Using the Chemical Literature To Write an Interesting ~reshmanTerm Paper Larry R. Sherman1 University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325 Without a doubt, assigning a term paper in a freshman chemistry course is an anathema to most professors. The students either write very bad papers or plagiarize someone else's work. Occasionally they "buy" a paper or find upperclassmen towrite it for them.2 Regardless of the source of the nonoriginal works, they are boring to read and often involve chemistry that neither the student nor the professor understands. Instructors agree that the greatest merit in writing a term paper is the development of written communication skills and that only minor benefits are gained from the chemistry. However, this approach tends to reward the students who have a large vocabulary and use good grammar and to penalize the students who have good analytical minds but have not vet develooed communication skills. ~ i e c e narticle3 t presented a unique method for challenging advanced organic students without having them rehash someone else's work. The current paper reporis a technique for producing a worthwhile term paper for second-semester freshmen who are taking a terminal course in inorganic, organic, and biochemistry. The Term Paper 1assiened the term oaoer . . a t the end of the first semester. The assignment ronsisted of writing a review of a biorhemistry-paver - . that had been published in one of the 56 htochemistry journals in the university library within the last year. This requirement either eliminated plagiarism or a t least reduced i t to a recognizable level. The student selected an article of interest and submitted the names of the authors, title of the paper, and journal reference on a 3 X 5 index card. The use of the card prevented two students from selecting the same paper and also allowed me to screen papers that would entail "too much work". At the time the assignment was made, I distributed reprints of one of my recent papers to explain the different parts of a paper, i.e., abstract, background, experimental procedure, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. Since the students were freshmen who had little or no familiarity with scientific journals, they were exposed for the first time to the way scientific information is disseminated. I also distributed reorint reauest cards and ex~lainedhow to obtain a reprint from the primary author. 'l'hr students a,ere required torequest a reprint and include it with their review. This assured that they wrote their review on the article they selected and provided a u,ay to check the information and data in the term paper. The students were give,] the option of either using one of my reprint request cards, whirh meant the reprint came to me, or writing n curd of their own. Most students fear a term paper and do nor u,ork on it until near thedeadline. Bv contrast. thestudents invdrrd in this study were highly mdtivated an'd the title cards began to a. m.e a r the dav after the assienment was made. The term paper topics reflected low technology, i.e., the students selected articles on the chemistry of simple compounds, simple biochemical systems, or articles containing a great deal of biology. Being health profession students, they related bet-
ter to the biology than to the chemistry. Of the 50 cards submitted in the first year, only four titles were rejected as not feasible, and fewer than a dozen were duplicates. Althoueh exact records were not k e ~ tsubseauent . assienments the first year,kithin a prodiced the same basic result; week after the assignment was made. the students beaan to ask if their reprint had arrived. since this produck too much confusion, in subsequent years I had the students write for their own reprints. Like the students writing the "Verbindung Aus" papers,3 my students began to refer to the article as "their paper".
k
Term Paper Form The term paper was divided into three parts: background, review of the article, and student opinion. In the first section, the student described the basic principles behind the studs. Since most of the articles covered elementarv subjects, much of the background came from their textbook, general biochemistry textbooks, or general biology texts. A great deal of this work was copied, but, since this section was referenced and restricted to 250 words, it was well paraphrased. The review section of the term paper was restricted to 750 words, was not comprehensive, and usually highlighted those parts of the articles that the students could understand. Because the students sought the background on the article, the reviews, although not complete, were, on the whole, very well done. Many students admitted that they read the paper four or five times and used a chemical dictionary for understanding. However, since they had three months including the spring break to write the paper, the conscientious students wrote excellent reviews; even the Door students wrote oaoers . that were better than the usual term paper presented in an undergraduate course. The ooinion section of the term Daoer - . was noorer than the first two sections and below my expectations. Most of the ooinions were naive and read like this. "the oaoer was well written, covered the subject well and &as easy to read after one had learned the vocabulary." Very few individuals actually criticized the author's methodology and conclusions. However, a few students were very critical, and one student wondered why anyone would "waste" his time measuring such useless data? I think this section of the term paper, more than the previous two sections, reflected the students' lack of experience in reading the scientific literature. Lastlv. the students were reouired to acknowledee " anv. help, including proofreading, they had received. This eliminated their fear about askina for h e l ~ or attemotine to hide the fact that an upperclass~bioche&stry studenthad explained the concepts and meaning of the paper. From the acknowledgments, it was evident that help had been sought &
-
' Work performed at Universlty of Scranton, Scranton. PA 18510. Pyle, J. L.; Trammell, G. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59, 959-960. Thoman. C. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63.859. Volume 65 Number 11 November 1988
993
among faculty, students, and library personnel. Again, the ~ r o i e ctaught t the students how to obtain assistance and to "sewtheuniGersity resources. Results
Although many student statements were naive and simolistic to the ooint of error. the oaDers were written at the ievel of the students' knokledie. he students made no attemot to imoress the reader with knowledge thev did not have. kecausethe structure of the paper prohibited copying from an advanced text, the papers actually helped the student to learn the chemistry, and the writing became a secondary aspect of the assignment. One student even quoted his term paper on a test. On the whole, the papers were enjoyable to read. The students also enjoyed the project. In their comments, it was evident that the assignment was not just another academic chore, but a learning experience. They learned how to find information when i t was not given to them by the instructor. and manv students had to teach themselves, a learning situation almost unknown in our education system. In summarv, the assignment matured the students beyond my wildestdreams. A number of humorous incidents occurred. One student received her reprint addressed "Dr." and she went about telling everyone she was now a doctor. Another student received a ohotoconv of the eallev oroofs of the article with a note from the akihor ex$aining that it took months for reorints to arrive but that he was delighted to h e l ~ her with her "science project". The responses tb the reprint requests and oDenness of the facultv, staff, and students not only astonfshed the class but hklped them t o understand the scientific community.
. Discussion This is not the type of assignment that can be made to a large class. In the three years I used this teaching technique,
994
Journal of Chemical Education
I never had more than 50 students in the terminal course. The amount of time spent is not much more than that required for writing and grading of a long essay test. One lecture and part of a second were required to acquaint the student with the assignment, to explain scientific journals, how and why papers were published, theobligations of scientists to the scientific community, the purpose of a reprint, and what the students were expected to learn from the assignment. The last item was extremely important in making the task a learning experience and not just another assignment. About 30 days before the term paper's deadline, half a lecture was devoted to formand style of the paper, especially the opinion section. I never read any of the articles when the assignment cards were submitted. If I could not judge the difficulty or relevance of the paper from the title or authors, I either quizzed the students about the article or steered them into another paper. About 15 minutes were devoted each day to scanning the material or discussing the papers with the students. Early in the assignment, i t was necessary to explain the organization of the chemical literature to students who could not find a suitable article. As the reprints arrived, some time was spent in explaining the chemical theory to students who needed help. Although the time was about the same as required for a difficult written exam, it was spread over several months rather than a few days prior to a test. Each paper required 20-45 minutes to read and grade; the time depended upon my familiarity with the subject and the student's ability to communicate. The longer times were usually devoted to papers that were sufficiently interesting that I read the original article as well as the review. On the whole, I do not feel the project interfered with my other activities. The time lost from class was quite small compared to the advantage of giving the students early access to the scientificliterature and acquainting myself with a great dealof research work that I never take the time toread.
