Stepwise Approach To Writing Journal-Style Lab Reports in the

Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Stepwise Approach To Writing Journal-Style Lab Reports in the Organic Chemistry Course Sequence Jay Wm. Wackerly* Department of Chemistry, Central College, 812 University Street, Pella, Iowa 50219, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: An approach is described that gradually transitions second-year organic chemistry students to writing full The Journal of Organic Chemistry (JOC) style lab reports. The primary goal was to introduce students to and build rhetorical skills in scientific and technical writing. This was accomplished by focusing on four main strategies utilizing a stepwise method where assignments progress from lower- to higher-level writing tasks, collaborative writing, journal-style lab reports, and imitation. This approach is built upon work from numerous educators and combines them into a unique pedagogical writing tool to enhance student learning. KEYWORDS: Second-Year Undergraduate, Organic Chemistry, Communication/Writing, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Nomenclature/Units/Symbols, Applications of Chemistry, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary

■

BACKGROUND

Table 1. Examples of Problems Observed in Student Writing

Improving Student Writing

Problems

Strategies for improving student writing in the undergraduate science curriculum1 can be categorized as a component of the broader writing across the curriculum2 (WAC) movement. A fundamental principle of the WAC movement is “the notion that writing should be an integral part of the learning process throughout a student’s education.”3 Regarded as a feature of many WAC strategies, Writing in the Disciplines3 (WID) encourages the writing of formal documents that “adhere to the format and style guidelines typical of the professional genres”. WID is often implemented in science courses via the lab report since it is an established venue for student writing.4 Herein, a WID approach is described that is integrated across a year-long organic chemistry laboratory course sequence designed to prepare students for advanced scientific courses and sciencerelated careers. This work was motivated by the observation of pervasive writing issues in lab reports at the author’s institution (Table 1). Unsurprisingly, numerous other educators have observed similar issues.4−13 While there are a plethora of published examples describing pedagogical strategies for dealing with these writing issues,1 the theoretical framework for this approach was formed around four complementary strategies: stepwise writing, collaborative writing, journal-style reports, and imitation. These strategies were chosen because they have been successfully implemented by chemistry and writing educators (vide inf ra) and align well with the writing outcomes of the graduation requirements at the author’s institution. This approach utilizes components of these four strategies and © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

Conventions of scientific writing Scientific vocabulary Concision in writing Formatting/organization Flow/style Sense of audience Substantiating claims General writing abilities

Themes Also Noted in Other Works (References in This Paper) 5−8 5, 7, and 8 5, 6, and 9 5, 7, 9, and 10 5 and 7 4 and 5 4 and 5 4, 9, 11, 12, and 13

combines them into a pedagogical tool to help undergraduates develop disciplinary technical writing skills. Stepwise Writing

Increasing writing complexity over time was established within the undergraduate chemistry curriculum by Rosenthal4 who illustrated a hierarchy based on a report by Kiniry and Strenski.14 Rosenthal categorized different aspects of the undergraduate lab report into the hierarchy of writing complexity shown in Figure 1, which paralleled aspects of the cognitive process dimension of “Bloom’s taxonomy”,15 and contained three levels each with three writing tasks. For example, she argued lab notebook entries are low-level, Experimental Methods sections are medium-level, and proper Discussion sections are high-level writing tasks. Both reports4,14 Received: August 19, 2016 Revised: July 14, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00630 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

hierarchy. It is therefore a type of progressive strategy and shares many similarities with “scaffolding”.17,18 Collaborative Writing

Collaborative writing has frequently been an integral component of scientific discovery.22,23 PubMed indicates that of their indexed citations from 2010 to 2014 the average number of authors per article was 5.14.24 This increase in focus on scientific collaboration has been met, and possibly fueled, by accounts of integrating collaborative writing, along with collaborative learning, in the laboratory.25−29 These efforts generated results indicating that collaborative work leads to multiple positive student outcomes in the undergraduate curriculum.25−27 Journal-Style Lab Reports

The utilization of journal-style lab reports in the chemistry curriculum has become prevalent because it provides students with a sense of purpose for the assignment since it is an authentic form of professional writing.5,19 This style of report also helps with the problem of audience for the student writer30,31 because it makes a clear effort to shift the audience from the grader/instructor to a well-defined, scientifically literate reader. This strategy can also be formulated to incorporate writing tasks at any level of writing complexity.31−33 The WID focus helps students develop professional writing33 and critical thinking skills.4,27,34

Figure 1. Structure of the cognitive process dimension of Bloom’s revised taxonomy (left, ref 15) and Rosenthal’s arrangement of writing tasks (right, ref 4) in order of increasing levels of complexity.

noted that the expectations of the instructor can be used to modulate the task level to target desired writing outcomes. Also, in any given course the hierarchy does not need to be followed sequentially: For example, Kiniry and Strenski note that in their composition class they teach summary before classification. Selectively targeting writing levels, and hence learning goals, for lab reports has been found to be effective in general,16,17 organic,5,18 and upper-level10,19 chemistry classes and laboratories. These instructors introduced tasks employing lower levels of writing complexity before progressing to higher-level aspects, often following Rosenthal’s hierarchy. This implementation has often been categorized as a “progressive” writing strategy, and though this term has been often been utilized, a specific definition has seemingly not been agreed upon.5,10,19−21 Here I propose to specifically define a “stepwise” writing strategy as the graduated progression over time from lesscomplex to more-complex writing tasks based on Rosenthal’s

Imitation

While the three strategies outlined above have been previously addressed in the chemical education literature,1 little attention has been paid to the pedagogical strategy of imitation, also known as modeling. The rhetorical style of imitation has been prevalent for centuries35−37 (see Supporting Information) and modern practitioners of imitation pedagogy view it as an effective strategy to teach new styles and structures.38−40 For example, Gorrell38 argues that imitation allows “beginning writers [to] learn how to use familiar syntactic structures and conventions of punctuation.” Students entering the organic chemistry course sequence can typically be categorized as “beginning technical writers”. Since the form of a lab report is specific and often different for each technical discipline,

Table 2. Overview of Lab Reports Experiment

Report

a

1 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a Semester break 7d 8d 9d 10d 11d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Laboratory Title

Sections Written by Students b

IR Spectroscopy and Functional Groups Extraction of Caffeine from Tea Leaves TLC and Column Chromatography Analysis of Unknowns SN1 and SN2 Reactions Dehydration of Cyclohexanol

Nonreport format Results (“fill in the blank” format) Results, Abstract Results, Abstract, Discussion (abbreviatedc) Results, Abstract, Conclusion, Discussion (abbreviatedc) Results, Abstract, Conclusion, Experimental, Introduction (abbreviatedc)

Polymerization of Styrene Diels−Alder Reactions Synthesis of Ibuprofenf Production of DBA by Aldol Condensation Dyes and Dyeing

Results, Abstract, Conclusion, Results, Abstract, Conclusion, Results, Abstract, Conclusion, Results, Abstract, Conclusion, Nonreport formath

Discussione Experimental, Discussione Experimental, Discussion, Introductione,g Experimental, Discussion, Introductione,g

a

Reports are graded by student graders who have taken the course previously with the instructor. bThe graded material for this lab is in the form of a worksheet. cThis section does not require students to write at high levels of writing complexity; it provides students the opportunity to try writing shortened versions in a low-risk (few points) setting. dReports are graded by the instructor. eThe instructor offers students the ability to schedule writing conferences 1 week prior to the report due date. fFive week, multistep synthesis lab. gBonus points are offered for conducting peer review of another student’s complete draft at the Writing Center. hStudents complete a short answer assignment about the dyes synthesized in the lab and related information mined from SciFinder. B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00630 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 2. Excerpt from the Extraction of Caffeine from Tea Leaves lab report template. Students are instructed to delete the bracketed hints and tips.

them); students only supply aspects of the procedure and data gathered during the experiment, or “results”, and a few other minor details in the blank spaces provided. The level of writing complexity is intentionally kept low, similar to the complexity level of a general chemistry report. Figure 2 shows an excerpt of the Experimental Section which contains over a quarter of the graded points. Throughout the course sequence, writing responsibilities are incrementally transferred from the course instructor/“expert” in the field to the students. After the first report, entire sections of the report templates are gradually removed. In the second report, students supply the results and abstract. This increases the writing complexity to medium-level since the abstract is a summary.21,46 Because this is the only narrative piece required for the report, students can focus on this slightly higher-level writing task. As the first semester advances, students write new sections for each report, but the writing complexity is mostly kept at medium-level to allow for repetition and the development of technical writing skills at this level. During the second semester the templates continue to contain fewer instructor written sections as the students move into higher-level writing. Each report requires the students to write a discussion combined with the results as a Results and Discussion section per JOC guidelines. Appropriate discussion topics are shared with students via the rubric. Figure 3 shows an example of part of the rubric for the Polymerization of Styrene lab.47 This example rubric highlights the emphasis added to the Results and Discussion section, as it is worth 36% of the grade for this lab. Beginning with this report, students are encouraged to sign up for optional writing conferences with the instructor, which are offered 4 days prior to the due date of each report. Students write a full report with no template for the final two laboratories. As in many second semester organic chemistry courses, a multistep synthesis lab is included in the curriculum. This multistep synthesis of ibuprofen48 is the focal point of this approach because it is the first report written from “scratch”. The largest portion of the lab grade (Figure 4) comes from this and the final report as the culmination of this writing approach. Students can earn bonus points in nonlab partner pairs for performing and receiving peer review of these last two reports under the supervision of a Writing Center tutor.

students can become confused by this new rhetorical form. Since many writing and science instructors favor content over form,2,19 an imitation based approach to writing lab reports would allow students to focus on the content of their writing while mimicking, and thus also learning, the form of technical writing.

■

APPROACH

Overview

This approach was developed at a small, residential liberal arts college. Over the past three years the average class size entering the two semester organic chemistry sequence was 48 students and ended with an average class size of 30 students. The first semester course was populated by predominantly biology majors (ca. 67%), then exercise science majors (ca. 18%), and then followed by biochemistry (ca. 13%) and chemistry majors (ca. 10%); the second semester course exhibited the same trend only without exercise science majors.41 The majority of students who completed the course sequence declared intention to pursue careers as scientists or medical professionals (see survey data in the Supporting Information). The laboratory portion of the course was coupled with the lecture, and the same instructor taught both lecture and lab for the entire cohort of students. In this approach, postlaboratory assignments (Table 2) are required after the completion of each lab; however, two of the “wet” laboratories and all of the first semester “dry” laboratories42 have differing formats. Students complete a total of nine reports written in the format of The Journal of Organic Chemistry (JOC) over the two semesters. Students choose to write each report either collaboratively with their randomly assigned lab partner or individually. Graded reports with feedback43 and points noted on the rubric44 are returned at least 1 week prior to the due date of the subsequent report. Description

At the beginning of the course students are provided an overview of the JOC style lab reports, presented with instructions on how to write such a report, and given access (via a course management system) to a Microsoft Word document of an annotated example of a model report. The students’ first exposure to report writing occurs about one-third of the way through the semester for the Extraction of Caffeine from Tea Leaves lab.45 The students are reminded of reportspecific information and given access to a report template in Word and a copy of the grading rubric for the report (see Supporting Information). For this first report the template is nearly complete (i.e., almost the entire report is written for

■

ANALYSIS AND OUTLOOK

Improving Student Writing

Anecdotally, this approach resulted in improvements in each category outlined in Table 1. This assertion was supported by grades, across the second semester and over years of teaching, C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00630 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

students can smoothly transition into organic chemistry from the general chemistry lab curriculum where, for example, they employ lower-level writing tasks like reporting results and recording lab notebook entries.49 Since the first lab report only requires students to report data that are available from their lab notebook, the first report is generally regarded as “easy”. This deliberate assignment of a low-level writing task allows students to engage with, not just passively observe, a nearly complete report that models the style, format, conventions, etc. of a journal-style lab report. The stepwise writing strategy slowly increases the writing complexity of each report and helps keep the work load relatively constant throughout the year, since iterations of writing the same section take less time. Work load is also balanced by having fewer lab reports due as the course progresses. The requirement of only nine reports (Table 2) over two semesters provides students adequate time for analysis, reflection, and writing. The only two fully student written reports are both due during the latter half of the second semester. This schedule affords ample time for writing, revising, and making use of course resources like writing conferences and the Writing Center. While constructing their first full report students are encouraged to write in a process order (i.e., Experimental → Results → Discussion → Introduction → Conclusion/ Abstract/Title) as has been suggested for writing journal article-style papers in upper-division courses.21 In addition to other sections students wrote in previous reports, each full report requires an Introduction. The extra time allotted during the second semester allows for in-depth investigations and the formulation of academic arguments as well as providing students the opportunity to express their individual writing styles and/or interests in applications of the chemistry.

Figure 3. Excerpt from the Polymerization of Styrene lab report rubric.

Collaborative Writing

Generally, students write their reports with their lab partner rather than by themselves. This stems from the perception of decreased work for the student, but it is also ideal for grading and the collaborative learning process. Collaborative writing, however, is not without its challenges (see Supporting Information for additional examples). For example, higherachieving students often report they perform the majority of the work when paired with a lower-achieving student. For this reason, partners are rotated after each lab. This provides students opportunities to work with many different people in the lab, sometimes in heterogeneous groups which has been identified as an essential skill for many careers.50 While there are many options available to assign lab partners,51 random selection with reassignment of partners at the start of each new lab appears to be optimal. Students view this process as “fair”, and it cuts down on some students’ anxiety about obtaining the “ideal” lab partner. A benefit of collaborative writing comes from the use of online word processors. This technology permits students to work with each other even when separated by distance and/or time. This aids in addressing an often cited student criticism of collaborative learning: not having time to meet.50 Even with the spatial and temporal freedom this software provides, student partners can still be found sitting side-by-side in the computer lab working on separate computers editing and writing the same document simultaneously. In a separate component of collaborative learning, students are allowed to complete peer review of another student’s manuscript for the last two reports, as long as the paper was not

Figure 4. Contribution of each report to the percentage of the overall lab grade.

and by student surveys (see Supporting Information). While the explicit development of writing skills and the implicit development of analytical and scientific thinking skills were the goals of this approach, a controlled study with a large sample size is still required to support the anecdotal evidence. Though significant learning gains seem apparent, this approach is by no means a panacea for student writing problems. The level of improvement of writing skills occurs to varying extents, and on occasion, new concerns appear depending on the individual student. The remainder of this section contains reflection and critical analysis of this approach as it is currently implemented. Stepwise Writing

Increasing writing complexity over time allows students to acclimate to the expectations of a journal-style lab report. Thus, D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00630 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

higher-level writing tasks later in the year. Because the model reports and templates are already provided, each report can be viewed as a collaborative writing effort between the instructor and students to produce the final document. Students are even encouraged to copy and paste relevant components from previous reports then edit the passage to fit the current experiment. In addition to this being an established method for teaching writing conventions,38,39 I find this strategy satisfying as a mechanism for collaboration to connect and engage with students in a new way. However, issues do occur with this strategy (see Supporting Information). For example, in the discussion section students often have difficulty substantiating scientific claims. Providing data to support assertions,4,5,55 a fundamental component of scientific discourse, does not initially seem to be a priority for these predominantly second-year students. Examples of interpretation of IR spectra from the instructor model and a student56 are highlighted in Table 3. The middle statement,

written by their lab partner. Peer review is both a critical piece in the written communication of scientific literature and has been shown to be effective in the teaching of writing.19,52 However, in attempts to balance the work load for this secondyear level course, peer review is not required, but a small amount of bonus points are offered (0.2% of the course grade). Students are rewarded for using the rubric to provide feedback and putting forth effort in completion of the peer review. While students find this introduction to the peer review of technical writing to be moderately helpful, this strategy is likely more effective to set up peer review for subsequent advanced science courses. Journal-Style Reports

JOC was chosen as the model journal for students to imitate as it can be considered the “flagship” journal for the field of organic chemistry, and thus, the model is externally validated by its reputation in the discipline. To the extent it is feasible, students write the reports as though they will submit them to JOC for review/publication. However, pedagogically, it may not be appropriate to follow all of the JOC conventions as there are some limitations provided by the nature of the course. For example, JOC requires that all newly synthesized compounds be analyzed by both high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) and 13C NMR spectroscopy (or elemental analysis); however, some institutions do not possess a HRMS instrument, and having each group obtain a 13C NMR spectrum is often time prohibitive. Sometimes JOC conventions add unnecessary complications that take away from the writing focus. For example, a separate Supporting Information document is not required, but when students hand in paper copies of their reports, all relevant spectra, typically labeled IR and 1H NMR spectra, and mechanisms are attached to the end. These and other minor details do separate the “lab report” format from a true “journal article”, but the narrative components of the report are expected to be nearly identical in both styles. For example, writing to an audience of knowledgeable chemists seems challenging initially, but with each report and feedback the transition to understanding their audience comes to most students fairly quickly. However, it seems to take most students until the end of the entire year to grasp the JOC narrative style and formatting guidelines. Though significantly decreased, even at the end of the second semester phrases that use inappropriate technical voice,53,54 measurements with improper units, and sections with superfluous wording are still found. In an effort to address these issues specifically, the top of each rubric contains a “Formatting & Quality” section. This section is consistently the lowest scoring part of each report, by percentage, which is unsurprising since, for most students, this course serves as an introduction to technical writing. In order to allow students to acclimate to the conventions of scientific writing this section is worth only a small percentage of the grade (≤10%) allowing students to focus more on the content of the report. Overall this JOC style report writing strategy is valuable because students are introduced to technical writing in a manner that “real scientists” use to communicate information; the development of these skills will help students in future science classes as well as in their professional careers.33

Table 3. Examples of Claims Made by the Instructor on the Model Report (Top) and a Student, Who Was near the Median in Overall Course Grade, On the Sixth57 (Middle) and Ninth58 Reports (Bottom) Representative Example by the Instructor IR spectroscopy results and discussion from the model report: “IR analysis of 1 (Figure 1, attached ) showed peaks at 3071, 1682, 1610, and 1590 cm−1 which were due to Csp2-H, CO, CC, and CC stretching frequencies respectively; also a broad peak from 3100−2500 cm−1 indicated the presence of an O−H bond.” Representative Examples by one Student IR spectroscopy results and discussion from the Diels−Alder report: “NMR and IR analysis confirmed this product.” IR spectroscopy results and discussion from the Aldol Condensation report: “Figure 1 shows the IR spectra confirming the product having a CO carbonyl peak at 1621.0 cm−1 and two CC peaks at 1653.2 cm−1 and 1592.2 cm−1.”

provided by a student who earned a median course grade, could call into question their ability to properly characterize organic compounds. However, by the final report the student’s style more closely resembled the model statement. This trend of writing improvement in the ability to make scientific and academic arguments appears to be relatively consistent for all students. Anecdotal Feedback

Each class was asked to fill out course survey forms three times over the course of the year-long sequence with specific questions regarding this approach embedded in these surveys (see survey data in the Supporting Information).56 It should be noted that the sample size of each class was small, the instructor was highly invested in the success of this approach, and the data reflect opinions of most students’ first technical writing course. These science majors seem to neither like nor dislike writing in general (Figure 5), but compared to writing lab reports, writing lab reports with this approach was perceived as slightly more enjoyable. More specific feedback showed that students perceived that this approach significantly improves their knowledge of scientific writing conventions, concision in writing, and technical writing skills and somewhat improves their sense of audience, confidence in writing, and basic writing skills. It was heartening to see that students perceived an increase in these skills because clear improvements in nearly every student over

Imitation

The new component of this approach is the focus on “modeling” the kind of writing appropriate for JOC papers. The main benefit comes when the students begin to encounter E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00630 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

■

Copy of each report template and rubric provided to the students, relevant student survey data, a brief history of imitation pedagogy, and notes on grading considerations for instructors implementing this approach (PDF) Sample report (PDF, DOCX)

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Jay Wm. Wackerly: 0000-0001-6975-4431 Notes

The author declares no competing financial interest.

Figure 5. Student survey on perceptions of improvements due to this approach and enjoyment of writing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

■

REFERENCES

Susan Pagnac, Director of Writing at Central College, and departmental colleagues James Dunne and Cathy Haustein are heartily acknowledged for their suggestions and insights during the development of both this approach and the manuscript.

the course of the sequence were evident. However, students rated confidence in their writing abilities the lowest of all questions of this type asked which was a bit disconcerting. Moving forward, implementing strategies that build confidence in technical writing should promote an increase in writing ability over the long term.59 Two ways to increase student confidence are to put more emphasis on positive feedback for graded reports53 and to encourage more students to schedule writing conferences. Generally the students who attended writing conferences agreed they were helpful for improving their writing. This was likely due to a myriad of reasons outlined elsewhere,60 but I would like to think the relational aspect played a major role. Developing a rapport with individual students and showing that instructors are invested in their success as a technical writer do seem to motivate them. A survey of the most recent graduating class (2016) who took the 2013−2014 course sequence was conducted (see survey data in the Supporting Information). Though improvements to the approach have been implemented since that year, this was the best instrument available to obtain a long-term perspective about how this approach affected their writing. Overall, students felt that this approach improved their basic writing skills and made them better writers as well as better scientists. Both surveys suggest that this approach improved disciplinary-specific technical writing, which was also supported by instructor observations. However, a wide-ranging, controlled investigation and analysis will be necessary to fully determine the efficacy of this approach.

(1) In consideration of length and scope of this article only some representative publications that supply examples or overviews of the relevant chemistry education literature are provided. See refs 4−13, 16−21, and 25−29. (2) For examples see: (a) Melzer, D. Assignments Across the Curriculum: A National Study of College Writing; Utah State: Logan, 2014. (b) Russell, D. R. Writing in the Academic Disciplines, 1870− 1990: A Curricular History; SIU: Carbondale, IL, 1991. (3) The WAC Clearinghouse. http://wac.colostate.edu/ (accessed Mar 2017). (4) Rosenthal, L. C. Writing Across the Curriculum: Chemistry Lab Reports. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64 (12), 996−998. (5) Alaimo, P. J.; Bean, J. C.; Langenhan, J. M.; Nichols, L. Eliminating Lab Reports: A Rhetorical Approach for Teaching the Scientific Paper in Sophomore Organic Chemistry. WAC Journal 2009, 20, 17−32. (6) Wallner, A. S.; Latosi-Sawin, E. Technical Writing and Communication in a Senior-Level Chemistry Seminar. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (10), 1404−1406. (7) Carr, J. M. Using a Collaborative Critiquing Technique To Develop Chemistry Students’ Technical Writing Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (6), 751−754. (8) Kovac, J.; Sherwood, D. W. Writing in Chemistry An Effective Learning Tool. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (10), 1399−1403. (9) Bailey, D. N.; Markowicz, L. Chemistry and English: A New Bond. J. Chem. Educ. 1983, 60 (6), 467−468. (10) Van Bramer, S. E.; Bastin, L. D. Using a Progressive Paper to Develop Students’ Writing Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (6), 745− 750. (11) Pyle, J. L.; Trammell, G. L. Contemporary Chemical Essays: Dealing with the Writing Problem in a Freshman Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59 (11), 959−960. (12) Steiner, R. Chemistry and the Written Word. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59 (12), 1044. (13) Schepmann, H. G.; Hughes, L. A. Chemical Research Writing: A Preparatory Course for Student Capstone Research. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (7), 1024−1028. (14) Kiniry, M.; Strenski, E. Sequencing Expository Writing: A Recursive Approach. College Composition and Communication 1985, 36 (2), 191−202. (15) Krathwohl, D. R. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice 2002, 41 (4), 212−218.

■

CONCLUSION A year-long approach to writing lab reports in a second-year undergraduate organic chemistry course has been described. The approach applies a stepwise writing progression to introduce technical writing to science students utilizing the pedagogical strategies of imitation, journal-style reports, and collaborative learning. Instructor evaluation and student feedback indicate that this approach is effective at improving student writing.

■

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00630. F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00630 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(36) Mendelson, M. Many Sides: A Protagorean Approach to the Theory, Practice and Pedagogy of Argument; Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2002; pp 209−212. (37) Burton, G. O. Silva Rhetoricae; http://rhetoric.byu.edu (accessed Mar 2017). (38) Gorrell, D. Freedom to WriteThrough Imitation. Journal of Basic Writing 1987, 6 (2), 53−59. (39) Birkenstein, C.; Graff, G. Point of View: In Teaching Composition, ‘Formulaic’ Is Not a Four-Letter Word. Style 2008, 42 (1), 18−21. (40) Keil, K. This I Believe: Modeling Belongs in the Composition Classroom. Journal of Teaching Writing 2008, 24 (2), 1−15. (41) Common double majors included biology−exercise science and biology−biochemistry. Students double majoring in biology−exercise science did enroll in the second semester organic chemistry course. (42) The “dry” laboratories typically focus on instrumental analysis techniques in the organic curriculum (IR, NMR, and MS) and are run via a guided inquiry format. They do not require a formal postlaboratory report and thus are not further discussed in this article. (43) For examples see: (a) Higgins, R.; Hartley, P.; Skelton, A. The Conscientious Consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education 2002, 27 (1), 53−64. (b) Connors, R. J.; Lunsford, A. A. Teachers’ Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers. College Composition and Communication 1993, 44 (2), 200−223. (44) Greenberg, K. P. Rubric Use in Formative Assessment: A Detailed Behavioral Rubric Helps Students Improve Their Scientific Writing Skills. Teaching of Psychology 2015, 42 (3), 211−217. (45) Mitchell, R. H.; Scott, W. A.; West, P. R. The Extraction of Caffeine from Tea. J. Chem. Educ. 1974, 51 (1), 69. (46) The ACS Style Guide states that the abstract should summarize “[the] purpose of the research, [the] theoretical or experimental plan used, [the] principal findings, and [the] major conclusions”. Coghill, A. M.; Garson, L. R., Eds.; Scientific Papers. In The ACS Style Guide, 3rd ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington DC, 2006; pp 21− 22; http://pubs.acs.org/isbn/9780841239999 (accessed Mar 2017). (47) Wackerly, J. W.; Dunne, J. F. Synthesis of Polystyrene and Molecular Weight Determination by 1H NMR End Group Analysis J. Chem. Educ. 2017, DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00814. (48) This lab is modeled after one published by Kjonaas and coworkers only with the addition of the Friedel−Crafts acylation of isobutylbenzene: Kjonaas, R. A.; Williams, P. E.; Counce, D. A.; Crawley, L. R. Synthesis of Ibuprofen in the Introductory Organic Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (6), 825−828. (49) This example of general chemistry laboratory pedagogical practice is provided only as anecdote from the curriculum at the author’s institution. (50) Colbeck, C.; Campbell, S.; Bjorklund, S. Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects. J. Higher Educ. 2000, 71 (1), 60−83. (51) For two examples see: (a) Springer, L.; Stanne, M. E.; Donovan, S. S. Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 1999, 69 (1), 21−51. (b) Barkley, E. F.; Cross, K. P.; Howell, C. Forming Groups. In Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty; Wiley: San Francisco, CA, 2005; pp 43− 53. (52) Russell, A. A. The Evolution of Calibrated Peer Review. In Trajectories of Chemistry Education Innovation and Reform; Holme, T., Cooper, M. M., Varma-Nelson, P., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1145; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013; pp 129−143. (53) Gopen, G. D.; Swan, J. A. The Science of Scientific Writing. Am. Sci. 1990, 78 (6), 550−558. (54) Hudson, R. The Struggle with Scientific Voice. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (12), 1580. (55) Herrington, A. J. Writing in Academic Settings: A Study of the Contexts for Writing in Two College Chemical Engineering Courses. Research in the Teaching of English 1985, 19 (4), 331−361.

(16) Tilstra, L. Using Journal Articles to Teach Writing Skills for Laboratory Reports in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (6), 762−764. (17) Deiner, L. J.; Newsome, D.; Samaroo, D. Directed Self-Inquiry: A Scaffold for Teaching Laboratory Report Writing. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (12), 1511−1514. (18) Weaver, C. L.; Duran, E. C.; Nikles, J. A. An Integrated Approach for Development of Scientific Writing Skills in Undergraduate Organic Lab. In Addressing the Millennial Student in Undergraduate Chemistry; Potts, G. E., Dockery, C. R., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1180; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; pp 105−123. (19) Gragson, D. E.; Hagen, J. P. Developing Technical Writing Skills in the Physical Chemistry Laboratory: A Progressive Approach Employing Peer Review. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (1), 62−65. (20) Jacobs, D. L.; Dalal, H. A.; Dawson, P. H. Integrating Chemical Information Instruction into the Chemistry Curriculum on Borrowed Time: A Multiyear Case Study of a Capstone Research Report for Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (3), 444−451. (21) Robinson, M. S.; Stoller, F. L.; Costanza-Robinson, M. S.; Jones, J. K. Write Like a Chemist: A Guide and Resource; Oxford: New York, 2008. (22) Vermeulen, N.; Parker, J. N.; Penders, B. Understanding Life Together: A Brief History of Collaboration in Biology. Endeavour 2013, 37 (3), 162−171. (23) The first coauthored paper in an ACS journal appears in the 3rd issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society: Prochazka, G. A.; Endemann, H. Notes Upon Chicle. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1879, 1 (3), 50− 64. (24) Number of Authors per MEDLINE/PubMed Citation. http:// www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/authors1.html (accessed Mar 2017). (25) Cooper, M. M. An Introduction to Small-Group Learning. In Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching; Pienta, N. P., Cooper, M. M., Greenbowe, T. J., Eds.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005; pp 117−128. (26) Poock, J. R.; Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M. Using the Science Writing Heuristic in the General Chemistry Laboratory To Improve Students’ Academic Performance. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (8), 1371−1379. (27) Wenzel, T. J. Collaborative and Project-Based Learning in Analytical Chemistry. In Active Learning; Mabrouk, P. A., Ed.; ACS Symposium Series 970; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2007; pp 54−68. (28) Browne, L. M.; Blackburn, E. V. Teaching Introductory Organic Chemistry: A Problem-Solving and Collaborative-Learning Approach. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (8), 1104−1107. (29) Coppola, B. P.; Lawton, R. G. ″Who Has the Same Substance that I Have?″: A Blueprint for Collaborative Learning Activities. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72 (12), 1120−1122. (30) Moskovitz, C.; Kellogg, D. Inquiry-Based Writing in the Laboratory Course. Science 2011, 332 (6032), 919−920. (31) Rivard, L. P. A Review of Writing to Learn in Science: Implications for Practice and Research. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (9), 969−983. (32) Reynolds, J. A.; Thaiss, C.; Katkin, W.; Thompson, R. J. Writing-to-Learn in Undergraduate Science Education: A CommunityBased, Conceptually Driven Approach. CBE-Life Sciences Education 2012, 11 (1), 17−25. (33) These examples relate to writing in the medical profession: (a) Yanoff, K. L.; Burg, F. D. Types of Medical Writing and Teaching of Writing in U.S. Medical Schools. Journal of Medical Education 1988, 63 (1), 30−37. (b) Rawson, R. E.; Quinlan, K. M.; Cooper, B. J.; Fewtrell, C.; Matlow, J. R. Writing-Skills Development in the Health Professions. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2005, 17 (3), 233−238. (34) Quitadamo, I. J.; Kurtz, M. J. Learning to Improve: Using Writing to Increase Critical Thinking Performance in General Education Biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education 2007, 6 (2), 140−154. (35) Ruthven, K. K. Critical Assumptions; Cambridge, 1979; pp 102− 104. G

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00630 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(56) This research was examined by our institutional review board (IRB) and determined to be “exempt”. (57) Jarret, R. M.; New, J.; Hurley, R.; Gillooly, L. Looking beyond the endo Rule in a Diels-Alder Discovery Lab. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (9), 1262−1263. (58) Huck, L. A.; Leigh, W. J. A Better Sunscreen: Structural Effects on Spectral Properties. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (12), 1384−1387. (59) Pajares, M. F. Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly 2003, 19 (2), 139−158. (60) Lerner, N. The Teacher-Student Writing Conference and the Desire for Intimacy. College English 2005, 68 (2), 186−208.

H

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00630 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX