Design and assessment of an assignment-based curriculum to teach scientific writing and scientific peer review
Abstract
A writing-intensive, upper-level undergraduate course which integrates content, context, collaboration, and communication in a unique fashion, is described. The topic of the seminar is “Scientific Writing in Chemistry” and an assignment-based curriculum was developed to instruct students on best practices in all aspects of science communication and to educate students about the scientific publication process and peer review. To effectively teach students how to understand science, both the content and the process must be included. Peer review is an integral and essential part of the process of science and the peer review tasks in the course described in this paper evolve from rubric-based peer assessments to free-format peer review. The curriculum was developed for a semester-long, three-hour seminar with limited enrolment. The curriculum was taught in the Spring semesters of 2010 - 2014 and enrolment data and results of evaluations collected over four years are presented to demonstrate the success of the implementations
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Achieve. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Washington, DC: National Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
ARISE 2 (Advancing Research in Science and Engineering). (2013). Unleashing America’s research & innovation enterprise. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2004). The case for collaborative learning. In Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. (pp. x-x). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, L. M., Gadlin, H., & Levine-Finley, S. (2010). Collaboration & team science: A field guide. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
Boyer, E. L., & Levine, A. (1981). A quest for common learning—The aims of general education. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Campus writing program. (2014). University of Missouri. Retrieved from http://cwp.missouri.edu
Carson, K. M., Hodgen, B., & Glaser, R. E. (2006). Teaching dissent and persuasion. Educational Research and Reviews, 1, 115-120. Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379590778_Carson%20et%20al.pdf
Carson, K. M., & Glaser, R. E. (2010). Chemistry is in the news: Assessing intra-group peer review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 69-81. doi: 10.1080/02602930902862826
Carson, K. M., Hume, D. L., Sui, Y., Schelble, S., &
Glaser, R. E. (2009). Chemistry is in the news: The why and wherefore of integrating popular news media into the chemistry classroom. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), The Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching, Vol. 2, Prentice Hall Series in Educational Innovation (pp. 230-245). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Carter, E., Cushing, L., & Kennedy, C. (2008). Peer support strategies for improving all students’ social lives and learning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A.
Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning (pp. 314-332). New York: Routledge.
Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C. (2010). Teaching the process of science: Faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 524-535. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005
ERIC, Institute of Education Sciences. Online bibliography on scoring rubrics. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=rubric
Feinberg, J. (n.d.). Wordle – Beautiful word clouds. Retrieved from http://www.wordle.net/
Glaser, R. E., & Poole, M. J. (1999). Organic chemistry online: Building collaborative learning communities through electronic communication tools. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 699-703. doi: 10.1021/ed076p699
Glaser, R. E. (2003). Science communication for all. Chemistry International, 25, 3-6. doi: 10.1515/ci.2003.25.5.3
Glaser, R. E. (2013). Science communication for all. Chemistry in Action!, 99, 6-10.
Glaser, R. E. (2014). Teaching content, context, collaboration, and communication in college chemistry. Chemistry in Action!, 101, 10-19.
Glaser, R. E., & Carson, K. M. (2005). Chemistry is in the news: Taxonomy of authentic news media based learning activities. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1083-1098. doi: 10.1080/09500690500069434
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C., & O’Donnell, A. M. (2013). The international handbook of collaborative learning (Educational psychology handbook). Routledge: New York, New York.
Honey, M., Pearson, G.; & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Committee on Integrated STEM Education; National Academy of Engineering; National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18612
Hume, D. L., Carson, K. M., Hodgen, B., & Glaser, R. E. (2006). Chemistry is in the news: Assessment of student attitudes toward authentic news media based learning activities. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 662-667. doi: 10.1021/ed083p662
Knoll, E. (1990). The communities of scientists and journal peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1330-1332. doi: 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100030004
Martyn, C. N. (2003). Peer review: Some questions from Socrates. In Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (Eds.), Peer Review in Health Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 322-328). London: BMJ Books.
Massengill, R. P. (2011). Sociological writing as higher-level thinking: Assignments that cultivate the sociological imagination. Teaching Sociology, 39, 371-381. doi: 10.1177/0092055X11407350
National Academy of Engineering and Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education, National Research Council (NRC). (2010). K-12 Standards for Engineering Education? Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Undergraduate Education (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1996/nsf96139/nsf96139.txt
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 102-122. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900041
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
Park, I.-U., Peacey, M., & Munafo, M. R. (2014). Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature, 506, 93-96. doi: 10.1038/nature12786
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459-463. doi: 10.1126/science.1182595
Rennie, D. (2003). Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer Review in Health Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 1-13). London: BMJ Books.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35, 435-448. doi: 10.1080/02602930902862859
Rheingold, H. (2014). Peeragogy Handbook (2nd ed.). Jointly published by Pierce Press and PubDomEd. Retrieved from http://peeragogy.org
Robinson, R. D., McKenna, M. C., & Conradi, K. (2011). Issues and trends in literacy education (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Russell, A. A. (2013). The evolution of calibrated peer review. In T. Holme, M. M. Cooper, & P. Varma-Nelson (Eds.), Trajectories of Chemistry Education Innovation and Reform (pp. 129-143). ACS Symposium Series. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Schwartz, A. T. (2007). Chemistry education, science literacy, and the liberal arts. 2007 George C. Pimentel Award. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 1750-1755. doi: 10.1021/ed084p1750
Spieler, T. L. (2007). Missouri SENATE BILL NO. 389. Retrieved from http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/pdf-bill/intro/SB389.pdf
Stage, E. K., Asturias, H., Cheuk, T., Daro, P. A., & Hampton, S. B. (2013). Opportunities and challenges in next generation standards. Science, 340, 276-277. doi: 10.1126/science.1234011
Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards (pp. 55-87). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Vázquez, A. V., McLoughlin, K., Sabbagh, M., Runkle, A. C., Simon, J., Coppola, B. P., & Pazicni, S. (2012). Writing-to-teach: A new pedagogical approach to elicit explanative writing from undergraduate chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 1025-1031. doi: 10.1021/ed200410k
Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Argument-driven inquiry: Using the laboratory to improve undergraduates’ science writing skills through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 1269−1274. doi: 10.1021/ed300656p
Watts, C. (1995). From collegial to codified. The evolution of modern peer review. Texas Medicine, 91, 22-24.
Wu, Z., & Glaser, R. E. (2004). Software for the synergistic integration of science with ICT education. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 3, 325-339.
Yankulov, K., & Couto, R. (2012). Peer review in class: Metrics and variations in a senior course. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40, 161–168. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20592
Ziman, J.M. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ziman, J.M. (1969). Information, communication, knowledge. Nature, 224, 318-324. doi: 10.1038/224318a0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v7i2.202
Article Metrics
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.