| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
ARTICLES |
Department of Biology, Drawer 83, Earlham College, 801 National Road West, Richmond, Indiana 47374
Submitted June 9, 2003; Revised August 14, 2003; Accepted September 11, 2003
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: undergraduate • protein • literature • assignment • poster
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
[T]he main idea of inquiry is for students to learn in the same way that scientists learn through research. Scientists ask questions, make observations, take measurements, analyze data, and repeat this process in an attempt to integrate new information. Students should be taught the way scientists think about the world, and how they analyze a scientific problem in particular. (p. 16)
A specific skill that is often overlooked in these national discussions of teaching the process of science is using the scientific literature. As an undeniably important source of information for scientists, the research literature should be a critical training ground for young science professionals. A few authors (Janick-Buckner, 1997; Herman, 1999; Edwards et al., 2001; Levine, 2001) have published descriptions of assignments that incorporate primary literature and many faculty teach specialized literature-based seminars in their upper level courses. However, using the scientific literature is often reserved for advanced students or is peripheral to daily classroom activities.
Not only does teaching students to work with the scientific literature model the activities of scientists, but having students read, interpret, analyze, and report on the research literature provides opportunities to develop critical and analytical thinking and written and/or oral communication. Edwards et al. (2001) describe a literature-based assignment, part of which includes students writing letters to the editors of journals regarding a research paper; 18 of the 85 letters (21%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. This suggests that students were gaining experience in critical analysis as determined by established scientists in a field. Furthermore, assignments based on the primary literature can prepare students to succeed in contemporary biology, incorporating quantitative analysis, emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of biology, and introducing investigative, open-ended questions. Properly designed, literature analysis assignments also can help students gain confidence, integrate material, and see applications of a particular topic to broader areas of biology. Herman (1999) reports that students taught to work in the primary literature in her molecular genetics course retain and integrate material better than when she used a traditional lecture format. Students also are able to experience the vitality and ambiguity of a field, learning that as many questions are raised as are answered in the process of research. Textbooks rarely provide this kind of glimpse into science as a process.
Learning to analyze a research article is a challenge for undergraduates. Providing students with assignments that ask for progressively more sophisticated interpretation and analysis can develop these skills over their undergraduate careers. The biology curriculum at Earlham College has taken such an approach for over three decades (Stephenson, 1993).
Thirty-five to forty majors graduate each year from Earlham's biology department, which consists of six full-time faculty equivalents. Our introductory-level courses enroll between 60 and 120 students, including those intending to major in biology, as well as those taking the courses for a general education requirement. The majority of our majors pursue postbaccalaureate education within 2 years of graduation; Earlham ranks eighth nationally (Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium, 2002) in the number of students that go on to pursue doctoral degrees in the life sciences.
To begin building proficiency in literature analysis, the department has structured assignments across the first-year courses to introduce the research literature. In an effort to further develop these skills, the assignment described here, one used in a sophomore level cell physiology course, was designed to bridge the experiences in our introductory courses and in our upper-level courses, which are often run in a seminar format. The structure of the assignment is also a response to the national calls to improve undergraduate biology curricula, particularly in the cellular/molecular areas. Evaluation of the assignment in meeting both content- and skill-based goals has been conducted by measuring student perceptions at the end of the project.
|
PROFILE OF STUDENTS IN CELL PHYSIOLOGY |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Nearly 60% of the students reported that they had read more than 16 articles (with 35% of the total saying that they had read >25) (Table 1). Interpretation of this number means that even sophomores in the course have significant prior experience analyzing research articles. Despite the large number reporting that they had read a substantial number of articles, many still indicated that they had only a low to middle level of confidence about their abilities specifically in cellular and molecular biology at the beginning of the assignment (Table 1). In addition to the breakdown presented in Table 1, when asked on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being low and 5 being high) "What level of anxiety did you have about reading the articles?" the averages obtained were 2.98 in 2001 and 2.90 in 2002 (see Table 4).
|
Two Other Features of the Backgrounds of our Students Are Relevant to this Assignment. Students were familiar with presenting in a poster format from an introductory-level biology course (Mulnix and Penhale, 1997). Students also have extensive experience working in small groups. For example, in our introductory genetics course a group of three or four students investigates a genetic disease using the National Centers for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database (Mulnix and Penhale, 1997); the majority of the students also had taken ecological biology, a course in which they do a small-group research project.
|
THE ASSIGNMENT |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
Students worked in pairs or triplets to understand the basics of a single research article (see Table 2 for examples of articles). The publications dealt with an aspect of the structure and/or function of a protein; typically, the paper reported a protein's three-dimensional structure. Students then presented a summary of that paper to their classmates in a "poster session" during a class period.
|
In order to control content of the articles, faculty selected recent publications from which student pairs or triplets chose one. Articles that reported on proteins with which the students were familiar either from their first-year genetics course or from material presented early in the semester of the cell physiology course were given preference. Attention also was paid to selecting papers that discussed proteins across a range of contexts (e.g., ecological, medical, evolutionary, molecular, biochemical). Our overall expectation of students was to summarize the major findings of the article in their poster. Although the students were not expected to critique the article per se, they were expected to understand and analyze the article in order to select the information for presentation on the poster.
We were frank with the students about the difficulty of reading the articles, telling them they should plan to read their article several times and discuss it among their group members. They should not be surprised by the complexity and vocabulary of the articles; nor should they expect to understand everything for their presentation (for instance, they did not go into the methods in depth). We also told them that they might need to gain some background understanding of the protein's function from their text or from general review articles, which we helped students identify through on-line databases such as those for the Annual Reviews, General Science Abstracts, or MedLine. We made ourselves available for meetings with groups, typically providing background materials, answering questions about methods, defining vocabulary, or discussing the group's interpretations of their article.
Poster Content and Session
Because the articles differed in content, students were given a list of
topics that they should try to include in the poster (see
Table 3); not all topics were
covered in each article. Enough background work was expected so that students
could talk about the general function of their protein. The posters consisted
of five to seven panels, including introduction and background sections and
implications/interpretations panels. Additional panels included bulleted text
that highlighted the protein's structural and functional features and a color
diagram of the protein (when available and appropriate).
|
Each student stood in front of the poster for a share of the class period. During this time, students explained their poster to other members of the class and to the faculty as everyone circulated. This discussion with the faculty member was part of the evaluation of each student. Upper-class students and other biology and chemistry faculty also stopped by to talk with the presenters. A full 80-min class period was devoted to the poster session; although this was sufficient time, a longer class period (e.g., a portion of a laboratory period) would allow greater time for faculty to discuss the poster with each student.
Evaluation of Student Performance on the Assignment
Students were given grades for their work based on three components: (1)
the knowledge they displayed in the discussion with the faculty member; (2)
the evaluations they received from their partners; and (3) the scientific
content of the poster (evaluated at a later time than the actual poster
session itself). A one-page questionnaire was given to students to evaluate
their partner's contributions. This questionnaire attempted to determine how
the work within the group was shared. When answers indicated that the workload
was unequal, the faculty met with the group to discuss appropriate individual
grades. Of the 77 students, faculty met with and adjusted only 2 student
grades.
During the poster session, the faculty member discussed the poster content with each student author; this interview lasted 5–7 min. Because of the time constraints of a class period, sometimes an interview about a poster happened with the group rather than with individuals. When this occurred, the faculty member was directive about which students should answer a question since the goal was to be sure that all members of the group understood the poster content. Each year we performed one or two follow-up interviews outside of the class period for those students that had substantial difficulty explaining the poster content. This allowed us to be sure that the student's performance was not due primarily to nervousness.
|
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE ASSIGNMENT'S SUCCESS IN MEETING THE STATED GOALS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
The statements on which students were asked to rate their agreement (Table 4) can be divided into several categories roughly corresponding to the course goals: relating their paper to course content and a larger context, developing skills in reading research articles, and developing communication skills. Attitudes toward the assignment were also assessed.
Putting Material in the Article into a Biochemical and Larger Biological Context
We hoped that this assignment would provide concrete examples to
illustrate: the dependence of function on structure; the importance of protein
structure to a variety of levels of function, and the importance of chemical
principles in understanding proteins. These topics were covered in the first
few weeks of the course, with the assignment occurring at about midterm. As
such, we expected students to review, integrate, and apply principles of
protein structure and function in a new situation.
Responses to questions in this area averaged above 3.24 ± 1.06 and the responses were not significantly different between the 2 years in which the assignment was used. The average scores for the question "How much did your article build on concepts we have covered in class?" were 3.64 and 3.66 in 2001 and 2002, respectively. In an open-ended question asking which concepts were relevant in understanding the article, one-third (26) of the students indicated that their article built on general concepts of protein structure (e.g., secondary structures, weak bonding patterns, amino acid structure). Also commonly mentioned by students in answer to this open-ended question were the interdependence of structure and function (14 responses), the interaction of a protein with other components (proteins, ligands, substrates, allosteric regulators) (11 responses), and the role of conformational change in protein function (8 responses). Given these responses, we believe that the assignment required students to review and apply basic concepts in protein structure and function.
Concepts beyond basics of protein structure (e.g., enzyme mechanisms, signal transduction, membrane structure) were mentioned 28 times in response to the open-ended question asking which cellular concepts were relevant to their article. Given the general resistance of our students to learning bioenergetics, it was gratifying that seven persons mentioned concepts relating to thermodynamics (e.g., free energy, coupling of reactions). Concepts covered in our first-year course (e.g., transcription, DNA structure, gene regulation, cell sorting) were mentioned 12 times. Average scores of 3.99 and 3.74 were obtained in 2001 and 2002, respectively, when students were asked to respond to the statement, "The assignment helped to visualize the various topics covered up to that point in the cell physiology course." Clearly, students believe that they were using and expanding previously acquired knowledge in understanding their article.
A factor used by faculty for selecting the research articles was that they illustrated protein functions at an organization level more complex than cellular physiology. For instance, in 2001, the article by Liou et al. was included since it discussed the role of protein structure in the antifreeze properties of insect hemolymph (see Table 2). Our evaluation shows that students did find this assignment helpful in seeing the importance of proteins to other biological areas. When asked whether the assignment helped them put class content into a larger context, the scores from the 2001 and 2002 classes were 3.74 and 3.63, respectively. Similarly, an average score of 4.26 and of 4.06 was obtained in 2001 and 2002, respectively, when students were asked if the assignment helped them see that protein structure/function can be important to various levels of biology. We also observed student groups selecting their article based, in part, upon their interests in these larger ecological, medical, or physiological connections. In the open-ended questions about the best and worst parts of the assignment, nine students mentioned seeing details of protein structure and function in a larger context (e.g., medical applications, function of human body) as one of the best features of the assignment. Again, it appears that the assignment was successful in helping students appreciate the interdependence of various levels of biology.
Development of Skills in Reading Research Articles
A major goal of this assignment was to improve students' ability to read
and understand research articles. Students were asked to indicate (on a scale
of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest) how carefully they had read various
sections of research articles in the past. Another set of questions asked
students to indicate how carefully they had read the various portions of their
article for this assignment. Data from the 2 years were pooled
(Table 5). A repeated-measures
ANOVA was used to compare how carefully students read a section before the
assignment and how carefully they read the section for this assignment. There
were significant differences in students' reading of the introduction (p
< .001), materials and methods (p < .05), and results
(p < .001) sections for this assignment compared to previous ones
(Table 5). There was a
nonsignificant trend for reading the discussion/conclusion section more
carefully for this assignment (Table
5) than for previous assignments. No significant difference was
observed between the reading of the abstract previously and that for this
assignment.
This pattern, with students reading the introduction, materials and methods, and results sections more carefully than previously, while not reading the abstract and discussion/conclusion sections more carefully for this assignment than previous ones, is gratifying. It is in fact consistent with our department's attempt to expect progressively greater engagement with research articles as students move through their undergraduate careers. Assignments in the first year are structured so that they can be completed with careful reading of the abstract and discussion sections. These data for the cell physiology course provide evidence that the assignment described here was successful in increasing student engagement in research articles, requiring more careful reading of various sections of article.
These data were collected from the questionnaire given to students at the end of the project. Exactly how this timing influenced students' answer is unclear. Since students could reflect on their previous experiences in light of their encounter with the research article for this assignment, they might have been more accurate in their reporting of prior use of an article's components. However, collecting data about prior experience after completion of the assignment might have made it difficult for students to delineate clearly their previous experiences from the current one.
Students also were asked whether the assignment helped them: (1) learn to read research articles in depth, (2) focus on reading relevant material in an article, and (3) pick out the most important information in a complex article. Student responses in both 2001 and 2002 for these questions were all above 3.60 (Table 4).
In open-ended questions in which students were asked about the best and worst parts of the assignment, 16 persons indicated that the complexity/density/difficulty of their article was the worst part. However, 18 persons indicated that "conquering" their article or coming to understand difficult material was one of the best parts of the assignment. Often the same student responded that both the best and the worst part of the assignment was the difficulty of the article. During the conversations with students at the poster sessions, students were knowledgeable about both the general information and the details of their articles. Even the weakest students were able to discuss the general structural and functional features of the protein.
Furthermore, the average scores for the statement "The assignment was too hard for the level of the course" were 1.76 and 1.63 in 2001 and 2002, respectively. These low scores, along with the reports of the enjoyment at working through difficult material and the students' success at discussing their articles, indicate that students generally rose to the challenge.
Overall, students perceive that the assignment did require them to read articles more closely and carefully than they had in the past and to be selective in that reading. It helped them gain experience in focusing their reading and in picking out the most relevant information for their purpose. Although students found the articles difficult and complex, they were successful in extracting information from them.
Developing Skills in Communication
Providing opportunities for students to further develop skills in
communicating science in written and oral form is another way in which
undergraduate courses can model the activities of professional scientists.
Earlham's introductory biology curriculum has numerous opportunities for
building writing skills. Fewer opportunities are available at this level for
practicing oral skills. We saw the poster format as a way for students to
"talk science" in a relatively nonthreatening environment.
Importantly, we also saw the poster format as a way that faculty could manage
grading nearly 40 students in part on their ability to communicate orally.
Students in 2001 thought that the assignment was helpful in developing written (average score, 3.10) skills. Not surprisingly, the average response for development of oral communication skills was a point higher (average score, 4.12). Similar scores were given by students in 2002: 2.94 and 3.74 for development of written and oral skills, respectively. When asked specifically how their skills improved, students indicated that the assignment provided opportunities for selecting the most critical aspects of the research to include, developing their vocabulary in the field, and building confidence in their speaking/explaining abilities. A number of students indicated that the oral component pushed them to understand the article more fully so that they could explain it to peers and faculty.
Not only did students feel that they developed their communication skills, but many also enjoyed the experience; 22 of the students indicated in the open-ended questions that the best part of the project was the presentation. Several students wrote specifically about how explaining information to their peers was a highlight of the project. Two students did indicate that the presentation was the worst part of the assignment; an additional three persons indicated that their nervousness/anxiety about presenting was the worst part.
We were pleased with the degree to which the poster format provided students a mechanism to hone their communication skills, particularly their ability to "talk science."
Developing Skills in Group Work
There were several reasons we chose to have the students work in groups of
two or three, not least of which was being able to manage the grading. We also
were hopeful that students would use each other to decipher their
article—promoting peer learning and modeling the activities of
scientists working through a "problem." We promoted peer
interaction for this assignment in our instructions and required students,
whenever possible, to bring questions to faculty in their groups. We also made
clear that students were responsible for all aspects of their poster content,
not just whatever piece on which an individual might have focused.
We asked students about the amount of time they spent on this project (Table 6). Ninety-eight percent of the students in 2001 indicated that they spent more than 5 h. In 2002, 94% spent more than 5 h on the assignment. There was not a statistically significant difference (t-test; p > .005) between the amount of time students report spending on the assignment in 2001 and that in 2002.
Of this time, students spent a considerable part of it with each other deciphering their articles (Table 6). In 2001, 75% said that they spent more than 5 h working with their partner(s) on the assignment. In 2002, 64% spent more than 5 h with their partners. When asked "How much did talking with your partner(s) help you understand the content of the article?" the average score was 4.43 in 2001 and 4.07 in 2002. Not only were the students spending the majority of time together reading the articles, but they clearly relied on each other to analyze the contents of the article. In the open-ended questions, eight persons indicated that the best part of the assignment was talking with their partner(s) about the paper and one-third of the classes indicated that discussing their poster with their peers was the best part.
Group work does not always go smoothly. Five persons mentioned difficulties with group dynamics as one of the worst parts of the assignment. Difficulty finding meeting times was mentioned another four times. Faculty also intervened in two instances by calling a meeting with all group members when groups were obviously dysfunctional. In one instance, the meeting with faculty was sufficient to rectify the lack of participation of one group member in the time remaining on the project. In the second instance, which fortunately was a group of three, the nonparticipatory person agreed to take a no-pass for the assignment. This individual later dropped the course.
Although we did not specifically set out to assess the development of specific collaborative skills, the information we do have indicates that students were working together for the bulk of the time they spent on the assignment. In addition, the vast majority enjoyed working with their partner(s) to understand the paper.
A Bonus: Building Confidence
One of the satisfying features of this assignment was the relatively large
number of students (19) that indicated that the best part of the assignment
was the sense of confidence or accomplishment at having figured out the
article. Students in 2001 reported an average score of 4.31 when asked whether
the assignment built confidence in reading difficult material. The average
score in 2002 was 3.66. Average scores of 3.49 and 3.34 (2001 and 2002,
respectively) were given in response to the statement "I am very
confident in my ability to read an article in the cellular/molecular area of
biology." These results were especially satisfying given that 60% of the
students indicated that they were somewhat or not confident at the outset of
the assignment in their ability to read articles in this area
(Table 1).
|
STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ASSIGNMENT |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
|
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON THE ASSIGNMENT |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
Most of the data indicate what students believe/report about their attitudes and learning rather than provide evidence for what students actually learn. However, student responses to the open-ended questions do provide a preliminary assessment of actual student learning. That 51 of 77 students named specific concepts relating to protein structure/function (e.g., weak bonding, interaction of proteins with other cellular components, conformational change, free energy change, feedback inhibition) indicates their ability to recognize that their articles used concepts they had learned in class. It also shows that students have applied those concepts in a new situation, not just reiterated material given in class. Likewise, answers to the open-ended questions provide evidence that students came to understand a protein in a larger cellular or physiological context; many (28) students identified connections with other concepts (e.g., immunology, transcription regulation, cell–cell communication, membrane function, membrane potential, preeclampsia).
Faculty interaction with and observation of students as they progressed
through the assignment also indicated that they improved their understanding
of protein structure and function. At the outset, student confusion about the
content of their articles was high as indicated by the basic level of
questions asked of faculty. At later times, students were asking more
sophisticated questions. Furthermore, the ability of students to converse
intelligently about the content and implications of their article in the
interview with faculty indicated that students had a level of understanding
about their specific protein beyond merely the concepts that had been taught
in class. When one student talked at the poster session about the specific
changes in intramolecular bonding patterns among 
-helices in
response to ligand binding, and another spoke of the relative positions of a
catalytic residue pre- and post-binding of a substrate, the increase in
understanding of protein structure and function as a consequence of careful
reading of the assigned article was obvious. Quantitative measurement of
actual student learning as a result of this assignment is under way. A tool
that uses performance on exam questions prior to exposure to the material in
class, following lectures on protein structure and function and then following
this assignment, will be developed.
A goal of the assignment was to improve students' ability to work with scientific research articles. As such, this assignment is one in a series within the biology major curriculum that relies on the scientific literature. Although no formal evaluation has been performed, my own observations of students in upper-level classes that have completed the assignment in the cell physiology course indicate that they are more sophisticated and careful readers than those students from years before the assignment was introduced.
|
TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
Another difference between the 2 years was the number of students (or their partner) that met with faculty to discuss the article: In 2001, 78% of the students reported meeting with a faculty member; in 2002, only 33% met with a faculty member. A one-tailed t-test was done to compare responses of students who met with faculty versus those who did not for the three questions on which there was a significant difference in responses between 2001 and 2002. There were significant differences (p < .05) in the responses for all three questions, with the persons meeting with faculty reporting higher values in response to the three questions. Thus, it appears that student meetings with faculty enhance student confidence, understanding of method, and depth of reading with respect to this assignment.
Another factor that might have contributed to the significant differences in student responses could be the length of time allotted for the assignment; a greater period was given in 2001 versus 2002. However, the length of time given for the assignment does not appear to explain these differences completely; there was not a statistically significant difference (t-test; p > .05) in the amount of time students report spending on the assignment in 2001 versus 2002. Although there also was no significant difference in the scores of any other questions relating to student attitude about the assignment, the greater number of 2002 students (10) than 2001 students (2) indicated in an open-ended question that the worst part of the assignment was not having enough time.
The overwhelming similarity in student responses between 2001 and 2002, when different faculty were teaching the course, indicates a strong likelihood that the success of the assignment is somewhat independent of specific faculty. This suggests that the project could be adapted for use at other institutions and in other courses. An important factor to student engagement, enjoyment, and satisfaction with the project appears to be having sufficient time to work on it. Student confidence, understanding of methods, and reading in depth can be positively influenced by student–faculty meetings to discuss the articles.
|
DISCUSSION AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
The assignment described here embodies these aspects of teaching and learning. Students participate in the classroom community in a sophisticated experiential way, constructing their own knowledge and taking responsibility for the learning process. The expectation is that each student becomes an expert in a topic area of his/her choice and will share that expertise with peers and faculty. Success relies on application and extension of knowledge previously gained. The process, because of the difficulty of reading the scientific articles, requires students to collaborate.
From a personal viewpoint, I have found this assignment to be one of the highlights of teaching the cell physiology course. Interacting with the students when they are the experts on a topic is rewarding and exciting. Many take great pride in their poster and in their knowledge of the protein. The format provides an opportunity to tailor my oral questions to the ability of the student, challenging the best while still being supportive of the less able students. In fact, I am often surprised by the depth of understanding of a student whose performance had been otherwise mediocre. This assignment is also a mechanism by which I can keep abreast of new findings in a wide variety of areas. In this sense, the assignment does promote a community of learners that even includes faculty.
At a time when faculty are looking for ways to enrich their curriculum to better model the activities of professional biologists and to enhance the learning community in undergraduate science, this assignment, in which students read and report on a single research article dealing with protein structure and function, may be useful in other curricula.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Corresponding author. E-mail address: amymul{at}earlham.edu.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONPROFILE OF STUDENTS IN...THE ASSIGNMENTSTUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE...STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE...FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT...TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER...DISCUSSION AND GENERAL...REFERENCES |
|---|
Herman, C. (1999). Reading the literature in the jargon-intensive field of molecular genetics. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 28(4),252 –254.
Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium and Franklin and Marshall College. (2002). Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study.
Janick-Buckner, D. (1997). Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 27(1),29 –32.
Levine, E. (2001). Reading your way to scientific literacy. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 31(2),122 –125.
Mulnix, A., and Penhale, S. (1997). Modeling the activities of scientists: A literature review and poster presentation.Am. Biol. Teach . 59(8),482 –487.
National Research Council. (2003). Biology 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NSF Division of Undergraduate Education. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology. A report on the review of undergraduate education from the Committee for the Review to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources. http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/due/documents/review/96139/start.htm (accessed June 3, 2003).
PKAL. (2003). What works: Programs. http://www.pkal.org/template2.cfm?c_id=258 (accessed June 6, 2003).
Rothman, F.G., and Narum, J.L. (1999). Then, now, and in the next decade: A commentary on strengthening undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering and technology education. Project Kaleidoscope.
Stephenson, W.K. (1993). A departmental approach to bibliographic instruction. In: Bibliographic Instruction in Practice, eds. Hardesty, L., Hastreider, J., and Henderson, D., Ann Arbor MI: Pierian Press.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
