In the Classroom
Writing Across the Semester: A Non-Standard Term Paper That Encourages Critical Data Analysis in the Upper-Division Chemistry Classroom Jennifer Whiles Lillig Department of Chemistry, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA 94928;
[email protected] As scientists we know that discovery is an iterative process, and the same is true for the construction of a concise and informative scientific paper. The “writing across the curriculum” movement has strived to make the teaching of writing an iterative process as well, a process that spans the entire career of an undergraduate’s education. In order for the teaching of writing to be effective, students need constant feedback on their work and assignments that gradually increase in difficulty. Furthermore, instructors need assessment tools to gauge how well their students understand what they are writing about. It is this latter point, true student understanding of the chemical literature, that is the focus of the “writing across the semester” term-paper assignment presented here. Most writing assignments in the chemistry curriculum fall into three general categories: (i) lab reports (1–4), (ii) mock-journal articles or proposals related to research projects (5–7), and (iii) review-style papers focused on summarizing advancements in a particular field or general chemical concepts (8–10). At one extreme, the review article, students typically summarize the current data on a narrow topic. This can usually be accomplished merely by reading the introductions, discussions, and conclusions of articles in the primary literature or even from published review articles. It does not require students to actually examine the article or to describe figures showing experimental data. At the other extreme, undergraduate research students often write lab reports or theses based on their work. It is not unusual for students in these situations to be following previously established lab protocols without necessarily fully comprehending the work they are performing. The term-paper assignment described here is unique in that it provides multiple opportunities for students to practice their writing skills and also leads students through the critical analysis of scientific data in a manner that focuses on enhancing student understanding of experimental methods and data. The assignment components require students to carefully interpret the authors’ hypothesis for each experiment relevant to their thesis statement and to thoroughly examine and describe every part of the presented data, something not typically discussed in a review-style term paper. This assignment is a convenient way to require students to analyze experimental data without requiring access to expensive equipment or reagents or spending the time to generate the data. It is also intended to help students discover methods for learning about experimental techniques they may not have encountered before. To achieve these goals, the assignment provides students with multiple points of timely feedback culminating in the production of a final draft. Design of the Assignment The term-paper assignment was implemented in a secondsemester biochemistry course (metabolic biochemistry). The class size has ranged from 10–35 students and is composed 1392
primarily of chemistry and biology majors. The goal of the final term paper was for students to present a scientific thesis supported by at least two different pieces of experimental data from the primary literature. The general layout of the paper was
• 5–8 pages, not including references or the title page
• double-spaced; 12 pt font; 1 in. margins
• minimum of three references from the primary literature (textbooks, Web sites, and review articles not allowed)
• all figures numbered with a descriptive caption; all figures discussed in the body of the paper
• classmates were the audience for the paper
Students divided their paper into three main parts: (i) introduction, (ii) current research, and (iii) conclusions and future work. In the introduction of the paper, students were asked to provide the following information:
• What is the general background on the topic?
• Historically, what have been the major breakthroughs relating to your topic?
• What is the overall significance of your topic in biochemistry? Why is it an important area of research?
• Are there some common techniques typically used in studying your topic? How do they work?
In the current research section of the paper, rather than offering a review of the relevant literature on their topic, students were asked to provide detailed analyses of at least two experiments that supported their thesis statement. To this end, they were asked to answer the following questions for each of the experiments they chose to highlight:
• What is the authors’ hypothesis?
• What experimental method are the authors using to address their hypothesis?
• How will this method allow the authors to address their hypothesis (as in, how does the experiment work)?
• What will the data look like if the authors’ hypothesis is correct?
• Describe the data in your own words. Did the results support the hypothesis?
• Were there any flaws in the experiment or were there other samples or studies that could have provided additional information?
In the final section of the paper, students were asked to summarize the significance of the data they presented and to suggest future directions for research. In addition, they were asked to recommend at least one specific experiment that would be interesting. To lead the students through the development of this formal paper, students completed a series of mini-assignments throughout the semester (Table 1). These mini-assignments were
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 85 No. 10 October 2008 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
In the Classroom Table 1. Mini-Assignment Schedule Week
Assignment
1
Introduction of term-paper assignment; introduction to library databases
2
Paper topics due
3
Paper proposal due (title, abstract, bibliography)
9
Paper outlines due
12 13–14 15
Rough drafts due; in-class peer review session In-class presentations Final drafts due
also intended to minimize student procrastination and prevent their beginning to write the paper the night before it was due! As shown in Table 1, the term-paper assignment was introduced during the first week of class. Students were given handouts (also available on the WebCT course home page) describing the general mechanics and nature of the final paper and descriptions and due dates of each mini-assignment that preceded it. Scoring rubrics for the outline and final paper were also provided as a guide. Examples of mini-assignments and appropriate content for each section of the paper were also provided in the handouts. Students were first required to choose a general topic of interest in any field related to biochemistry; most students tended to gravitate quickly towards various health-related topics. After topics were approved by the instructor, the class met in the library resource center where the science librarian introduced the school’s various online search engines and databases. Students then began searching the literature for primary articles relating to the biochemistry of their topic. From this preliminary literature search, students then developed a specific thesis statement that could be supported using at least two different types of experiments from their literature sources. As shown in Table 2, students would sometimes converge on the same topic (e.g., prion disease) but chose to pursue completely different avenues when they developed their thesis statements. After creation of their thesis statement, students turned in a preliminary bibliography, paper title, and an abstract of the work they would be presenting. The paper proposal due in week 3 would contain an abstract and bibliography and was intended to provide the instructor with enough information to gauge whether the students had a
focused point to their paper with supporting data and to strongly discourage procrastination. Requiring submission of annotated bibliographies was also found to be useful in this regard. As shown in Table 1, students then prepared detailed outlines of their papers for instructor review. Although students were not required to use grammatically correct sentences, they still had to provide preliminary citations. This allowed the instructor to read drafts strictly for scientific content and flow (a scoring rubric has been provided in the online materials) without having to spend significant amounts of time correcting grammar. The outline form reduced reading time and gave the instructor more opportunity to provide comments directing (or correcting) the scientific content. The most common error at this stage was a tendency to merely review the literature on their topic. I found in individual discussions with students that they often could adequately summarize an article having read only the introduction and discussion sections, but if questioned about the general principles behind the experimental methods, they were often at a loss, incapable of describing the experimental method used or the data presented. However, leading questions such as “How does this experiment work?” or “Can you describe the data you see in the figure?” helped students work through this problem and to learn how to describe the authors’ hypotheses and data as it related to their thesis statement. Students then prepared a complete rough draft (including proper grammar, transitions, and citations). These rough drafts were exchanged with the other members of their pre-assigned study group (three to four members of the class). Groups had two nights to thoroughly review their peers’ work and to complete the same scoring rubric that the instructor would be using on the final drafts. (To encourage a thorough and constructive review process, students were required to turn in all rough drafts and scoring rubrics from the peer review process.) The next class meeting was devoted entirely to the peer-review process. Students met in their groups and discussed each paper, providing more feedback and explanations of their written comments. Following this peer-review process, students completed a final draft of their paper. During the interval between the rough and final draft due dates, each student was required to present his or her topic and one of the chosen experiments to the class, answering the same experimental questions they did for the paper. These presentations afforded the instructor (and the class as a whole) one ad-
Table 2. Sample Topics and Thesis Statements Developed by Students Topic of Interest
Thesis Statement
How blood substitutes work
The chemical structure of polyfluorinated hydrocarbons has a direct effect on the solubility of oxygen gas and the overall efficacy of the blood substitute.
Aging and cancer
The interaction between the DNA double-strand break repair proteins Ku and TRF-1 is important for telomere capping, which is necessary to prevent chromosomal fusion.
Prion disease
Derivatives of acridine and phenothiazine with aliphatic side chains off the middle ring have been shown to inhibit the conformational change of PrPc to the disease-causing PrPsc by binding to the C-terminal α-helix.
Prion disease
Copper binding induces a conformational change in normal prions, protecting them from conversion into the protease resistant prions.
Forensic chemistry
Analysis through ELISA and GC–MS allows for determination of methadone concentration in the blood postmortem and the comparison of these two values for accuracy.
Dentistry related chemistry
Microorganisms such as Streptococcus mutans create an acidic oral environment that causes demineralization of the enamel and dentin of the human teeth, resulting in tooth decay.
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 10 October 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
1393
In the Classroom
ditional opportunity to ensure students were properly describing and truly understanding the experiments they had selected for their paper. It also provided the class an opportunity to further explore the specific areas of biochemistry that their classmates had found interesting. Evaluation From an instructor’s viewpoint, the term papers noticeably improved once the mini-assignments were implemented. Overall, papers flowed more smoothly and were a pleasant and informative reading experience. Providing thorough and constructive feedback to the students in a timely manner was much easier given the smaller scope of the individual assignments. As shown in Table 1, due dates for each mini-assignment were determined partially based on the length of the assignment in order to allow the instructor enough time to provide quality feedback before the students were required to turn in the next part. This allowed for the production of final drafts that better conformed to assignment specifications. Students attended office hours with more questions about their papers. That was satisfying on a number of different levels, for not only did it provide the instructor with opportunities to guide the students through the writing process, but it also allowed the instructor to show her passion for the field by discussing current advances in the scientific community. Finally, even though they may have been the on same topic, all papers were different since they all had markedly different thesis statements and experimental support. The mini-assignments were also well-received by the students. This can be seen from the following student comments:
not atypical for the scientific peer-review process and showed the students the importance of obtaining multiple peer-reviews. Students also said that the informal presentations on the experiments helped them with the production of their written descriptions. Depending upon class size and the subsequent feasibility of allowing each student to present an experiment to the class, the instructor could instead present an example experiment to the class at the beginning of the semester to provide the students additional guidance in describing their experiments. Conclusion During these assignments students were required to demonstrate through clear and concise writing that they fully understood at least two biochemical experiments from the literature that supported their thesis statement. They found themselves performing additional research on these topics to aid in their understanding of their primary sources. The oral presentations, besides helping students streamline their thoughts and experimental descriptions prior to handing in their final drafts, also provided interesting segues into reviews of the course content prior to the final exam. Students also found good value in the peer review process conducted before preparation of the final draft. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the support of Raye Lynn Thomas, the SSU Science Librarian, and I would like to thank the students of Chemistry 446 from 2004–2007 for always providing honest and constructive criticism to increase the effectiveness of the mini-assignments. I would also like to thank my colleague Carmen Works for working with me to integrate strategic writing assignments into our curricula.
• Though I pretty much ended up rewriting my articles portion of the paper, the feedback I was given gave me a basic structure about how I should present the information. Overall, the peer review was a very helpful tool in creating my final paper!
• I enjoyed reading the other group members’ papers, as it was interesting to see what topics they chose and how they explained their experiments.
• The peer review process, and the entire process of having assignments periodically due with regard to the paper, was very important in shaping the end result. Without all of the input I received over the course of the semester I would not have the paper I have now. As much as I hate writing term papers, your method worked wonders for me!
• She showed me where things were unclear for her, where I had made assumptions thinking that the reader already knew what I was talking about.
• I used a lot of their input. It was nice to have two different people with different background and knowledge of subjects (that helped a lot).
1. Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1032–1038. 2. Cacciatore, K.; Sevian, H. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1039–1041. 3. Renaud, J.; Squier, C.; Larsen, S. C. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1029–1031. 4. Gordon, N. R.; Newton, T. A.; Rhodes, G.; Ricci, J. S.; Stebbins, R. G.; Tracy, H. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 53–55. 5. Schepmann, H. G.; Hughes, L. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1024–1028. 6. Hunter, A. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1424. 7. Bressette, A. R.; Breton, G. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1626–1627. 8. Rossi, F. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 395–396. 9. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 899–903. 10. Paulson, D. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1047–1049.
• I know for me, I don’t want my peers to read a piece of garbage so it makes me work harder on the rough draft.
Supporting JCE Online Material
• It is very important to have someone that is supposed to [be] the audience read it and critique so you know what needs to be further explained and correct wording of phrases. It also helps to get you to put the correct information in your paper and what others know about the topic to help clarify loose ends.
As would be expected, the quality of the student reviews varied based on student background and skill level. However, this is 1394
Literature Cited
http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Oct/abs1392.html Abstract and keywords Full text (PDF) Links to cited JCE articles Supplement
Term-paper scoring rubric
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 85 No. 10 October 2008 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
