In the Classroom
Writing for Chemists: Satisfying the CSU Upper-Division Writing Requirement Donald R. Paulson Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University, Los Angeles, CA 90032;
[email protected] The California State University system requires that each major department develop an upper-division writing experience that has as prerequisites both the lower-division composition course(s) and the upper division Writing Proficiency Exam (WPE). At California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA), Chem 360, Writing for Chemists, satisfies this requirement. Chem 360 is a 3-unit junior level course, which also requires two quarters of organic chemistry, and is taught three days per week throughout a 10-week quarter. I have team taught this course with several other Chemistry and English department faculty for more than 20 years, during which it has evolved into its present format. For example, we now assign the students to four-student study groups and once each week they work in class on a group writing assignment. The class is graded on an absolute grading scale so that the students are competing against the class standard and not against each other. A number of articles have appeared on the topic of writing in college chemistry classes and a bibliography is available on those published between 1980 and 1990 (1). Most of the earlier papers and several later papers deal with writing in traditional chemistry classes (2). There are also a number of papers describing scientific writing in other fields (3). One recent paper describes technical writing and oral communication in a senior-level chemistry seminar (4); another describes a more general scientific writing course (5). Our course contains some of the elements described in these earlier papers but also has some distinct differences. One of the greatest problems we have in assessing student writing is the rampant plagiarism that seems to exist today. The enormous amount of information that is easily downloaded from the Internet has certainly added to this problem as well the variable reliability of Internet sources. A second problem is that students are often not sophisticated enough in the chemical sciences to know what topic would make a good review topic. The core of Chem 360 is a 5–10 page review paper that accounts for 35% of the course grade. This review paper is unique for several reasons. We have minimized these problems by providing the students with a list of approved review topics. The chemistry faculty contributes these topics to ensure that there is a large amount of readily accessible information for each one. We rotate the topics so that no topic is repeated for at least five years. Literature Searches The students first learn to use the available computer databases to search a set of assigned topics (6 ). Each student is randomly assigned a different topic for each of the databases including both author and subject searches. These databases include two CSULA library subscriptions: the American Chemical Society Full Text Database covering all ACS journals beginning with 1996, and Article First, an OCLC collection of 40 databases that accesses more than
12,500 journals beginning in 1990. In addition, the students are assigned searches using two government Internet databases: PubMed (biochemical sciences) available at http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed and PubSci (physical sciences) available at http://pubsci.osti.gov/srchfrm.html. The students must also complete a printed Chemical Abstracts search, which is still a necessary skill for the older literature, and thus the searches are designed around the pre1970 literature. The students are given the excellent booklet How to Search the Printed CA, which is available at no cost from Chemical Abstracts Service.1 Again, each student is assigned a unique list of search topics, which assures that each student learns how to do a printed CA search. When we first started the course we gave the whole class the same search topics and found that many of the students didn’t actually do the searches; they either copied the answers from friends or they did the assignment in groups and only one person actually learned how to do each search. Now that each student has a different set of search topics they do their own searches but they still have their study group as a resource for help. The Review Paper The students are now ready to search the review topic that they have chosen from the list provided by the instructor. They first locate a recent review paper on their topic to provide them with background information. They then select 20 primary peer-reviewed journal research papers on their topic from a much larger number provided by their search. From these 20 they choose six papers with the approval of the course instructor. There must be at least three different major authors represented in these six papers. The students then write summaries of each of these six papers using the format shown below, which helps them understand what the paper is about. How to Write a Summary 1. As you read, write a one-sentence summary of every paragraph. 2. When you have finished reading the article, write a single sentence that summarizes the whole. Use the author’s own thesis sentence or culminating sentence as a guide. However, use your own words, not those of the author. Paraphrase, don’t plagiarize! 3. Write a full paragraph in which you begin with the overall-summary sentence and follow it with the paragraph-summary sentences. 4. Rewrite and rearrange the paragraph as needed to make it clear and concise, to eliminate repetition, to eliminate relatively minor points. and to provide transitions. The final version should be a unified and coherent whole.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 78 No. 8 August 2001 • Journal of Chemical Education
1047
In the Classroom
The format for the course review paper consists of an introduction section followed by a review section in which data from two or more of these six papers are clustered under topic sentences. In the review section the students must find similar or contrasting information in their six papers to include in the deductive review paragraphs. The paper must have a minimum of three of these review paragraphs and some data from each of the six papers must be included in the review section paragraphs. The final section is a discussion section in which the students provide their own ideas about the information given in the review section. This is the most difficult section of the paper for the students. Class assignments help students learn how to write each of these sections. For example, in one exercise they are given four communications from 1973–1974 containing the first reported examples of reversible binding of oxygen to iron porphyrins. Each study group writes a cluster paragraph comparing or contrasting data in at least three of the four papers. The students are encouraged to continually edit these papers. To help them in this task, they are given an editing guide that includes the following questions: Does the paragraph contain one unifying idea? Is that idea stated as a generalization in a topic sentence? Does the paragraph develop that generalization? Is all of the necessary information there? Is any unnecessary information present? Are all of the sentences in the paragraph in logical order; that is, do they lead from (deductive) the topic sentence? Is any sentence too confused, complex or unclear? Is any sentence too rambling or repetitive? Are sentence structures varied?
sions on Writing Summaries, Using Verbs Correctly, Creating a Self-editing Guide, and Writing Effective Sentences. We also have an English graduate student who attends the class and serves as a tutor for the students. As a textbook we use The ACS Style Guide (7 ). The 2nd edition has been updated to include the Internet as a resource (references, evaluating, etc.), poster presentations, ethics, and other important developments. A writing assignment dealing with the topic covered in the previous class is due every class period. These assignments account for 20% of the class grade. Students also have four outside-class group assignments, which provide 15% of the grade. These are an assignment in which they must cluster data from four related communications (see above), a critique of a biology or chemistry departmental seminar, a critique of a poster displayed in the biology or chemistry department, and an analysis of an ethical scenario (see below). The course also addresses the sections of a primary paper that are not included in a review paper. Thus, the students learn to write both results and experimental sections. The final exam assesses their knowledge in this area and consists of two parts. In Part I the students are given a synthetic reaction scheme and the experimental section from a paper on the total synthesis of a natural product. They must generate a results section for such a paper. In Part II they are given a cookbook experimental section from an undergraduate organic lab book. They must rewrite the experimental section as it would appear in the Journal of Organic Chemistry. Again, extensive writing assignments help them learn these skills. One useful exercise is to have the students compare a Results Section that they have written to the Results Section in the original paper.
Does each sentence structurally relate to the preceding and following sentences?
A first and second draft are required leading up to the final draft, which is due the last day of class. The students receive timely feedback on the first two drafts. This format results in a very narrow review paper because they are only including information from six papers. However, it effectively teaches the students how to go about reviewing a topic. One of the major advantages to this format is that it virtually eliminates the plagiarism problem. In addition, we do not reuse topics for at least five years. The students find this review paper particularly challenging but they do very well in the writing requirements in their senior-level chemistry classes and in their own research reports. Course Content The general topics addressed in Chem 360 are shown in the box. The number of class sessions devoted to each topic is given in parentheses. Additional specific topics are also covered, such as the process by which a paper is submitted, reviewed, and revised, and the information provided in guidelines for authors such as those in the Journal of Biological Chemistry or Journal of Organic Chemistry. Both the chemistry and English faculty members, who all share the faculty teaching credit, conduct the class sessions. The English faculty member conducts the class ses-
1048
Course Outline Introduction to Writing (1) The Chemical Literature (1) Chemical Abstracts and Literature Searching (1) The Chem 360 Review Paper (1) Sections of a Scientific Paper (1) Reference Format, Text Citation, and Plagiarism (1) Title and Introduction (1) Writing Summaries (1) Style and Clarity (1) The Review Section (2) Group Readings of 1st Drafts (1) Clustering Data from Several Sources (1) Abstracts (1) Using Verbs Correctly (2) Creating a Self-editing Guide (1) How to Deliver an Oral Presentation (1) How to Prepare a Poster Presentation (1) Effective Sentences (2) The Discussion Section (2) The Results Section of a Primary Paper (3) The Experimental Section of a Primary Paper (2) Ethics in Science (3)
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 78 No. 8 August 2001 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
Ethics in Science Scientific ethics is such an important topic that it would be good to have it taught in a separate course for undergraduates, and such a course was recently described (8). However, since California State University has mandated smaller unit totals for all degrees, we would be hard pressed to find room for such a course in our curriculum. In Chem 360 we spend three class sessions on the topic of Ethics in Science. After an initial lecture on ethics, the students watch some of the Science Integrity Videos published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.2 Each of these outstanding videos is about 10 minutes long and shows an ethical problem in an academic research setting. We then spend about 30 minutes discussing each ethical dilemma. This is the first exposure for most students to some of the ethical problems commonly encountered by scientists. They are very surprised at the situations that are depicted and this provokes some of the best discussions I have ever had with a class. In addition, the students purchase the booklet On Being a Scientist—Responsible Conduct in Research, published by the National Academy Press.3 They meet in their groups and write a discussion on an assigned ethical dilemma outlined in the booklet. A number of other excellent sources of ethical case studies are available (9). Conclusion Chem 360 prepares students for the senior-level courses in which they will have to research a topic and prepare a written paper and often also an oral presentation or a poster. Most of our majors are involved in undergraduate research, and the faculty advisors see a marked improvement in student research reports after they have taken Chem 360. When I talk with my colleagues in industry or Ph.D.-granting institutions, the most often mentioned weakness of students is their writing skills. Most students complain about the workload of the course for the amount of credit received and they usually don’t appreciate at the time what they have learned. However, many former students have commented on how useful this course has been to them in their industrial careers or their graduate and professional school programs. These are often the students who complained the loudest about the workload in Chem 360. Acknowledgments I would like to thank my chemistry colleagues, Harold Goldwhite, Hendrik Keyzer, Mathias Selke, and Linda
Tunstad, and my English colleagues, Rosemary Hake and Beth Paulson, who have taught this course with me. I have learned much about the writing process from them. In addition, I appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by two of the reviewers. Notes 1. Available from Chemical Abstracts Service, Customer Service, 2540 Olentangy River Road, P.O. Box 3012 Columbus, OH 43210-0012; 800/753-4227. 2. Available from Science Integrity Videos, AAAS Directorate for Science and Policy Programs, 1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005. 3. Available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20418.
Literature Cited 1. Shires, N. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 494–495. 2. Kovac, J.; Sherwood, D. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1399– 1403. Hunter, A. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1424. Cooper, M. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 476–477. Stanislawski, D. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 575–576. Wilson, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 1019–1020. Hermann, C. K. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 861–862; Rossi, F. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 74, 395. Beall, H. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 10–11. Liss, J. M.; Hanson, S. D. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1993, 22, 212–215. Henderson, L.; Buising, C. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2000, 109–113. 3. Koprowski, J. L. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1997, 27, 133–135. Carle, D. O.; Krest, M. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1998, 27, 339–342. 4. Wallner, A. S.; Latosi-Sawin, E. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1404–1406. 5. Rice, R. E. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1998, 27, 267–272. 6. For a bibliography on teaching and using chemical information see Carr, C. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 412–422. 7. The ACS Style Guide, 2nd ed.; Dodd, J. S., Ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1997. 8. Sweeting, L. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 369–372. 9. See for example: Beach, D. The Responsible Conduct of Research; VCH: New York, 1996. Research Ethics—Cases and Materials; Penslar, R. L., Ed.; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, 1995. Kovac, J. The Ethical Chemist—Case Studies in Scientific Ethics, rev. ed.; Department of Chemistry, University of Tennessee: Knoxville, TN, 1995.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 78 No. 8 August 2001 • Journal of Chemical Education
1049
