In the Classroom
Scientific Communication for Chemistry Majors: A New Course Gail M. Meyer Department of Chemistry, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 37403;
[email protected] In the fall of 1999, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga began requiring an oral communication course for every student as part of the general education program. Departments could choose to fulfill this requirement in one of two ways: require a three-hour course taught by the speech department or integrate oral communication skills into the major curriculum. The chemistry department decided that chemistry majors would be best served by adding a 2 credit (50 minutes twice a week), sophomore-level course, entitled Scientific Communication, to the curriculum. This recognized the emphasis placed upon oral communication skills
by the American Chemical Society (1). The chemistry department had for many years required students to take a onehour, senior-seminar course in which they made a 10–15 minute presentation, complete with transparencies or PowerPoint. In addition, many upper-level courses required either laboratory or lecture talks. However, students were not formally being taught “how” to prepare for scientific presentations, which would be addressed with this new course. Several faculty attended workshops presented by speech professionals on teaching speech techniques and evaluating oral presentations. The new course has been taught by one
Evaluator______________________________ Speaker _______________________________ Title__________________________________ Please score each of the following nine statements using the scale below. Comments for particularly low or high scores may be written in the space below each statement. 1 – missing or poor 2 – needs improvement 3 – average 4 – very good; above average 5 – excellent; could not have been better ____1. The title was concise and set the context for the presentation. ____2. The transparencies or slides were clear and appropriate. ____3. The talk began with an important general principle, then zoomed in to focus on the topic in detail. ____4. The momentum of the talk was maintained; sidetracks were minimal and clearly distinguished from the mainstream of the talk. ____5. The talk proceeded as a logical unfolding of information. ____6. The language of the speaker was precise without being unintelligible “jargon”. ____7. There was a conclusion that reestablished the main thesis and added to the credibility of the talk. ____8. The talk was within the appropriate time frame, the conclusion was not rushed, and the body of the talk was not “stretched out” to kill time. ____9. The speaker spoke distinctly with the appropriate volume and speed. Distracting body movement was at a minimum. Positive comment(s):
Constructive criticism:
Figure 1. Sample evaluation form.
1174
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 10 October 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
individual three different semesters and has evolved into a course valued by both students and faculty. Our experience greatly supports the arguments put forth by Bailey (2) for such a course in the United Kingdom. Research has shown that public speaking creates great anxiety in most people, and college students are no exception. Using the Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA), McCroskey found that 70% of college students surveyed demonstrated moderately high to high anxiety toward public speaking (3). Most experts agree that preparation and practice are the keys to decreasing that anxiety (3, 4). Many chemistry faculty have developed courses in which oral communication plays a role (5–9) and many classes require students to make oral presentations (10–11). However, this new course is unique because it requires chemistry majors to come together and give talks relevant to the chemistry that they are currently learning. The course shares some common points with two courses described for chemical engineering majors (12–13), and much of it is taught in a multiyear integrated course in the United Kingdom (14). However, a course of this type for chemistry majors in the United States could not be found in the literature. Objectives of the Course Initially, the objectives for the course were modest: decrease student anxiety about public speaking while teaching students to prepare better oral presentations. Now the course also teaches students to use PowerPoint and ISIS/Draw (15) and requires a poster presentation at the end. A secondary objective of the course was not related to oral communication. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga has a large chemistry department with over 150 chemistry majors and an additional 50 prepharmacy majors, many of whom later become chemistry majors. The large (up to 60 students) general chemistry and organic chemistry classes contain many nonmajors as well since there are no separate tracks for these courses. Therefore, it can be difficult for chemistry majors to get to know one another. It was felt that offering this course at the sophomore level would bring students together in a small setting and provide a support group during what is usually a stressful year for them. Course Details Seventeen students were enrolled the first semester the course was taught (Spring 2001). It was a struggle to have time for each of the students to present one team talk and
three individual talks. The following year the course was taught during both the fall and spring semesters, and enrollment was limited to 12 or fewer students each semester. In each semester, during the first class period, students were asked to take the PRPSA. This tool quantifies the anxiety level of each student and provides comparison data with a population of college students. Often merely helping the students to become aware that they are not alone in their anxiety makes them feel better. The text, Dazzle ‘em with Style (16), is used to provide a basis for class discussions on the parts of a talk and visual aids. Poor communication techniques, such as those discussed in Bunnett (17), are discussed and students view a video on preparing scientific talks (18). The entire class usually attends a seminar by a faculty member or invited speaker in the senior-seminar course and then critiques it as a class. The students suggested having a poster session at the end of the course to prepare them for future poster sessions at ACS meetings. Posters have been presented every semester with excellent results. In addition to giving talks to the class, each student evaluates the talks of the other students using an evaluation form similar to the one shown in Figure 1. The smaller class size of Fall and Spring 2002 made it much easier for each student to make more presentations and to learn ISIS/Draw and PowerPoint. ISIS/Draw, from MDL, is a drawing package for chemical structures. It was selected because it is free for academic and personal home use, thus allowing the students to download it to their computers at home if they chose. Permission was obtained from MDL to load the program onto the computers in the university student lab. The class spent two class periods in the university student computer lab learning to use ISIS/Draw and completing an assignment to produce several complex structures. The instructor was present, checking for completion of the assignment and answering questions. In addition, the class spent one class period in the computer lab completing an assignment to produce PowerPoint slides for individual talks 3 and 4. Although some of the students were familiar with PowerPoint, few knew how to import information and some had never used the program at all. The students imported structures into their slides from ISIS/Draw or Web sites as needed. Although the PowerPoint slides were only used to make transparencies for talk 3, students were required to make a PowerPoint presentation for their last talk. By spring 2002, the course had evolved into five talks for each student, the first with a partner for moral support, and the other four individual talks ranging from 3–12 minutes (see Table 1). Students were allowed to select their own
Table 1. Student Talks in New Course Topic
Length/min
Points
Description of Talk
Team common topic
2–3
15
Team
Chemical and Engineering News article
3–4
10
Individual
Any science-based article
05–60
20
Individual
Article relevant to current chemistry course
08–10
30
Individual
Teach course topic from a current chemistry course
10–12
40
Individual
Poster session
40
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 10 October 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
1175
In the Classroom
Table 2. Course Schedule for Spring 2002 Week
Description
1
Take the PRPSA. Select teams for presentations on common topics (how to change a tire, make a meal, etc.). Read and discuss text, chapters 1 and 2. Watch video. Make team presentations.
2
Attend departmental seminar and evaluate as a class. Read and discuss chapters 3 and 4 in text. Select Chemical and Engineering News articles for first individual talk, talk 1.
3
Students give talk 1 (videotaped). Take videos home to critique. Bring in science-based articles of interest for talk 2.
4
Go to computer lab to work on PowerPoint. Practice talk 2 in small groups. Give immediate feedback.
5
Give talk 2. For talk 3, find an article on a topic relevant to a chemistry course in which the student is currently enrolled.
6
Go to computer lab to work on ISIS/Draw. Prepare structures for talk 3.
7
Practice talk 3. Give talk 3.
8
Continue with presentations of talk 3. Meet in groups to discuss course topics to be taught in talk 4. Avoid duplication.
9
Meet with a faculty “expert” to get approval of the teaching outline. Prepare all talk materials. Bring materials to class to load onto the computer.
10
Students give talk 4 (videotaped).
11
Presentations of talk 4 continue.
12
Turn in self-evaluation from watching both videotapes. Discuss improvements, problems, etc. Retake PRPSA. Read text pp 140–149.
13
Prepare poster materials. Make posters. Attend departmental seminar.
14
Present posters to the department.
topics for each talk with instructor limitations. The first talk summarized a short article in Chemical and Engineering News, copies of which were provided to the students to keep. The second talk could be on any topic selected by the student as long as it was science-related. The third talk had to be relevant to a chemistry course in which the sudent was currently (or recently) enrolled. For most students this was organic chemistry, which provided an almost unlimited number of possible topics. The last talk was probably the most difficult. Each student had to teach a topic from their current course using PowerPoint and chemical structures. Examples of student topics include alkane nomenclature, geometric isomers, chiral molecules, and electron delocalization. This topic was then used for their poster presentation. The department supplied the heavy foam poster boards (which we reuse) and the construction paper, and one class period was spent assembling posters. The course schedule for Spring 2002 can be seen in Table 2. Evaluation of the Course The most easily quantifiable measure of the course’s success is the distribution of scores on the PRPSA. The score on the PRPSA can range from 34 (very low anxiety) to 170 (very high anxiety). The distribution of scores for each of the three semesters the course has been taught can be seen in Table 3.
1176
Unfortunately, the first time the course was taught there was no end-of-semester repeat of the survey. However, a repeat of the PRPSA at the end of each semester during the 2001–2002 school year showed a marked decrease in the number of students at the high anxiety levels. Written and verbal comments from the students indicated that they believed the greatest benefits were obtained from the talks themselves, followed by the evaluation of other students’ talks and watching their own videos (talks 1 and 4 were videotaped). Students say they learned the most from talk 4, in which the student teaches an actual course topic. Not only do the presenters learn the topic well, but also other students have been heard to say that they “finally understand” what they had not quite grasped in that course. The poster sessions have been equally successful. The posters themselves have improved with each semester, especially after PowerPoint and ISIS/Draw were introduced for making the slides. The posters are set up in a large classroom and faculty and students are invited to attend (with cookies as a bribe). Not only do the faculty walk through and question the presenters, but former students like to check out the next group’s work as well. The addition of PowerPoint and ISIS/Draw has even solicited comments from earlier students such as “it isn’t fair that we didn’t learn that”. As for our secondary objective, introducing our majors to one another, student comments during and after the course
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 10 October 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom Table 3. Distribution of Students‘ PRPSA Results Semester
Na
Very Low Anxiety 34–84
Spring 2001
16
1
1
3
4
7
Fall 2001
12
0
2
2
4
4
11
2
2
4
2
1
8
1
1
3
1
2
8
3
1
3
1
0
Fall 2001
b
Spring 2002 Spring 2002 a
b
Low Anxiety 85–92
Moderately Low Anxiety 93–110
Moderately High Anxiety 111–119
High Anxiety 120–170
Number of students taking PRPSA.
b
Results at the end of the semester. All others were results from the beginning of the semester.
seem to suggest that this objective is being successfully met. Students taking the class were observed together at other times in the library, the hallways, or sitting together in other classes. It became obvious during the semester that the students were becoming more comfortable with one another (and the instructor) and were enjoying the course, even though several of them shared that they had dreaded taking it. One student wrote, “It was encouraging to know at the beginning that most people felt scared/nervous about public speaking. (She) made a very scary class much more fun and worthwhile than I thought it could be.” As instructor of the course, I have benefitted by getting to know most of our sophomore chemistry majors well. Because I teach general chemistry and advise freshman majors, I had met many of them before but did not know them well. In addition, the class is informal enough that students often ask questions about the curriculum, scheduling, advising, selecting a concentration, and so forth during spare moments, so it has become an important source of information for them. For example, students were given information about research and selecting a research advisor for the following year, and many are now enrolled for research. This is not to say that they might not have learned all of this on their own, but having a common course where such questions could be asked was an added benefit to a course that also fulfilled their oral communication requirement. Ideas for the Future The course continues to evolve. In the future I plan to have students select from the ACS Chemical Careers in Brief (19) for an early talk topic, thus exposing students to new career ideas. The poster session, ISIS/Draw, and PowerPoint will definitely be in future syllabi. Videotaping the student talks adds another layer of discomfort for the students, but since the student takes the video home and evaluates it in privacy it is far more beneficial than harmful. So far I have used only written evaluations of student talks, both from the students and me, although I realize other faculty in other departments verbally critique students in front of the entire class. All talks so far have been made to their fellow classmates. It has been suggested that we include lay audiences for one or more of the talks as well, and this will be considered for future semesters. Students during Spring 2002 suggested that it would be helpful to see an example of a good presentation and poster.
Therefore, I obtained the permission of two students to use their videotapes and posters as examples for future students. This, I believe, will be helpful to future students while at the same time acknowledging particularly well-done presentations. Literature Cited 1. Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1999. 2. Bailey, P. D. University Chemical Education. http:// www.rsc.org/uchemed/papers/2001/p14_bailey_nyholm.htm (accessed Jul 2003). 3. Richmond, V. P.; McCroskey, J. C. Communication Apprehension, Avoidance, and Effectiveness, 5th ed.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, 1998. 4. Booth, V. Communicating in Science: Writing a Scientific Paper and Speaking at Scientific Meetings, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1993. 5. Nilsson, M. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 628. 6. Kimbrough, D. R.; Dyckes, D. F.; Mlady, G. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 295–296. 7. Wallner, A. S.; Latosi-Sawin, E. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1404–1406. 8. Youmans, H. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1973, 50, 565–566. 9. Wieder, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 1053–1055. 10. Werner, T. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 37, 140–141. 11. Silverstein, T. P.; Hudak, N. J.; Chapple, F. H.; Goodney, D. E.; Brink, C. P.; Whitehead, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 150–152. 12. Brewster, B. S.; Hecker, W. C. Chem. Eng. Educ. 1988, 22, 48–50. 13. Felder, R. M. Chem. Eng. Educ. 1988, 22, 84–86. 14. Kerr, W. J.; Murray, R. E. G.; Moore, B. D.; Nonhebel, D. C. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 191–194. 15. ISIS/Draw by MDL. http://www.mdli.com/ (accessed Jul 2003). 16. Anholt, R. R. H. Dazzle ‘em with Style: The Art of Oral Scientific Presentation; W. H. Freeman and Company: New York, 1994. 17. Bunnett, J. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 1119. 18. Effective Oral Presentations; American Chemical Society Video Courses: Washington, DC, 1991. 19. Chemical Careers in Brief; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 10 October 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
1177
