker Publishing: Bolton, MA, 2006. 24. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 899–903.

Supporting Information Available A list of popular nonfiction books for organic chemistry. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org


_


Using Popular Nonfiction in Organic Chemistry: Teaching More Than

Recommend Documents