- Email: [email protected]
Dialogues as teaching tools in the biochemical sciences
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 29 (2001) 225–228
Article
Dialogues as teaching tools in the biochemical sciences Elizabeth S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, Mary Lou Caspers Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Detroit Mercy, PO Box 19900, Detroit, MI 48219-0900, USA Accepted 10 August 2001
Abstract In their senior year, biochemistry majors take ‘‘Recent Advances in Biochemistry Related to Societal Issues’’ in which new advances in biochemical sciences are explored through the reading and presenting of recent articles from the literature. Emphasis is placed on the analysis and interpretation of experimental results and the ethical and societal implications of the work including the significance of the findings to the improvement of life. To fulfill the objectives of the course, a group project was implemented in which the goal was to write a dialogue that explores one area in which advances in biochemical research give rise to ethical and societal considerations. This assignment required the groups to research the topics and then creatively integrate the information into a dialogue format representing different views on the subject. The dialogue was presented to the rest of the class and invited guests in skit format and then a discussion followed. Based upon evaluations, the project was regarded highly by the students. The assignment, group and topic selection, examples of presentations and issues raised during discussions, and results from student and audience evaluations will be discussed. r 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. on behalf of IUBMB. Keywords: Dialogues; Biochemistry; Ethics
1. Introduction Science curriculum reform has emphasized alternative examination and assessment practices in order to increase student learning and thinking [1–3]. These are aimed at engaging students in active-learning techniques which are designed to help students construct knowledge rather than the faculty member simply transmitting information to them [4]. One such example of an alternate assessment technique to promote student learning is the use of invented dialogues [5,6]. This technique provides a challenging way to assess and develop students’ skills at grasping the facts, creatively synthesizing the information, and adapting and evaluating beyond the information [5]. By requiring that at least two sides of the issue are presented in the dialogue, the students must explore different perspectives on the subject. We have implemented a dialogue project [7,8] into ‘‘Recent Advances in Biochemistry Related to Societal Issues’’, the senior capstone course for Biochemistry majors. In this course, new advances in biochemical sciences are explored through the reading and presenting of recent articles from the literature. This E-mail address: [email protected] (E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff).
course fulfills the University of Detroit Mercy’s core requirement for a course in social responsibility. All courses that fulfill this requirement must include as objectives an ability to gather data, analyze causes and propose solutions to problems confronting contemporary society. Thus, we incorporated an alternative assessment assignment into our advanced biochemistry course in which student teams write a dialogue between at least two people with two different viewpoints that explores an area of biochemical research that gives rise to societal and ethical considerations. The specific objectives of this assignment are to research a recent biochemical topic, creatively integrate the information into a dialogue format, recognize different perspectives, appreciate important contributions, and communicate the dialogue to a guest audience.
2. Implementation The dialogue project is based on previously described alternate assessment projects [5,6]. The students are given explicit instructions regarding the written and oral portions of the project. The paper is 7–10 pages and is written as a dialogue between at least two characters
1470-8175/01/$ 20.00 r 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. on behalf of IUBMB. PII: S 1 4 7 0 - 8 1 7 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 8 5 - 6
226
E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, M.L. Caspers / Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 29 (2001) 225–228
with at least two views expressed with the information obtained from refereed journals, review articles and appropriate web sites. There must be at least 20 exchanges between characters. In addition, each group member writes a 1–2 page personal perspective on the subject that includes their reasons behind this. The students present their 35–40 min dialogue to the rest of the class and an invited audience and then lead a 10– 15 min discussion with the audience. The projects are presented during the last class periods of the semester and the final exam time. The grading scale is designed to include assessment of both the written and oral portions and group and individual efforts. The grading scale includes 65 points for the written dialogue. The group is assessed on the scientific content of the written paper, the validity of the ethical/societal concerns expressed, the alignment with the explicit written criteria, and the use of appropriate references. The individual perspective page is worth a total of 10 points. The oral presentation and discussion are worth a total of 25 points. Members of a group could score differently on this latter portion if they did not participate in the presentation and discussion. Ten percent of both the written and oral sections are determined by peer grading in which the individual group members are evaluated by their peers on their participation. The groups are selected using a method to assign students to groups that allows for some control in creating teams that have a mix of student abilities but at the same time allows for some randomness [9]. For this method to be successful, some information about the students must be known (Table 1). The students added their individual point totals and then lined up in the Table 1 Group selection rubric If you are a chemistry major, add 50 If you have done undergraduate research, add 50 Sum the last 5 digits of your phone number Count the number of pieces of jewelry you are wearing If you ate 5 servings of fruits and vegetables yesterday, add 5 Total
order of decreasing totals. After counting off 1–2–3 repeatedly, all the ones were a group, all the twos were a group, etc. We have successfully employed this technique (with variations on the questions asked) in both laboratory and lecture classes to form groups with a range of student abilities. The students meet in their groups and choose a topic within the first two weeks of class. The groups are given a choice of several topics and then asked to rank them in order of preference. A list of topics related to issues of societal concern offered to students in the last three years is shown in Table 2. The groups have 5–6 topics to choose from, and, generally, the groups received their first choice. The topics that are selected for presentation are not covered in the other portions of the class. The students have been very creative in their invented dialogues. For example, the group that reported on ‘‘olestra and fat-free foods’’ used a scenario in which an individual was suing Procter & Gamble Company for damages due to alleged side-effects experienced after ingestion of foods prepared with olestra, P&G’s fat-free and calorie-free cooking oil. The class period prior to the presentation, the rest of the class received notices that they were to report for jury duty the following class period. The audience, as jury members, decided the fate of the case. The presenters enlisted the help of other students not enrolled in the class to play various roles in the courtroom including bailiff and judge. Some of the information presented during the courtroom drama included the history of olestra, current patent information, FDA regulations pertaining to olestra, and the available research data concerning the safety of the product. After the presentation, the topics that were brought up in the student-led discussion included the use of warning labels on food products, research studies on food products (who funds them? and how are they conducted?), personal responsibility versus corporate liability, litigation, FDA regulations and procedures regarding food products. This past year, the topic for one group project was ‘‘circumventing normal FDA protocols for terminal diseases’’. This presentation consisted of two patient scenarios: one in which a patient who had not responded
Table 2 Topic selection for dialogue projects Topics presented as dialogues
Topics not chosen
Genetically engineered crops Regulation of natural products versus drugs Medical uses of controlled substances Germ-line genetic engineering Olestra and fat-free foods Widespread antibiotic use and the emergence of resistant bacteria Circumventing normal FDA protocols for terminal diseases Weight regulation/weight loss programs Biological terrorism
Use of anabolic steroids by athletes Human cloning Embryonic stem cell research Screening for beryllium sensitivity in the workplace Large-scale screening for prion diseases in Britain Environmental changes and emerging diseases Gamma hydroxybutyrate and other date-rape drugs
227
E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, M.L. Caspers / Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 29 (2001) 225–228
well to a conventional chemotherapy regimen for a particular cancer is attempting to be treated with a drug not submitted for FDA approval, and another scenario in which a patient has been enrolled in a clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of gene therapy to treat patients with a particular enzyme deficiency. Some of the information presented during the two scenarios included overviews of the FDA drug approval process including time lines and descriptions of the different phases of the process, patient consent, patient rights, and historical information concerning the power of patient advocacy groups in recent FDA revisions of policies especially in regard to the ‘‘expanded access mechanism’’ for availability of particular drugs. After the presentation, some of the topics covered in the student-led discussion included questioning why a physician would not submit his clinical protocol to normal scientific scrutiny with proper controls; the rights and responsibilities of the pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, or an individual when a drug’s approval process circumvented the established FDA protocol and then the drug causes harm or death; ethics in health care; and the general public’s scientific knowledge and the impact this has on their ability to give informed consent.
3. Results and conclusions In the three semesters since this project has been implemented, 26 students have participated. We evaluated the projects using several mechanisms. During the Fall 2000 term, we asked the audience to complete a survey before and after the presentation, ‘‘circumventing normal FDA protocols for terminal diseases’’. The audience consisted of students currently enrolled in the first semester of biochemistry lecture and who would be taking this advanced course the following year and a bioethicist, David Nantais, S.J. Our objective in surveying the audience was to assess their familiarity with the
process of drug approval through the FDA before and after the student presentation. The audience was asked to rank their knowledge defined as whether they could actively engage in a conversation about the listed topics. From the results (Table 3), it is apparent that many of the students ranked their knowledge about the topics as increasing from the limited (L) and none (N) columns prior to the presentation to the very familiar (VF), familiar (F) and somewhat familiar (SF) columns after the presentation. Thus, the group that presented this dialogue was successful in conveying information regarding FDA drug approval protocols to the audience. This is evidence that the student presenters were involved in higher level reasoning since they had to collect the information, integrate the information into this dialogue, and explain the concepts to others in such a way that the audience gained some knowledge from the process. In addition, we invited an ethicist with a science background, David Nantais, S.J., to watch the presentation and then to share with us his general analysis of the presentation and discussion. Some of his comments included that the student presenters were thoroughly prepared and during the student-led discussion were able to speak extemporaneously, to give insightful remarks, and overall to engage the audience in a lively discussion [10]. During the Fall of 1998 and 1999, we asked the students to evaluate the dialogue project by responding to a survey at the end of the term. From these results (Table 4), it appears that the students preferred the project to a traditional report, learned from watching the other presentations, and believed the discussions were thought provoking. The students were ambivalent about the methods for group and topic selection, and whether peer grading affected their performance. In addition, the students had the opportunity to offer any additional comments on the project or suggestions for improving the project. The comments could be grouped in four general categories. These included wanting the ability to choose their own topics (three students);
Table 3 Surveys of audience knowledge of the FDA drug approval process before and after dialogue presentation Rank your knowledge about:
The ethical/societal issues related to the process of drug approval through the FDA The process of bringing drugs to market Phase 1 of a clinical trial Phase 2 of a clinical trial Phase 3 of a clinical trial Recent changes (in the past 5 years) concerning clinical trials The ‘‘expanded access mechanism’’ for certain drugs The guidelines used by the FDA in determining the effectiveness of a drug The general criteria the FDA uses to access the safety of a drug a
VF=very familiar, F=familiar, SF=somewhat familiar, L=limited, N=none.
Response (before/after)a VF
F
SF
L
N
1/2 0/2 1/2 0/2 0/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1
2/5 1/5 1/6 2/6 2/6 1/6 1/5 0/7 0/6
3/3 6/3 0/2 0/1 0/2 0/3 1/3 3/3 2/3
3/0 3/0 3/0 3/1 3/0 5/1 2/2 3/0 5/0
1/0 0/0 5/0 5/0 5/0 4/0 6/0 4/0 3/0
228
E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, M.L. Caspers / Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 29 (2001) 225–228
Table 4 Student evaluations of dialogue projecta SA A N D SD At the beginning of the semester, I liked the format of the project At the end of the semester, I liked the format of the project I liked the oral presentation portion I preferred the format of the project more than writing a traditional term paper Working with a group was better than doing it myself I learned more about this topic by doing this project than if I had to do a traditional term paper I liked the way the topic of the paper was determined I liked the way the groups were determined By watching the presentations of the other groups, I learned more about their topics than if they had given formal reports The discussions were thought provoking Knowing that my group members were going to grade me on my participation was an incentive for me to actively participate I liked the point distribution a
5 9 11 16 14 10 5 4 8 11 7 7
8 10 9 4 6 7 10 6 14 10 6 12
8 3 2 2 1 3 4 9 0 1 7 2
1 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
SA=strongly agree, A=agree, N=neutral, D=disagree, SD=strongly disagree.
requiring rough drafts through the semester (three students); giving more detail as to what is expected (four students); and overall comments on how much fun and/or interesting the process had been (five students). Finally, we have several other observations about the implementation of the dialogue project. By requiring oral presentations, the class became familiar with each other’s topics and the different points of view regarding them. We observed that students were sometimes reluctant to use the library and wanted to rely heavily on the Internet; and all groups incorporated information relating to current government regulations and laws (or lack of) in regard to their topic. Finally, we enjoyed grading these projects more than if we had required a traditional research paper. This can also be effective not only in an advanced course but in an introductory biochemistry course as well. After seeing my presentation at the 16th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education [8], Dr. Paul Craig of the Rochester Institute of Technology contacted me for specifics about implementing the project in his introductory course. He then contacted us after the students had completed their projects and stated that it had gone very well in his class [11] and more recently presented his results [12]. We have implemented the use of a dialogue project into an upper-level capstone course for biochemistry students. Use of this alternate assessment project engaged the students in active learning. This collaborative experience required the students to research a topic in which advances in biochemical research have given rise to ethical and societal considerations, creatively integrate the information into a dialogue format with at least two views or perspectives represented, present the dialogue to the audience, and then lead a discussion.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank David Nantais S.J. of the University of Detroit Mercy for attending the dialogue presentations and providing us with feedback, and Paul Craig of the Rochester Institute of Technology for sharing his experiences in implementing this assignment into one of his courses. We would also like to thank the students of Chemistry 474 (Fall 1998, 1999, and 2000) for their enthusiastic participation and support of this project.
References [1] P.A. Mills, S. DeMeo, W.V. Sweeney, R. Marino, S. Clarkson, J. Chem. Educ. 77 (2000) 1158. [2] A.J. Phelps, M.M. LaPorte, A. Mahood, J. Chem. Educ. 74 (1997) 528. [3] R.P. Stout, J. Chem. Educ. 77 (2000) 1301. [4] A. King, in: D.S. Halpern (Ed.), Changing College Classrooms: New Teaching and Learning Strategies for an Increasingly Complex World, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1994, pp. 13–38. [5] T. Angelo, P. Cross, Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd Edition, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1993, pp. 203–207. [6] C.F. Herried, Dialogues as case studies. Http://ublib.buffalo.edu/ libraries/projects/cases/dialogues.html (accessed 8/10/98). [7] E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, M.L. Caspers, FASEB J. 13 (1999) A1416. [8] E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, Presented at the 16th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Ann Arbor, MI, August 2000, Paper 414. [9] H.B. White, D.E. Allen, Presented at 2001: Biochemistry for the Millennium, San Francisco, August 1997. [10] David Nantais, S.J., Personal communication, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, December 2000. [11] P.A. Craig, Personal communication, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, August–November 2000. [12] P.A. Craig, FASEB J. 15 (2001) A544.
Article
Dialogues as teaching tools in the biochemical sciences Elizabeth S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, Mary Lou Caspers Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Detroit Mercy, PO Box 19900, Detroit, MI 48219-0900, USA Accepted 10 August 2001
Abstract In their senior year, biochemistry majors take ‘‘Recent Advances in Biochemistry Related to Societal Issues’’ in which new advances in biochemical sciences are explored through the reading and presenting of recent articles from the literature. Emphasis is placed on the analysis and interpretation of experimental results and the ethical and societal implications of the work including the significance of the findings to the improvement of life. To fulfill the objectives of the course, a group project was implemented in which the goal was to write a dialogue that explores one area in which advances in biochemical research give rise to ethical and societal considerations. This assignment required the groups to research the topics and then creatively integrate the information into a dialogue format representing different views on the subject. The dialogue was presented to the rest of the class and invited guests in skit format and then a discussion followed. Based upon evaluations, the project was regarded highly by the students. The assignment, group and topic selection, examples of presentations and issues raised during discussions, and results from student and audience evaluations will be discussed. r 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. on behalf of IUBMB. Keywords: Dialogues; Biochemistry; Ethics
1. Introduction Science curriculum reform has emphasized alternative examination and assessment practices in order to increase student learning and thinking [1–3]. These are aimed at engaging students in active-learning techniques which are designed to help students construct knowledge rather than the faculty member simply transmitting information to them [4]. One such example of an alternate assessment technique to promote student learning is the use of invented dialogues [5,6]. This technique provides a challenging way to assess and develop students’ skills at grasping the facts, creatively synthesizing the information, and adapting and evaluating beyond the information [5]. By requiring that at least two sides of the issue are presented in the dialogue, the students must explore different perspectives on the subject. We have implemented a dialogue project [7,8] into ‘‘Recent Advances in Biochemistry Related to Societal Issues’’, the senior capstone course for Biochemistry majors. In this course, new advances in biochemical sciences are explored through the reading and presenting of recent articles from the literature. This E-mail address: [email protected] (E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff).
course fulfills the University of Detroit Mercy’s core requirement for a course in social responsibility. All courses that fulfill this requirement must include as objectives an ability to gather data, analyze causes and propose solutions to problems confronting contemporary society. Thus, we incorporated an alternative assessment assignment into our advanced biochemistry course in which student teams write a dialogue between at least two people with two different viewpoints that explores an area of biochemical research that gives rise to societal and ethical considerations. The specific objectives of this assignment are to research a recent biochemical topic, creatively integrate the information into a dialogue format, recognize different perspectives, appreciate important contributions, and communicate the dialogue to a guest audience.
2. Implementation The dialogue project is based on previously described alternate assessment projects [5,6]. The students are given explicit instructions regarding the written and oral portions of the project. The paper is 7–10 pages and is written as a dialogue between at least two characters
1470-8175/01/$ 20.00 r 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. on behalf of IUBMB. PII: S 1 4 7 0 - 8 1 7 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 8 5 - 6
226
E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, M.L. Caspers / Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 29 (2001) 225–228
with at least two views expressed with the information obtained from refereed journals, review articles and appropriate web sites. There must be at least 20 exchanges between characters. In addition, each group member writes a 1–2 page personal perspective on the subject that includes their reasons behind this. The students present their 35–40 min dialogue to the rest of the class and an invited audience and then lead a 10– 15 min discussion with the audience. The projects are presented during the last class periods of the semester and the final exam time. The grading scale is designed to include assessment of both the written and oral portions and group and individual efforts. The grading scale includes 65 points for the written dialogue. The group is assessed on the scientific content of the written paper, the validity of the ethical/societal concerns expressed, the alignment with the explicit written criteria, and the use of appropriate references. The individual perspective page is worth a total of 10 points. The oral presentation and discussion are worth a total of 25 points. Members of a group could score differently on this latter portion if they did not participate in the presentation and discussion. Ten percent of both the written and oral sections are determined by peer grading in which the individual group members are evaluated by their peers on their participation. The groups are selected using a method to assign students to groups that allows for some control in creating teams that have a mix of student abilities but at the same time allows for some randomness [9]. For this method to be successful, some information about the students must be known (Table 1). The students added their individual point totals and then lined up in the Table 1 Group selection rubric If you are a chemistry major, add 50 If you have done undergraduate research, add 50 Sum the last 5 digits of your phone number Count the number of pieces of jewelry you are wearing If you ate 5 servings of fruits and vegetables yesterday, add 5 Total
order of decreasing totals. After counting off 1–2–3 repeatedly, all the ones were a group, all the twos were a group, etc. We have successfully employed this technique (with variations on the questions asked) in both laboratory and lecture classes to form groups with a range of student abilities. The students meet in their groups and choose a topic within the first two weeks of class. The groups are given a choice of several topics and then asked to rank them in order of preference. A list of topics related to issues of societal concern offered to students in the last three years is shown in Table 2. The groups have 5–6 topics to choose from, and, generally, the groups received their first choice. The topics that are selected for presentation are not covered in the other portions of the class. The students have been very creative in their invented dialogues. For example, the group that reported on ‘‘olestra and fat-free foods’’ used a scenario in which an individual was suing Procter & Gamble Company for damages due to alleged side-effects experienced after ingestion of foods prepared with olestra, P&G’s fat-free and calorie-free cooking oil. The class period prior to the presentation, the rest of the class received notices that they were to report for jury duty the following class period. The audience, as jury members, decided the fate of the case. The presenters enlisted the help of other students not enrolled in the class to play various roles in the courtroom including bailiff and judge. Some of the information presented during the courtroom drama included the history of olestra, current patent information, FDA regulations pertaining to olestra, and the available research data concerning the safety of the product. After the presentation, the topics that were brought up in the student-led discussion included the use of warning labels on food products, research studies on food products (who funds them? and how are they conducted?), personal responsibility versus corporate liability, litigation, FDA regulations and procedures regarding food products. This past year, the topic for one group project was ‘‘circumventing normal FDA protocols for terminal diseases’’. This presentation consisted of two patient scenarios: one in which a patient who had not responded
Table 2 Topic selection for dialogue projects Topics presented as dialogues
Topics not chosen
Genetically engineered crops Regulation of natural products versus drugs Medical uses of controlled substances Germ-line genetic engineering Olestra and fat-free foods Widespread antibiotic use and the emergence of resistant bacteria Circumventing normal FDA protocols for terminal diseases Weight regulation/weight loss programs Biological terrorism
Use of anabolic steroids by athletes Human cloning Embryonic stem cell research Screening for beryllium sensitivity in the workplace Large-scale screening for prion diseases in Britain Environmental changes and emerging diseases Gamma hydroxybutyrate and other date-rape drugs
227
E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, M.L. Caspers / Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 29 (2001) 225–228
well to a conventional chemotherapy regimen for a particular cancer is attempting to be treated with a drug not submitted for FDA approval, and another scenario in which a patient has been enrolled in a clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of gene therapy to treat patients with a particular enzyme deficiency. Some of the information presented during the two scenarios included overviews of the FDA drug approval process including time lines and descriptions of the different phases of the process, patient consent, patient rights, and historical information concerning the power of patient advocacy groups in recent FDA revisions of policies especially in regard to the ‘‘expanded access mechanism’’ for availability of particular drugs. After the presentation, some of the topics covered in the student-led discussion included questioning why a physician would not submit his clinical protocol to normal scientific scrutiny with proper controls; the rights and responsibilities of the pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, or an individual when a drug’s approval process circumvented the established FDA protocol and then the drug causes harm or death; ethics in health care; and the general public’s scientific knowledge and the impact this has on their ability to give informed consent.
3. Results and conclusions In the three semesters since this project has been implemented, 26 students have participated. We evaluated the projects using several mechanisms. During the Fall 2000 term, we asked the audience to complete a survey before and after the presentation, ‘‘circumventing normal FDA protocols for terminal diseases’’. The audience consisted of students currently enrolled in the first semester of biochemistry lecture and who would be taking this advanced course the following year and a bioethicist, David Nantais, S.J. Our objective in surveying the audience was to assess their familiarity with the
process of drug approval through the FDA before and after the student presentation. The audience was asked to rank their knowledge defined as whether they could actively engage in a conversation about the listed topics. From the results (Table 3), it is apparent that many of the students ranked their knowledge about the topics as increasing from the limited (L) and none (N) columns prior to the presentation to the very familiar (VF), familiar (F) and somewhat familiar (SF) columns after the presentation. Thus, the group that presented this dialogue was successful in conveying information regarding FDA drug approval protocols to the audience. This is evidence that the student presenters were involved in higher level reasoning since they had to collect the information, integrate the information into this dialogue, and explain the concepts to others in such a way that the audience gained some knowledge from the process. In addition, we invited an ethicist with a science background, David Nantais, S.J., to watch the presentation and then to share with us his general analysis of the presentation and discussion. Some of his comments included that the student presenters were thoroughly prepared and during the student-led discussion were able to speak extemporaneously, to give insightful remarks, and overall to engage the audience in a lively discussion [10]. During the Fall of 1998 and 1999, we asked the students to evaluate the dialogue project by responding to a survey at the end of the term. From these results (Table 4), it appears that the students preferred the project to a traditional report, learned from watching the other presentations, and believed the discussions were thought provoking. The students were ambivalent about the methods for group and topic selection, and whether peer grading affected their performance. In addition, the students had the opportunity to offer any additional comments on the project or suggestions for improving the project. The comments could be grouped in four general categories. These included wanting the ability to choose their own topics (three students);
Table 3 Surveys of audience knowledge of the FDA drug approval process before and after dialogue presentation Rank your knowledge about:
The ethical/societal issues related to the process of drug approval through the FDA The process of bringing drugs to market Phase 1 of a clinical trial Phase 2 of a clinical trial Phase 3 of a clinical trial Recent changes (in the past 5 years) concerning clinical trials The ‘‘expanded access mechanism’’ for certain drugs The guidelines used by the FDA in determining the effectiveness of a drug The general criteria the FDA uses to access the safety of a drug a
VF=very familiar, F=familiar, SF=somewhat familiar, L=limited, N=none.
Response (before/after)a VF
F
SF
L
N
1/2 0/2 1/2 0/2 0/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1
2/5 1/5 1/6 2/6 2/6 1/6 1/5 0/7 0/6
3/3 6/3 0/2 0/1 0/2 0/3 1/3 3/3 2/3
3/0 3/0 3/0 3/1 3/0 5/1 2/2 3/0 5/0
1/0 0/0 5/0 5/0 5/0 4/0 6/0 4/0 3/0
228
E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, M.L. Caspers / Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 29 (2001) 225–228
Table 4 Student evaluations of dialogue projecta SA A N D SD At the beginning of the semester, I liked the format of the project At the end of the semester, I liked the format of the project I liked the oral presentation portion I preferred the format of the project more than writing a traditional term paper Working with a group was better than doing it myself I learned more about this topic by doing this project than if I had to do a traditional term paper I liked the way the topic of the paper was determined I liked the way the groups were determined By watching the presentations of the other groups, I learned more about their topics than if they had given formal reports The discussions were thought provoking Knowing that my group members were going to grade me on my participation was an incentive for me to actively participate I liked the point distribution a
5 9 11 16 14 10 5 4 8 11 7 7
8 10 9 4 6 7 10 6 14 10 6 12
8 3 2 2 1 3 4 9 0 1 7 2
1 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
SA=strongly agree, A=agree, N=neutral, D=disagree, SD=strongly disagree.
requiring rough drafts through the semester (three students); giving more detail as to what is expected (four students); and overall comments on how much fun and/or interesting the process had been (five students). Finally, we have several other observations about the implementation of the dialogue project. By requiring oral presentations, the class became familiar with each other’s topics and the different points of view regarding them. We observed that students were sometimes reluctant to use the library and wanted to rely heavily on the Internet; and all groups incorporated information relating to current government regulations and laws (or lack of) in regard to their topic. Finally, we enjoyed grading these projects more than if we had required a traditional research paper. This can also be effective not only in an advanced course but in an introductory biochemistry course as well. After seeing my presentation at the 16th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education [8], Dr. Paul Craig of the Rochester Institute of Technology contacted me for specifics about implementing the project in his introductory course. He then contacted us after the students had completed their projects and stated that it had gone very well in his class [11] and more recently presented his results [12]. We have implemented the use of a dialogue project into an upper-level capstone course for biochemistry students. Use of this alternate assessment project engaged the students in active learning. This collaborative experience required the students to research a topic in which advances in biochemical research have given rise to ethical and societal considerations, creatively integrate the information into a dialogue format with at least two views or perspectives represented, present the dialogue to the audience, and then lead a discussion.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank David Nantais S.J. of the University of Detroit Mercy for attending the dialogue presentations and providing us with feedback, and Paul Craig of the Rochester Institute of Technology for sharing his experiences in implementing this assignment into one of his courses. We would also like to thank the students of Chemistry 474 (Fall 1998, 1999, and 2000) for their enthusiastic participation and support of this project.
References [1] P.A. Mills, S. DeMeo, W.V. Sweeney, R. Marino, S. Clarkson, J. Chem. Educ. 77 (2000) 1158. [2] A.J. Phelps, M.M. LaPorte, A. Mahood, J. Chem. Educ. 74 (1997) 528. [3] R.P. Stout, J. Chem. Educ. 77 (2000) 1301. [4] A. King, in: D.S. Halpern (Ed.), Changing College Classrooms: New Teaching and Learning Strategies for an Increasingly Complex World, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1994, pp. 13–38. [5] T. Angelo, P. Cross, Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd Edition, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1993, pp. 203–207. [6] C.F. Herried, Dialogues as case studies. Http://ublib.buffalo.edu/ libraries/projects/cases/dialogues.html (accessed 8/10/98). [7] E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, M.L. Caspers, FASEB J. 13 (1999) A1416. [8] E.S. Roberts-Kirchhoff, Presented at the 16th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Ann Arbor, MI, August 2000, Paper 414. [9] H.B. White, D.E. Allen, Presented at 2001: Biochemistry for the Millennium, San Francisco, August 1997. [10] David Nantais, S.J., Personal communication, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, December 2000. [11] P.A. Craig, Personal communication, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, August–November 2000. [12] P.A. Craig, FASEB J. 15 (2001) A544.