Organic Chemistry of the Cell: An Interdisciplinary Approach To

In the Classroom

Organic Chemistry of the Cell: An Interdisciplinary Approach To Learning with a Focus on Reading, Analyzing, and Critiquing Primary Literature Craig A. Almeida* Biology Department and Biochemistry Program, Stonehill College, Easton, MA 02357; *[email protected] Louis J. Liotta Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Program, Stonehill College, Easton, MA 02357

Recent national reports emphasize the need for the implementation of interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and research (1–3). It is encouraging that searches of the Journal of Chemical Education, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, and Cell Biology Education archives result in the retrieval of numerous articles that describe the integration of multidisciplinary topics into a wide variety of chemistry and biochemistry courses and labs. However, the authors are unaware of an interdisciplinary learning experience that is nearly as extensive as the one described in this article; Organic Chemistry of the Cell, a learning community (LC) offered in Stonehill College’s general education curriculum, links a cohort of sophomore biochemistry and biology majors enrolled in Organic Chemistry I, Cell Biology, and an Integrative Seminar (4). Students typically encounter primary literature as they complete various types of assignments in introductory through upper-level courses (5–13). The reading, analyzing, and critiquing of primary literature in both written and oral forms are daunting tasks for science undergraduates, but they are recognized as skills they should develop to improve their scientific communication abilities (14). The first-semester sophomores in the seminar explore the interface of organic chemistry and cell biology through in-depth investigations of primary literature, and develop and communicate research proposals using their ability to integrate biological and chemical techniques to address research problems. A unique aspect of the Integrative Seminar component of the LC is that students experience this total immersion in primary literature early in their college career, as first-semester sophomores, rather than as upperclassmen in a more traditional “Senior Seminar” course. Learning Communities In addition to instilling in students an awareness and value of interdisciplinary learning, LCs can also be a means of building communities among students, between students and faculty, and among faculty of different disciplines. While there are countless different LCs offered by over 600 colleges and universities throughout the United States they generally have some modified version of one of three structures: (i) two or more courses, for which the material may or may not be coordinated by the faculty, and an integrative seminar that provides the opportunity to make interdisciplinary connections and build a community; (ii) two or more courses that are linked by a theme or content and coordinated in a collaborative manner by the faculty; and (iii) coursework integrated throughout a program of study (15). Regardless of their structure, LCs and the associated teaching strategies provide 1794

Journal of Chemical Education

•

students with opportunities to investigate problems or issues that can be better examined through a multidisciplinary approach than by one discipline alone and lead students to deeper learning. Stonehill College began the implementation of a new general education curriculum, entitled “The Cornerstone Program,” in the fall of 2001. The new four-year curriculum promotes the integration of knowledge across disciplines, the development of critical and analytical reading and thinking abilities, the ability to write and speak clearly and effectively, and the ability to work collaboratively and effectively within a team to accomplish different tasks. Most LCs are offered by large research universities in the first year to counteract the isolation undergraduates may feel at these institutions and to improve retention (15). Stonehill is a small college with low attrition, so it was decided that the LC component of the Cornerstone Program would be in the second year after a core of loosely-linked humanities courses in the first year. Sophomores choose from a variety of LCs composed of two linked courses combined with a third integrative seminar (the first structure mentioned above) (4). The linked courses could be courses required by the student’s major, courses required by the general education program, free electives, or any combination of the above. The ways in which and to what degree the two linked courses overlap is left up to the faculty teaching the LCs. An added attraction of the integrative seminar is the flexibility it affords; it frees faculty from the constraints of disciplinary content associated with a traditional course and thereby allows for a structure in which students take on a greater level of responsibility (e.g., collaborative learning, problem-based learning, and community-based learning). The common goals of all integrated seminars are the same as those goals listed above for The Cornerstone Program as a whole. Organic Chemistry of the Cell

Origin In the fall of 2001 the schedule for typical sophomore biochemistry and biology majors at Stonehill was Organic Chemistry I and II, Cell Biology and Genetics, Physics I and II, two semesters of a foreign language, and an elective each semester. In order to accommodate an LC in the sophomores’ schedules the authors, LJL and CAA, instructors of Organic Chemistry I and Cell Biology, respectively, designed and then offered the Organic Chemistry of the Cell LC in the fall of 2002, the inaugural semester for LCs at Stonehill. In the first semester it was offered 28 students were enrolled and 27 students were in the LC in the fall of 2003. The Integrative Seminar is team-taught and counts as one course within each of

Vol. 82 No. 12 December 2005

•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

In the Classroom

the instructors’ teaching loads. Since chemistry majors have fewer required courses in their sophomore year than do biology and biochemistry majors, they have more flexibility when choosing their LCs. However, because of their first-year course requirements chemistry majors cannot schedule Biological Principles. Unfortunately Biological Principles is a prerequisite for Cell Biology and therefore, chemistry majors are not eligible for this LC.

Relationship between the Two Courses and the Seminar While there are two sections of Organic Chemistry I and Cell Biology, only one section of each course is part of the Organic Chemistry of the Cell LC. LJL teaches only the LC section of Organic Chemistry I but the basic content and organization of both sections of the course are the same. Both sections of Cell Biology are taught by CAA and are identical in their content and organization. An effort is made to prevent students from enrolling in the LC sections of Cell Biology or Organic Chemistry I who are not enrolled in the LC; however, exceptions to the policy have been made. The three component courses of the LC are graded independently, and there is no difference in the calculation of the final grades between the two sections of Organic Chemistry I or the two sections of Cell Biology. Either section of Organic Chemistry I or Cell Biology satisfies the requirements of the biochemistry, biology, or chemistry majors. Both Organic Chemistry I and Cell Biology are fourcredit courses that meet for 50 minutes three times a week, and each has its own weekly four-hour labs. The Integrative Seminar is a three-credit course that meets once a week for 2.5 hours. No effort has been made to coordinate the specific content of the two courses or their labs; however, references are made during seminar to material covered in the other two courses or vice versa when appropriate. Since the true learning of science is not a linear process, often the articles discussed in the Integrative Seminar contain subject matter and methods that have yet to be covered in either of the two linked courses or associated labs or goes beyond their scope. In these instances the material is taught to the groups leading the discussion or to the entire LC on an as needed basis. This approach requires a great deal of individual and collaborative work on behalf of the students to process and understand the material, but provides a context for the material and thus leads to better retention (16, 17). Students’ familiarity with certain methods used in the articles depends on when they are discussed; certain methods may have already been or will be done by the students in either the Organic Chemistry I or Cell Biology labs or may have been done in the labs of previous chemistry or biology courses. Structure of the Integrative Seminar

Overview The semester is divided into four nearly equal sections. It is only during the first four weeks that the students do not have a leadership role in the seminar (e.g., choose the articles to be read and lead the class discussions). Student teams choose the articles to be read and lead the discussions during the second and third quarters of the semester. During the final quarter of the semester different teams of students develop, write, and orally present original research proposals www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

based on one of the topics covered in class. The seminar meets in a classroom equipped with a computer and multimedia projector, along with movable chairs or desks so that students can work in small or large teams.

First Seminar Meeting The first meeting of the seminar is informational as well as organizational. The design and objectives of the course are put into context by pointing out that in science what is learned in one lab is most often communicated to the rest of the scientific community through the publication of data in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at regional, national, and international conferences. Therefore, as scientists in training, it is essential that they become familiar with and gain experience in reading, analyzing, and critiquing scientific literature, and develop strong written and oral communication skills. In addition to improving their abilities in these areas it is also essential that the students develop a greater appreciation for the connections between biological systems and the chemistry that occurs within them. Next, the students are given a tutorial on the use of STN Easy and Entrez, two popular search engines used to retrieve bibliographic citations and data from the Chemical Abstracts and PubMed databases, respectively. Students are instructed on how to refine their searches as necessary and access full texts of desired articles. The students then receive one or two article references and a set of five or six leading questions to help guide them through the critical and analytical reading of the article(s). At the end of each of the next two seminar meetings (i.e., weeks two and three), the students receive the references and a set of leading questions for the articles chosen by the instructors to discuss the subsequent weeks. It is expected that the students will do the assigned reading and answer all questions for the following week’s discussion. Students are encouraged to work together and to discuss the questions, but are expected to write their own responses. The final task of the first meeting is to organize the students into six teams of four or five students who have a shared interest. These teams are responsible for choosing the articles and leading the discussions for weeks five through ten of the semester. Rather than have students form their own teams and then select a topic of interest, they are given a series of topics (List 1) that they individually rank in descending order of interest. Topics are chosen for which there are recent publications that link organic chemistry with cellular processes. In addition, since the students are biochemistry and biology majors the topics are chosen so as to draw their interest. While the students choose the actual articles to be discussed only those articles that have both biological and organic chemistry components are approved. The organic chemistry component is often structural in nature as opposed to organic reactions. This is particularly the case during the first half of the semester. The first six topics in List 1 were the most popular and represent the interests of the six teams constructed. To date, students have been placed into teams based on one of their top three topic interests. Faculty-Led Discussions During the first three faculty-led discussion meetings, the students are guided through the critical analysis and cri-


•


1795

In the Classroom

tique of primary-literature articles. At the beginning of each seminar meeting, students turn in a copy of their answers to the leading questions for grading. Students then discuss the leading questions and their answers with their peers in small groups for five to ten minutes. The students are encouraged to form groups with peers with whom they had not yet discussed the articles. At the conclusion of the small-group discussions the desks are arranged into a single large circle for a discussion of the assigned articles by the whole class. The discussions always begin with asking for an overview of the research and then asking what the students need to have clarified. As the students’ questions are addressed, the progression through the article is typically not in a methodical manner; however, all of the important aspects of the article are eventually covered. The discussion of figures, especially those in color, and tables is enhanced considerably with the aid of the computer projection system in the classroom because it enables the class to direct their attention to a single large image visible to everyone. There are a number of factors that make it a challenge to conduct an Integrative Seminar for first-semester sophomores that has as its focus a critical analysis of primary literature. The articles are typically written in a style that is highly technical and jargon-laden. Students become frustrated after they have read a sentence or a paragraph multiple times and are still unable to understand what was read. The students at this level have a limited set of discipline-specific facts, principles, and concepts that they can utilize in their attempt to decipher what they are reading. In addition, the students also have had a limited exposure to and experience with the majority of the experimental techniques used and with the representation, interpretation, and critical analysis of the data. As the students are led through the article, a purposeful attempt is made to clarify their points of confusion, to put the content of the article into a different, more meaningful context, and to draw relevant relationships to previously and newly learned information. It is when all of this is done that the students begin to develop their conceptual understanding. These experiences allow them to process the informaList 1. Topics Used To Group Students by Similar Interests

• Involvement of Carbohydrates in the Immune Response and as Vaccines • Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Forms of Dementia • Diabetes • Cellular and Molecular Causes and Treatments of Autoimmune Diseases (Multiple Sclerosis, Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus, and Graves’ Disease) • Anti-HIV Drugs (Cell Adhesion, Viral Envelope and Cell Membrane Fusion, Reverse Transcriptase, Integrase, and Protease Inhibitors) • Cellular and Molecular Forms of Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Various Forms of Cancer (Cytotoxic, Antiangiogenic, and Antineoplastic Chemotherapies, and Biotherapies) • Mechanisms of Carbon Monoxide or Oxygen Binding to Myogobin or Hemoglobin • Mechanism of Fetal versus Adult Hemoglobin • Structure and Function of Hot or Cold Stable Proteins • Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Nerve Agents

1796


•

tion in the article being discussed and future articles, utilizing a newly acquired conceptual framework. The outcome is a greater understanding and broader foundation to which they can refer as well as add to in the future. A distinct difference between the learning styles of novices and experts is how they store newly learned information. Experts construct relationships between new information and previously held knowledge. This allows them to not only make sense of what is being learned but also make it possible to access this new information in the future. Novices, however, tend to process and store information without the assessment of what is relevant or the development of relationships to what is already known (16). The in-depth analysis of the primary literature allows for learning with understanding because of the application of knowledge, whether it be previously learned or newly acquired. Evidence of the students’ progress in this respect is the marked improvement during the semester in the quality of the their ability to ask more thoughtful questions, provide more complete and accurate answers, analyze and critique data and authors’ conclusions more thoroughly, think more independently and creatively, and communicate both in oral and written forms more clearly and concisely. All of these qualities are demonstrated in the students’ final proposals.

Student-Led Discussions During each of the next two three-week periods, each of the six student teams lead a 75-minute discussion of an article they have chosen. The order in which the teams present during the first three weeks is determined by a random drawing of numbers assigned to the teams. The teams present in the same order during the second three-week period. Each team’s chosen articles must be reviewed and approved by both faculty members. During the first three-week period each team must submit one week prior to their presentation a complete reference for their article along with five leading questions that must be answered by their classmates and turned in for grading at the beginning of the article’s discussion. Both before writing the questions and while preparing to lead the discussions, student groups meet extensively with both faculty members, either together or separately, to discuss the article they have chosen to ensure they can authoritatively lead the discussion. During the second three-week period the class reads the articles without the use of leading questions. The students at this point have the active role in the seminar; the faculty continue to sit within the discussion circle, but speak only to clarify incorrect information, provide an answer to a question that has been asked and for which none of the students has an answer, or to follow through more thoroughly on a particular concept that has arisen in the discussion. The class is allowed to discuss and reach conclusions on aspects of the article while faculty interference in the process or content of the discussion is kept to a minimum. The teams tend to follow the pattern established during the faculty-led discussions and lead off by asking for an overview of the research and what needs to be clarified. The students then proceed through a series of planned questions that guide the class through an in-depth analysis and critique of the experiments, data, interpretations, and conclusions. Student teams often use PowerPoint slides to help guide the class through the discussions.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

In the Classroom

Student Research Proposals During the final three weeks of the semester, the students, working in nine self-selected teams of three or four, identify a topic that has arisen from the article discussions that they would like to research further. Each team then constructs an original research proposal that outlines how to investigate the problem in an attempt to obtain a better understanding of it. The research proposals take two forms, a three to five page written proposal and a 20–30 minute oral PowerPoint presentation to the class with a question and answer period. Teams are given a research proposal guidelines document and the rubrics used to evaluate both forms of their proposal. The research teams meet with one or both of the instructors at times other than during the seminar to discuss the chosen research questions, clarify that the types of proposed experiments are appropriate and sufficient, and that the interpretations that would be made and conclusions that would be drawn from the possible experimental results are reasonable. Assessment Students’ grades for the Integrative Seminar are based on the skills and abilities they are expected to develop within The Cornerstone Program. A variety of different assessment methods are used to evaluate each student’s problem-solving as well as critical and analytical reading and thinking skills, ability to work collaboratively and effectively within a team to accomplish different tasks, and clear and effective written and oral communication skills. The seminar’s grade is calculated as follows: 15% for written answers to the leading questions, 25% for class participation, 15% for each of the two team-led discussions, 20% for the written research proposal, and 10% for the oral presentation of the proposal. At the outset the students receive copies of all the criteria and grading rubrics (discussed below) that are used to evaluate their performances.

Leading Questions Each student must complete eight or nine sets of leading questions (three for the faculty-chosen articles and one for each of the other five or six team-chosen articles). The questions range from those that require the simple retrieval of information, to the interpretation of what is written or presented in a figure or table, to the application of the knowledge gained in the context of the article in a different context. A successful response to the last type of question demonstrates a higher level of learning known as transfer (17). While the students are encouraged to discuss the articles, questions, and answers to the questions with one another, and to use any resource material to construct their answers, they must write their answers independently. Doing so requires each student to wrestle with the material, working to achieve an understanding of it sufficient to allow effective communication of that knowledge in writing. The students’ answers are evaluated not only for technical accuracy and completeness but also clarity and coherence. Class Participation The students are made well aware that there is an expectation that they will be active participants throughout the seminar. An active participant is one who (i) regularly attends www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

class, (ii) readily and voluntarily contributes to class by providing answers, offering information, or asking questions, (iii) listens attentively when others are talking, (iv) displays appropriate or nondisruptive behavior, and (v) attends class prepared by having read each of the articles, answered all of the assigned questions, and completed the tasks necessary to ensure the success of a team. Equal weight is given to each of the five characteristics and the participation of the students is tracked during each seminar meeting. Tracking class participation in this manner requires that the students’ names be learned quickly. To do so the instructors print copies of the photo class roster available through the registrar’s Web site and test each other on the students’ names. In addition, students place large name cards on the front of the desks for the first few weeks. At mid-semester the students are classified into one of three categories based on their participation to date: students with a grade of 95 or higher are active participants, those with grades of 81–94 are occasional participants, and those earning a grade of 80 or below are infrequent participants. Voluntarily contributing to class or team discussions tends to be the principal characteristic responsible for the variation in participation grades. Separate memos are then sent to the three types of participants. The active participants are told that their frequent contributions to the discussions are very much appreciated but that it would be appropriate if they were to refrain a bit in the future to allow others who may be more hesitant in their willingness to participate the opportunity to do so. The occasional participants are encouraged to maintain or increase their participation. The infrequent participants are informed that it has been noticed that they seem to have a very difficult time participating in the class discussions and that they are strongly encouraged to participate at least once during each of the future seminar meetings. A large majority of the participation grades at the end of the semester were the same as or higher than those at mid-semester.

Individual and Team Work The following criteria are used in evaluating the quality of the discussion led by the students: the leading questions were thoughtful (20%), each member of the team played a role during the discussion (10%), the team had a good understanding of the content of the article (20%), the team was able to maintain a continuity to the discussion (20%), the team members were able to respond adequately to questions from the class (20%), and the team was able to maintain the focus of the class (10%). Each of the instructors completes his own evaluation for each team’s discussion, and then both meet to compare and discuss the evaluations and determine the grade for the team. The individual grades the students receive are based on the team grade but are weighted based on peer evaluations completed by all team members that attempt to analyze each individual’s contribution to the team. Students rank each other on a five point scale in the following areas: attendance at group planning sessions, attendance at group practice sessions, initiative in starting and completing the assignment, leadership of the group, intellectual input into the project, understanding of all aspects of the assignment, and quantity of time devoted to preparing the assignment. Students’ individual grades are adjusted up or down based on how far the score they receive on the evaluations deviates from the average score for all members of the team.


•


1797

In the Classroom

Written Research Proposal In addition to proper formatting, organization, overall readability, and grammar, the proposals are graded on (i) the significance of the research question and whether or not it is clearly described, well thought out, and narrowly defined, (ii) the presence of sufficient background information both to set the stage for the research question and planned experiments and to demonstrate a clear understanding of the research problem, and (iii) that the proposed experiments address the research question, are clearly described, are feasible, and that possible results and their meanings are discussed. Only after all of the proposals have been read and evaluated by each instructor independently are the evaluations compared, the proposals discussed, and a grade determined.

Oral Presentation of Research Proposal The oral presentations of the research proposals are evaluated on three main aspects: content (45%), presentation style (45%), and responses to questions (10%). The evaluation of content is based on three sets of criteria that are weighted equally: the research question (i.e., is well thought out, significance is provided, and is narrowly defined), background (i.e., all pertinent information is provided to set the stage for the research question and planned experiments, and there is a demonstration of a good understanding of the material), and subject (i.e., key features of the proposal are communicated clearly, critically, and without unnecessary detail). Equal weight is given to each of the three criteria used to evaluate the presentation style: organization (i.e., logical flow of information and appropriate placement of emphasis and detail), delivery (i.e., pace, volume, voice, personal appearance, and appropriate use of notes), and audiovisual materials (i.e., slides that are clear, neat, organized, effective, illustrative and not cluttered with words, and appropriate use of figures, structures, and graphs). Once again, the instructors complete their evaluations of each presentation separately and then meet to discuss and determine an appropriate grade. The Learning Community as a Learning Experience The acquisition of a body of factual knowledge generally will not lead to success in one’s work. Students provided with opportunities to organize, represent, and interpret information in a meaningful context are better able to recall information and think logically, rationally, critically, and analytically when solving problems (18, 19). There are several aspects of our LC that provide just such a meaningful learning experience for our students. The interdisciplinary nature of the LC affords a valuable opportunity for students to readily see the relevance and application of what they are learning in multiple contexts. The Integrative Seminar allows the students to take an active role in their learning; they must draw upon their previous and developing knowledge as they struggle to decipher and critically analyze the primary literature. An effective class discussion requires an awareness of the relevant background knowledge, and a familiarity with and an understanding of the experiments conducted as well as an appreciation for the interpretations of and conclusions drawn from the data. This requires students to learn and thereby develop a level of content mastery in highly special1798


•

ized areas of study (e.g., immunization, autoimmunity, oncology, carbohydrate chemistry and biology, signal transduction) and research techniques (e.g., genetic engineering; PCR; SDS and two-dimensional gel eletrophoresis; immunoprecipitation; Northern, Southern, and Western blotting; affinity chromatography; ELISA; organic synthesis; X-ray crystallography; NMR interpretation; mass spectroscopy interpretation). The discussion leaders must also be able to organize and prioritize the information and their thoughts and clearly communicate to their classmates in an engaging manner. Each student takes on the roles of learner, facilitator, mentor, and research-proposal writer throughout the semester. The difficulty that the sophomores have with reading the primary literature, as well as responsibilities of leading class discussions and developing original research proposals necessitates a significant time commitment outside of class by the instructors as well as the students. On average the instructors spend two to three hours per week meeting individually or together with student teams to assist in their analysis and understanding of the articles. The meetings usually involve interpreting portions of the article, providing discipline-specific background information, explaining experimental techniques, and analyzing data. As the semester progresses, the meetings are often tremendously rewarding because the students’ progress becomes quite apparent. They demonstrate an overall improvement in their ability to read and discuss with confidence the content of an article, explain experimental techniques, analyze and critique the data as well as the interpretations and conclusions made by the authors, and propose follow up experiments to address unanswered questions. The authors estimate that at the end of the semester the students’ abilities to conduct an in-depth analysis of primary literature and propose follow up studies is comparable to those of a typical second- or third-year graduate student. The overwhelmingly favorable responses from the students (discussed below) and instructors have resulted in the Dean for General Education and Interdisciplinary Studies to refer on many occasions to Organic Chemistry of the Cell as one of the most successful LCs in The Cornerstone Program. The faculty in the Biology and Chemistry Departments, which jointly oversee the Biochemistry Program, fully support the Organic Chemistry of the Cell LC and have high hopes that the students’ performances in their upper-level courses will be positively influenced by having participated in the LC. There are preliminary indications that students who take the LC do better in Cell Biology and Biochemistry I, a junior-level course. The LC sections of Cell Biology have had a higher mean and median than the non LC sections for the two semesters for which the LC has been offered. A comparison has not been made between the performances of the two sections of Organic Chemistry I because each section has a different instructor. Twelve out of the 28 students who enrolled in the LC in the fall 2002 semester enrolled in Biochemistry I in the fall of 2003. Both the mean and median grades for those twelve students were higher than the mean and median grades for the entire class. The same twelve students also had higher mean and median grades than the entire class on an assignment in Biochemistry I that required them to write a report, create a poster, and present to the class an oral summary of a primary literature article.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

In the Classroom

This LC also seemed to have a substantial impact on students’ interest in research. Over the past two summers 17 biochemistry and biology majors who were eligible to take this LC have been involved in summer research projects in chemistry, biochemistry, or biology. Of these seventeen students 15 had been in the LC and two had not. Since the number of biochemistry and biology majors selecting to take the LC was about equal to the number selecting not to take it, this is a clear indication of the impact of the LC on the students. List 2. Representative Student Comments

To assess the success of the LC as part of the general education curriculum the college administers an evaluation to the students at the end of the semester. The student responses on these evaluations indicate that the established educational goals are being met and that the LC has been well received by the students. Representative student responses to the evaluation given at the end of the semester, grouped according to themes, are found in List 2. Acknowledgments

Integration of Knowledge • We learned so much in this LC…it really helped pull the classes together and show the uses of organic chemistry. • In order to understand topics we had to pool all of our knowledge from multiple disciplines. • Over the semester we developed strong critical and analytical thinking skills tying biology and chemistry together. • This course made organic chemistry seem relevant to medicine which is cool. • The integration of the two subjects helped (me) to see how researchers need to know vast amounts of information. • Reading journal articles gave me an interest in how topics learned in class are being applied in the real world. It definitely augmented my knowledge of both the subject and the primary literature. Collaborative Learning • I enjoyed the group atmosphere and discussing and debating solutions and understandings as real scientists do. • Many of our projects and discussions were student oriented instead of led by faculty. • We all seemed to teach each other at times. • Class participation was a big factor…we learned from each other. • Others thoughts stimulated my own thinking. Critical and Analytical Reading and Thinking • This course thoroughly developed my ability to read and understand scientific articles. • I can read primary literature and understand it…amazing. • I have developed a sense of confidence and realization that I know more than I think, as long as I take a second and “switch” my way of thinking. Writing and Speaking Clearly and Effectively • The team projects gave me more confidence in myself as a presenter and my ability to understand the concepts. • I have gained a great deal of knowledge and am more comfortable with my peers and speaking out in class. • I thought the group presentation at the end really made me realize how much I learned this semester. Pride of Accomplishment • I would never have learned any of this in another course and I am definitely less adverse to research now. • Reading and discussing journal articles really helped me to get ahead of most other students at my level at other colleges. • Now, after completing this LC, I can appreciate all of the at-the-time difficult assignments more because of how much we have changed since September.

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Student Reaction

•

We would like to thank the 55 students who have taken our LC and Susan Mooney and Jane De Luca for their comments on the manuscript. In addition, we appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by the three reviewers. Literature Cited 1. Beyond the Molecular Frontier: Challenges for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 2003. http://www.nap.edu/books/ 0309084776/html/ (accessed Sep 2005). 2. BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists, 2003. http://www.nap.edu/books/ 0309085357/html/ (accessed Sep 2005). 3. Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, 1999. http://www.nap.edu/ books/0309062942/html/index.html (accessed Sep 2005). 4. Cornerstone Program: Sophomore Learning Communities, 2004–2005. http://www.stonehill.edu/registration/learning-communities-booklet.htm (accessed July 2004). 5. Rasche, M. E. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2004, 2, 101–107. 6. Mulnix, A. B. Cell Biol. Educ. 2003, 2, 248–255. 7. Meyer, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 1174–1177. 8. Whelan, R. J.; Zare, R. N. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 904– 906. 9. Baldwin, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 307–310. 10. Gallagher, G. J.; Adams, D. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 1368– 1371. 11. Smith, C. N. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2002, 30, 380–383. 12. Paulson, D. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1047–1049. 13. Tilstra, L. J. Chem Educ. 2001, 78, 762–764. 14. “Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures,” American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training, 2003. http:// www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/acsdisplay.html?DOC= education%5Ccpt%5Cguidelines.html (accessed Sep 2005). 15. The Evergreen State College Learning Community Commons. http://learningcommons.evergreen.edu/ (accessed Sep 2005). 16. How Experts Differ From Novices. In How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School; Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Eds.; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999; pp 31–50. 17. Byrnes, J. P. Cognitive Development and Learning in Instructional Contexts; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, 1996; p 74. 18. Bransford, J. D.; Stein, B. S. The Ideal Problem Solver, 2nd ed.; Freeman: New York, 1993. 19. Bransford, J. D.; Stein, B. S.; Vye, N. J.; Franks, J. J.; Auble, P. M.; Mezynski, K. J.; Perfetto, G. A. J. Exp. Psy. 1983, 3, 390–398.


•


1799

Organic Chemistry of the Cell: An Interdisciplinary Approach To

Recommend Documents