Monthly Archives: May 2017

After the brutal huffing and puffing of climbing two flights of stairs in the library at 8:25 in the morning, I finally reached the tech room where one of our librarians, Gail, was waiting for my Critical Thinking and Writing class.

We were greeted with a short welcome and introduction about our activity by Gail, then we were handed short slips of paper that had website urls printed on them. After typing each link in to a search bar, we were prompted with the task of creating short, but thorough, annotated bibliographies without citations.

Gail helped us with each of our summaries, and pointed out a few things I did not think of doing in my own annotated bibliography I had finished the day before. She advised us to look up information about the authors. Because each source she had picked was a scholarly article, the authors consisted of doctors, scientists, physiologists, heads of nationally regarded organizations, teachers, and the like. In the example annotation she provided, the source and summary were supported by the author’s background. In my mind, I had assumed that if my bibliography listed the science magazine or scholarly journal where I found my article, there was no need for this extra information.

I realized that this extra description can strengthen an annotation greatly. In providing a background of the author, the audience is reassured and given a sense of trust in your summary of the article you chose, as credentials from those with degrees in higher education (whether that be an associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, Ph.D., M.D., etc.) are often regarded as respectable and trustworthy.

If I ever do have the task of conducting research and writing an annotated bibliography again, I will definitely make sure to include this component in my summaries.

-FH

After perusing through over 30 academic articles about the ongoing conversation   of the development of biological sciences at institutes of higher education, I came across an article titled “Implementing the Recommended Curriculum in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at a Regional Comprehensive University through a Biology/Chemistry Double Major: The Minnesota State University Moorhead Experience” that I found to be incredibly intriguing. While many biologists, college faculty, and national science organizations are calling for a universal reform of undergraduate biology curriculum, one source offered a completely unorthodox idea: offering a program that results in a double major in biology and chemistry.

The completion of the Biochemistry and Biotechnology Emphasis program at Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM) leads to a B.A. degree with a double major in biology and chemistry. This program implements the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology’s recommended curriculum in biochemistry and molecular biology, and meets the needs of two groups of undergraduate students: those who plan to continue their education at graduate school, and those who plan to enter the workforce in the biotechnology industry. It incorporates inquiry-based and investigative laboratories during all four years of undergraduate study, which has been noted as the greatest benefit of the program in both the quantity and quality of the lab experience. In the six years that this program had been integrated upon the publishing of this article, forty seven students had completed the program. Of these forty seven, twenty students directly entered the workforce, sixteen went on to graduate school, and eleven entered professional school. All feedback from faculty has been extremely positive, and students are no longer trained to be science majors, but fully capable scientists.

This approach provides a very different method of teaching biology and chemistry compared to any of my other sources that I came across. In creating a program that specializes in biochemistry and biotechnology, undergraduates not only obtain a well rounded education in biology and chemistry and their relationships, but a double major. With the results being so extraordinary in the success of students after obtaining their double major, this may prove to be a program that should be seriously considered to implement as an alternative to a biology major or chemistry major.

-FH

This post is in continuum of my previous post, Rhetorical Research Report Strategies.

For my next research excavation, I am conducting my research on the development of biological sciences and chemistry curriculum at institutes of higher education. I have found that there has been little change in the course structuring universally in the last thirty years, and because of this I have had to adjust my research strategy to focus less on the history/development of the science program, and more on the call to action and proposals for reform. This is a common move in rhetorical research, as “rhetorical reading strategy requires the writer to discover what is worth writing about and to decide how to say it as or after they read their sources. The strategy requires writers to change their content goals and to adjust their writing plans as their understanding of the topic develops” (Kantz 80).

With this change comes the possibility of creating gaps in my writing. Because I was previously writing about the development of my topic, and now I am entering a current ongoing conversation about it, this leaves room for gaps in my research. Gaps may occur in three ways:

1. When a reader is not a member of the author’s intended audience
2. When a reader disagrees with or does not understand the text
3. If the writer has misrepresented or misunderstood the material

The first two scenarios are very relevant with my research. Because my topic is solely about the sciences, and more specifically biology and chemistry, it narrows   the audience interested in my research findings. In addition, I’m sure there are many who may not understand the need for reform, or those who think reform is unnecessary. It is my job as the author to be as forthcoming and honest with my audience as possible, and to include as much of the subject matter as I can.

Kantz states that in order to discover gaps, students may need to learn to think of the paper as an opportunity to teach someone, to solve someone’s problem or to answer someone’s questions of “Why?” “How?” and “So what?” It is at this point in which Kinneavy’s triangular diagram of the rhetorical situation becomes eminent. It’s three corners consist of the Encoder (the speaker/writer), the Decoder (the audience), and Reality (content). By asking questions of my sources using the triangle, I can look to fill the gaps that have been created, and drive a point home by making and supporting a claim that transitions from one point in the discussion to the next.

Rhetorical reading leads to discoveries about the text, and so new questions can be formed and original ideas procured, and the conversation can continue.

-FH

After reading Margaret Kantz’s article, “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively,” I felt like I had just read a summary of every struggle I have faced as a writer. She describes a theoretical situation in which an able writer received an average grade on a paper when an above average grade was expected. Through analysis of what went wrong, Kantz describes the difficulties writers face when reporting on a research topic, and offers alternatives in the process of conducting and reporting research from a rhetorical approach.

Kantz claims, “..writing a synthesis can vary in difficultly according to the number and length of the sources, the abstractness or familiarity of the topic, the uses that the writer must make of the material, the degree and quality of original thought required, and the extent to which the sources will supply the structure and purpose of the new paper” (70). For me, this is a concept that I struggle with greatly in my research. Because I have access to so many sources when conducting research, it becomes increasingly difficult to know when to include a source, what to include in regards to relevancy, and how to make one idea flow to the next.

Me with all my research and having no with where to begin organizing it

She writes about how students often cling to narrative structuring devices and expect textbooks and other authoritative sources either to tell them the truth or the express an opinion with which they may agree or disagree. I found this to be extremely applicable to my research methodology. Throughout my schooling career, I have always been told to not include personal opinion in research and just report the facts. As a student, I expect factual texts to tell me the truth, or to express an opinion with which I may agree or disagree, but never to view texts as arguments (a point Kantz makes in her article). Aka, research is black and white. BUT IT’S NOT. There is an in between grey area that must be explored to ensure the writer’s credibility, and not get caught up in writing a historical narrative or boring summary. So how am I supposed to write my research report rhetorically?

Kantz provides an answer to my question, and also clarifies the definition of fact and opinion in rhetorical terms: “In rhetorical argument a fact is a claim that an audience will accept as being true without requiring proof, although they may ask for an explanation. An opinion is a claim that an audience will not accept as true without proof, and which, after the proof is given, the audience may well decide has only a limited truth” (76). So, when this unorthodox idea of including my interpretation and conveying to the audience that I am including my own opinion of a topic in my writing presents itself in my writing, it is pertinent for me as the author to provide proof, which even though it may or may not be accepted, I conveyed my claim properly and maintained my credibility as the author.

To be continued…

-FH

In locating an article of relevance to my topic, I had to broaden my horizons and stray away from solely looking at the science program at Santa Clara. Instead, my findings that biology majors spent the most time in lab per week and that freshmen reported feeling the intro science series is very rigorous sparked my interest in the development of science majors core curriculum, mainly of biology and chemistry.

I found a scholarly article titled, “The Impacts of an “Organic First” Chemistry Curriculum at a Liberal Arts College,” using OmniFile- a database that one of our librarians at SCU suggested we use for our further research not in the archives. In watching a tutorial about scholarly articles, I was prepared with what to look for in finding a source that would provide me with rich and reliable information, in addition to providing me with the information that scholarly articles are the strongest to use for research as they must be peer reviewed by those involved in the specific area of interest before publication.

By typing in “higher education,” “biology” and “curriculum” into the search toolbars, I was greeted with 210 results that contained these three key words. I recorded 30 articles for later use, but this one really caught my eye. The article came from results of curriculum change from Washington & Jefferson College.

Because organic chemistry is usually taught during a major’s second year and general chemistry is taught first, this proposal took me by surprise. That is, until I read the purpose for this change:

“…because general chemistry is a disjointed collection of topics that tends not to correlate the reactivity and physical properties of molecules with their structure, it is not necessarily the best entry into the study of chemistry. Additionally, because general chemistry is often very similar to high school chemistry, students may be successful without needing to develop necessary study skills. Finally, general chemistry requires a substantial background in mathematics: students may be more successful with the topics found in general chemistry if given more time to bring their college-level math skills up to speed. Organic chemistry has none of these limitations: it is inherently much more coherent than general chemistry because it is a true subdiscipline of chemistry; organic chemistry is symbolic and conceptual more than mathematical; and it draws on a basic high school background rather than repeat it, thereby placing students on a more level playing field in largely unfamiliar territory” (995).

This article is exactly the type of scholarly contribution I was hoping to find. It challenges the traditional structure of science programs, and provides positive results from the shift, including improved student performance on standardized analytic exams, attracting more majors, and their biology program reported greater success in introductory biology. I want to enter this conversation by further investigating core curriculum of the sciences, and with so many articles of interest at hand I think the only problem I’ll have is organizing all of this complex information. 

-FH

So, my survey didn’t go as planned. First off, I didn’t get the number of responses I had hoped for. If I remember anything from high school stats, it’s that a good sample size for any survey is 30 respondents. I only received 27 responses which, even though this number is just shy of 30, makes it hard to summarize the data, especially since 21 of these respondents were freshmen. The rest consisted of 4 sophomores, 2 juniors and no seniors. Because of this, I could not make the statement that this survey accurately represented the science majors, and had to include the fact that almost all of my responses were first year students.

Of the 27 respondents, all were science majors except one. The majority of responses came from biology majors, followed by psychology majors, biochemistry majors, public health majors, environmental science majors, and lastly, political science, sociology, and theatre and dance majors. This was helpful to me as I was most interested in science majors’ responses, especially biology.

I found that all of the science majors that responded spent at least 2-3 hours in lab each week, with two of the most challenging majors (biology and biochemistry) reporting spending over 4 hours per week in the lab. As a bio major, I spend over 7 hours in lab each week which is a HUGE time commitment and definitely takes away from other classes in addition to my required major’s classes.

This graphic shows the number of individuals who reported their time spent in lab, whereas the previous graphic showed time spent in lab according to major.

The table below summarizes the level of rigor of the introductory science series (see previous blog post) that respondents reported. I took the 1-5 Likert scale (1 being the lowest level of rigor and 5 being the highest) and assigning each number a point value (5=5 points; 4=4 points etc.), then multiplying the points by the number of respondents who reported the score, then averaging that score by dividing by the number of respondents in the sample of each year in school.

These results show that the freshman in this survey find the intro science series much more rigorous than sophomores and juniors. However, in comparing the number of respondents in each class, I think these averages would have been much closer in number had there been more responses from upperclassmen.

In the end, I think I could have had stronger results had I received more responses. Though I sent this survey to my sorority Facebook group message, my  rugby group chat, my Critical Thinking and Writing class in addition to the later session, my chemistry class and my biology class, I think in asking my teachers to forward the survey to their other sections I could have collected a more diversity in my responses. Oh well, maybe next time.

-FH

Oh how I wish I had payed attention in AP Statistics my senior year of high school. Or at least gone to class rather than NEEDING a coffee. Or maybe I shouldn’t have missed 100 days of class. Whoops. Had I gone, maybe I’d have a better idea of how to construct a thorough survey.

Gotta get that daily soy green tea latte with vanilla!

Even without a solid background in stats, I think I have a pretty good idea of what to include in a survey, but even so I’m uncomfortable with the process. So, when it came to designing a survey to further my research about the College of Arts and Sciences at SCU, I struggled a bit. I needed to construct a set of questions that would provide further information about my initial research. but I found that to be too restricting. Because my research was centered around the development of the science program, there was no way to really gain insight about this topic from current students as I took more of a historical approach.

Thus, I decided to design my survey centered around the result of the science program at Santa Clara. I wanted to gain insight as to how students studying the sciences feel about their classes, and how rigorous they feel the science program is. With these objectives in mind, I constructed my survey, and it resulted in the following questions:

1. What year are you in college? [Freshman / Sophomore / Junior / Senior]
2. What gender do you identify with? [Male / Female / Prefer not to say / Other]
3. What is your major? [Ancient Studies / Anthropology / Art History / Biochemistry / Biology / Chemistry / Classical Studies / Communication / Computer Sciences / Economics / Engineering Physics / English / Environmental Science / Environmental Studies / Ethnic Studies / Greek Language and Literature / History / Individual Studies / Latin and Greek / Latin Language and Literature / Liberal Studies / Mathematics / Modern Languages / French / German / Italian / Spanish / Music / Neuroscience / Philosophy / Physics / Psychology / Physics / Political Science / Psychology / Public Health Science / Religious Studies / Sociology / Studio Art / Theatre and Dance / Women’s and Gender Studies]
4. If you have a lab section, how many hours do you spend in lab each week? [0-1 / 1-2 / 2-3 / 3-4 / 4+]
5. How many hours do you spend studying for your major’s required classes (not core) each day? [0-1 / 1-2 / 2-3 / 3-4 / 4+]
6. How many hours do you spend studying for your major’s required classes (not core) each week? [0-1 / 1-2 / 2-3 / 3-4 / 4+]
7. If applicable, how rigorous do you find the intro science series? (ex. Chem 11, 12, 13; Bio 21, 22, 23)  [ Not Rigorous / Slightly Rigorous / Just Right / Rigorous / Extremely Rigorous]

Even though I was mainly interested in biology majors, I decided to include all majors in the College of Arts and Sciences in order to obtain the most information I could and not narrow possible results and risk not receiving enough responses. I hope to find a trend with the biology majors, and the time and rigor of classes they report.

-FH