a method for encouraging classroom discussion of scientific papers

8/3/2019 A Method for Encouraging Classroom Discussion of Scientific Papers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-method-for-encouraging-classroom-discussion-of-scientific-papers 1/4

Eco 101

Note: William Bromer is the editor of Ecology 101. Anyone wishing to contribute

articles or reviews to this section should contact him at the Department of Natural Sciences,University of St. Francis, 500 N. Wilcox, Joliet, IL 60435, (815) 740-3467, e-mail:

[email protected].

The technique proposed by Malcom McCallum to encourage discussion of scientic

papers is one of the many creative ideas that ecology teachers have developed to engage

our students. While Malcom was able to use some creative assessments as well as his

observations of students to support his conclusions, I would encourage everyone to consider

how we could measure learning gains before we implement new or novel teaching techniques.

eco 101

A Method for Encouraging Classroom Discussion of Scientic Papers

Introduction

During my graduate education I observed that many faculty assigned peer-reviewed articles for students to read and then discuss in class. Often, a student would be assigned a manuscript to present,

and other students in the class who had prospectively also read the paper brought questions to ask the

presenter. Some faculty awarded points for each question. Others asked questions on the tests. Frequently,

the professor would use “participation points” to force participation. In fact, the many different angles

used by professors in my many classes all ended the same way. Inevitably, a growing number of students

did not read the papers unless they were the presenter. Some students simply created bogus questions

from the abstract. Others asked questions that were clearly based on hearing part of the presentation and

July 2010 363



then ignoring the rest. Upon becoming a faculty member I confronted the same problems, tried many

of the same angles used by my professors, and until I used the method outlined below, found student

participation to be lackluster at best.

In the Spring 2009 semester I conceived and tested an innovative method for dealing with these

problems in the senior-level environmental physiology class. I brought to class two copies of 10 differentmanuscripts on critical thermal maxima. Almost all of these manuscripts were by Victor Hutchison, and

they were very similar except for the organism involved. One of the manuscripts was a review paper. In

a class of <20 students, I gave each student a different manuscript. Only a few students had duplicate

papers, so almost everyone was responsible for their own article. Then, the students were given about

15 minutes to read their paper. At the end of that time, I asked if everyone was done. If anyone was not

done reading, I gave them a little more time to nish up. At this time I randomly asked one student to

tell briey what their paper was about. After they had done this, I asked the other student who had that

paper if the rst student’s iteration followed their understanding. The second person had things to add

or ask in every case. At this time I randomly asked a student with a different paper to compare what

they read in their manuscript to what the former two students presented. If I had a second student with

the same paper, I asked that individual if they had anything to add. Then, I returned to the presentersof the rst paper and asked if they felt that the comparison just made was accurate; if not, how or why.

If so, explain. This continued through about four papers, at which time discussion became uid and

only required an occasional question to stimulate further participation (Fig. 1). Once the students were

nished with all nonreview articles, I requested the student who had the review paper to summarize the

discussion and compare it to the review article he/she read.

I used short manuscripts that could be read and then discussed in a typical two-hour laboratory period.

This method would also work with newspaper articles, policy statements, or longer, more involved

papers common in the journal Ecology; however, the students might require more in-class time, or the

papers could be assigned a day or two in advance to provide sufcient time for the students to readthem. I required students to nish the whole process within the laboratory period so that they learn to

read effectively at a rapid rate and become accustomed to meeting short deadlines. My students were

primarily undergraduates, mostly rst-year community college transfers. The technique could be used

with freshman, sophomore, and graduate students very effectively.

Although I used 10 papers in my exercise, the instructor could use fewer or more than 10 articles

and still be effective; however, the rationale behind using a larger rather than smaller number of papers

is to reduce duplication. This allows students to compare and contrast the ndings in their manuscript

compared to other papers. When many students have the same paper, it could allow some students to

simply repeat what another said or voice an opinion about what the other student said, rather than what

they read. Effectively, my design was to circumvent as many lazy behaviors as possible so that students become accustomed to reading, processing, and evaluating complex manuscripts in a short time. This

should improve reading comprehension. In fact, the GRE, MCAT, and ETS major eld exam scores

rose signicantly (e.g. the class averages for the ETS major eld test in biology raw section scores

increased ~12% from the previous year and ~50% relative to students taking the same classes with

other instructors) within a year of my introducing this technique at my institution. Additionally, the

number of students entering graduate and medical school also rose. Furthermore, I put a 10-point short-

Eco 101

364 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America



Eco 101

answer question on the test that asked students to discuss the topic of the papers we discussed in class.

Surprisingly, almost all of the students demonstrated a working knowledge of the topic and over half

(~65%) earned at least 7 points on this question. When I used more traditional techniques in the previous

semester, ~33% of the students earned at least 7 points on a similar question.

It should be noted that this approach requires the instructor to be actively engaged with the students

in the classroom. It also requires more preparation time, because the instructor must read 10 papersinstead of just one. Also, the professor may want to have a series of questions written down about each

paper to stimulate the initial discussion. Although I did not attempt this, one could select articles along

a progression so that students follow new ndings in sequence as they were discovered. For example,

the rst student may read and present “Female mate choice in a neotropical frog” (Ryan 1980), the

following student reads “Sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the tungara frog” (Ryan

and Rand 1990), then the next student reads “Hormonal state inuences aspects of female mate choice

in the tungara frog” (Lynch et al. 2006), and this list can easily be expanded. Essentially, the students

will cover the entire research progression on a topic rather effectively, and leave, it is hoped, with a

better understanding of both the topic and the process of research in general. I intend to try this in future

semesters, and I have condence that it will expand positively upon the technique I introduced to you

in this article.

I believe that this approach will help others who desire to incorporate or expand the use of research

manuscripts into their classes and effectively improve student participation. From a student perspective,

I believe that this strategy stimulates interest and reduces boredom as other students present their results.

It also replaces the traditional passive atmosphere in which many students ask token questions and

essentially ignore presenters, with an active learning atmosphere encouraged by discussion among all

students.

Literature cited

Kime, N. M., A. S. Rand, M. Kapfer, and M. J. Ryan. Consistency of female choice in the tungara frog:a permissive preference for complex characters. Animal Behaviour 55:641–649.

Lynch, K. S., D. Crews, M. J. Ryan, W. Wilczynski. 2006. Hormonal state inuences aspects of female

mate choice in the tungara frog ( Physalaemus pustulosus). Hormones and Behavior 49(4):450–457.

Ryan, M. J. 1980. Female mate choice in a neotropical frog. Science 209(445):523–525.

Ryan, M. J. 1990. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the tungara frog, Physalaemus

pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44(2):305–314.

Malcolm L. McCallum

117 Linda Lane

Texarkana, TX 75501E-mail: [email protected]

July 2010 365



Eco 101

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of classroom management during student presentations of

research papers.

366 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America

a method for encouraging classroom discussion of scientific papers

Documents