The learning process in science: a study among Brazilian biochemists

127

The Learning Process in Science: a Study among Brazilian Biochemists LEOPOLDO DE MEIS,* PAULO H LONGO* and ELIANE B M FALCAO-~

*lnstituto Ciencias Biomedicas, Dept Bioquimica, and t Nucleo de Tecnologia Educational, Centro de Ciencias da Safide Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21910, Brasil

Professor Devlin with two of the participants Dr Devlin requested the audience to think of their teaching as they do of their research, ie as professionals. Teaching and research have several similarities. In both, objectives must be set, a strategy designed and then executed, and the results evaluated. He hoped that the Workshop had helped them in doing this in future. Dr Ramasarma said that teachers, departments and institutions can and should develop their own styles since there are many ways of achieving learning objectives. Dr Wood urged the participants to analyze their teaching activities, give themselves an honest rating, and let students express their opinions about the teaching they are subjected to. There are many aids for the improvement of teaching. Teachers should use these with some imagination, and should try out little experiments with didactic methods and approaches which they may not have used in the past. Dr Vella said that the participants had demonstrated their interest, their enthusiasm and their commitment to their teaching responsibilities. As expected, the Workshop had been different in several respects from all the others that preceded it. Every one, however, had confirmed that teachers of biochemistry around the world are becoming more and more aware of the need to improve their teaching and the image of the teaching of biochemistry. He suggested that the message of the Workshop could be summed up in the statement~, biochemical education equals Information + Formation + Transformation. After a short break, Dr Vella gave a lecture on Hereditary Abnormalities of the LDL Receptor. A number of detailed recommendations were made in the full report on the Workshop a copy of which may be obtained by writing to Professor Vella.

BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 17(3) 1989

Introduction About 75% of the scientific papers published between 1975 to 1984 were produced by scientists from the USA. Britain, FRG, USSR, France, Japan, and Canada.1 These countries may be referred to as "producers of new knowledge'. The rest of the world, representing 83% of its population, is responsible for the remaining 25% of scientific publications. The contribution to science decreases dramatically as one moves from developed countries to developing countries.-" Some developing countries (such as Brazil), have a large industrial development but which is not accompanied by a significant contribution to science. These countries may be referred to as 'consumers of knowledge'. In developing countries it is appreciated that science is needed for the economic and social stability of modern societies and the training of new scientists has become a concern of their governments. A major difficulty in this task is that little is known about the learning process in science. In Brazil, the productive scientific community is quite small and in some fields of knowledge, most of the scientists know each other personally m a condition quite different from that in most developed countries where there may be thousands of scientists in each field of knowledge. The present work focused on part of the Brazilian scientific community working in biochemistry. Because of its small size, it was possible to study many of its members. The aims were: to collect information about a scientific community in a developing country, to study the criteria used by this community in peer- and selfevaluation and, to follow in this group the development of the learning process in science from the undergraduate student stage to that of established scientists at the peaks of their careers. Brazilian Biochemists There are 119 000 university positions in Brazil. 3 During the period 1973 to 1978, only 200 to 270 of the articles which appeared in journals listed in Current Contents covering fields of research related to Life Sciences were published by Brazilian scientist per year. 4"5 These included papers published by scientists who did not hold university positions and who belonged to independent research institutes, or were postgraduate students. The per capita yield for university faculty is, therefore, smaller than the numbers suggest.

128 The Brazilian Biochemical Society, members of which were the subject of this study, has 400 members. The minimum requirement for membership of the Society is one published paper. The journals where these papers are published may be specialized or general. A count of the articles published in the major general journals was made. The result is, therefore, a selected one, and can only be used for comparative purposes since it does not reflect the total number of published papers in the field (Table 1). The group of 44 Brazilian biochemists studied here was responsible for 54% of all publications by Brazilians in the journals listed in Table 1 and for 85% of those in the American and European journals (also listed in Table l). The group consisted of research workers with ages from 30 to 70 years and included 10 women. The workers varied from those who had received their PhD degree two years previously to established researchers. The majority had graduated from Brazilian universities, found their first employment in the university from which they graduated and had never changed jobs. They left their employment for a short stay elsewhere for collaborative work, or to take up post-doctoral fellowships. When this happened it tended to be in another country, since interchange among Brazilian universities is uncommon. In the group only 5 had received PhDs outside Brazil and only 4 had changed their place Of work. There is, therefore, a large amount of academic inbreeding in this community.

A Hierarchy Based on Peer Group Rating There is a strong sense of hierarchy among Brazilian biochemists. This was ascertained by asking 8 biochemists from the University of Rio de Janeiro to classify themselves and their colleagues on the basis of their curricula vitae. They were rated on a four-point scale 4 being the highest level. Basically, the same rating was given by all the raters (Table 2). This indicates that each individual did not undervalue or overvalue his own position. The same names, but without curricula vitae, were then shown to colleagues from a university in Silo Paulo. These col-

leagues had never seen the cumcula vitae of the people they were rating and gave an opinion on the basis of the performance of these scientists at meetings, seminars and informal conversation. The overall picture produced was closely similar to that obtained in Rio de Janeiro (Table 2). The study was then extended, and the names of 44 biochemists from universities in Rio de Janeiro, Silo Paulo and Minas Gerais were given for rating to 21 members of this group. A similar rating system was used as before, except that no score was assigned when the rater did not know the person being rated. The most highly qualified biochemists were widely known and were always rated. Again there was a very impressive agreement in the rating given (the standard error was less than 10% of the value of the mean) (Fig 1). Furthermore, the rating given to one biochemist by colleagues working at the same university was essentially the same as that given by colleagues from another university. When the rating of a biochemist was compared to the number of papers published by the same person between 1970-1987, a clear relation between the latter and the subjective rating given by colleagues became evident (Fig 1). This relationship is practically linear between the rating range of 1.5 to 3.5 but rose steeply when the rating was 3.5 to 4. This indicates that the peer group resists rating highly except in the case of the very productive scientists. Because none of the raters in this part of the study had access to other than personal information on those being rated it appears that an instrinsic subjective factor may exist that allows the rating of the scientific position of a given individual. The 21 biochemists involved in rating their colleagues were next asked about the criteria they used. The replies showed that two groups of standards were used: the first was the academic position occupied by the individual at a university, the second was the importance of the work presented by the individual at meetings. For biochemists

Table 1. Origin of Articles Published (1983-1988) Journal

USA

Europe

Japan

Biochemistry (USA) J Biol Chem (USA) Eur J Biochem Bichem J (Europe) J Biochem (Japan) Braz J Med Biol Res (Brazil)

4160 9782 331 1181 29 0

997 3525 3091 3824 44 0

224 836 319 713 183 0

15 483 52.5

11 481 39.0

1735 5.9

Total. % of total

Third World 130 234 123 211 12 60 770 2.6

Latin America 17 69 43 58 0 60 247 0.84

Brazil 5 22 14 6 0 60 107 0.36

The total number of articles published by the journals listed above during the period January I, 1983 to June 1, 1988 was 29 469. The contribution of Brazilian biochemists decreases to 0.16% if articles published in the Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research are omitted from the calculations. The Brazilian biochemists here studied published 40 of the 47 papers (85.1%) which appeared in USA and Europe and 18 of the 60 papers (30%) published in the Braz J Med Biol Res. The sumof these represents 54.2% of the papers published by Brazilians in all the journals listed in the Table

BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 17(3) 1989

129 Table 2 Peer-group rating of eight biochemists IC

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

X t + SE

X2 + SE

Y

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

A

4

4

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.8

3.6

3.3 (0.1)

3.5 (0.1)

B

3.6

3.6

3.2

3.2

3.6

2.8

3.8

3.6

3.4 (0.1)

3.3 (0.2)

C

3.6

3.6

3.2

2.8

3.4

2.8

3.6

3.6

3.3 (0.1)

D

3.6

3.6

2.2

2.8

3.4

3.4

3.6

3.6

3.3 (0.2)

2.7 (0.2)

E

3.2

3.2

2.8

2.8

3.4

2.4

3.6

3.2

3.1 (0.1)

2.6 (0.2)

F

3.2

2.4

2.8

2.0

3.2

2.4

3.6

3.2

2.9 (0.2)

2.3 (0.2)

G

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.0

2.9

2.4

3.6

3.2

2.8 (0.2)

2.8 (0.2)

H

2.8

2.4

2.4

1.2

2.8

1.6

3.4

3.2

2.5 (0.2)

2.4 (0.2)

4

4

,

3.1 (0.2)

IC = Identification Code; Xt is the average of ranks given by biochemists evaluating their own curriculum and those of their colleagues ( I C Y and A to H). X2 is the average of ranks given by a group of biochemists from different universities and without examining the curriculum vitae of biochemists Y, A to H. In this second group the number of biochemists who evaluated A to H varied from 6 to 15. Y is a well known, very productive biochemist whose curriculum was used as reference standard. This biochemist did not evaluate biochemists A to H. The rating was on a 4 point scale, 4 being the highest level

at the top of the hierarchy, it was felt important that the data they presented should make a complete story, be clearly presented and with meaningful conclusions. For biochemists at the intermediate level it was felt that they should present strong data, but these did not necessarily have to make a complete and coherent story. For biochemists who were given a low rating it was felt that their data did not make a story, their communication was confused and they tended to get lost in details. For the majority of the biochemists involved in this study, the second criterion seemed to be adequate for rating, a particular biochemist. In an attempt to determine if this 'subjective factor' was something characteristically Brazilian, seven well-known international scientists from USA and Europe were consulted. They occupy high positions, being members of various peer review groups, and unit d!rectors experienced in evaluating biochemists. They were asked if they could evaluate the scientific quality of a research worker on the basis of a talk or seminar. They were unanimous in agreeing that they could do so, and that their estimate would come close to the true scientific position before analysing the individual's curriculum vitae. Furthermore, the criteria used by them were basically the same as those

BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 17(3) 1989

t-.

$ t lO0

(7)/

5o 0 U

a.

(71

0

~,~'~

,.. ,

,

2 3 Rating

4

Figure 1 Relation between peer rating and number of publications. Rating refers to the position on a four-point scale assigned by 21 biochemists to the names of 44 colleagues. The ratings between 1.5 and 2.0, 2.1 and 2.4, 2.5 and 2.9, 3.0 and 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7 and between 3.8 and 4.0 were pooled. The circles and horizontal bars represent the mean +. standard error. The number in parentheses represents the number of names in each pool. Publication refers to mean number of publications made by the biochemists in each rating pool. The vertical bar represents SEM. The total number of papers published by the 44 biochemists in the period 1970-1987 was 1383, of which 8.3% were published in Brazilian journals and 91.7% in American and European journals

130 used by the Brazilian biochemists. There seems to exist therefore, a general consensus on how to rate a scientist and this transcends local culture and follows well-defined rules some of which are subjective.

Scientific Attitudes and the Concept of Science In order to evaluate whether scientists from different levels of the hierarchy as determined in the previous section think differently about science, the question: What is it to think scientifically? was addressed to Brazilian biochemists. Subsequently, the same question was put to graduate and undergraduate students from various faculties: (ie medicine, pharmacy, biology, etc). A response was obtained from 42 of the 44 biochemists questioned and varied in length from a few words to several pages. These texts were assigned numbers so that the authors would remain.anonymous, and analysed by three biochemists, a science administrator responsible for coordinating peer reviews, a mathematician and two psychologists. This was done in two stages: in the first, the texts were examined with a view to detection of patterns; in the second, the analysts compared the peer-group rating of the anonymous respondent with the pattern detected in the first stage. The analysts worked independently of each other. It was noticed that all of these analysts followed the same procedure, ie they marked within the text key words that reflected certain concepts. Three analysts separated out two groups of respondents: those whose main preoccupation was evaluation and logic, and those who gave greater consideration to 'cosmic' and intuitive factors (for definition see legend to Fig 2). When the peer-group ratings of the scientists were examined, most of them were found to have been rated at the top of their careers. The other four analysts went into greater detail and sorted the key words used in the answers into various groups with reflected the same idea. There were, for example, key words that indicated preoccupation with the universe and which were classified as cosmic components; or words linked to creativity or intuition which were classified as intuitive components, as shown in the legend to Fig. 2. The relation of these key word groups to the peer-group rating is shown in Fig. 2. The biochemists given the lowest rating demonstrated a greater interest in logic and evaluation. As peer-group rating increased intuition and cosmic factors increased in importance while emphasis on evaluation decreased. This more detailed analysis was then given to the first three analysts. Two of them agreed immediately with the interpretation, whereas the third was noncommittal. These results suggest that during the progression of a professional career there is, in parallel with the person's general development, a greater preoccupation with common sense, intuition and the world as a whole, whereas at the beginning the interest focuses primarily on how to evaluate a problem technically. Even though scientists in the various rating groups mentioned intuition, it was not possible to characterize what they meant by this BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 17(3) 1989

I00f

LnoUOoO C I EvL SEre

I00 I)IR~Ing1.2to2.1

6Ol-m[-]

4LIIIF]I-Ioo C IEvL

UO0

SEre

SEre

I00 1Tr)Rotlr~ 3.0 lo 3 4 5

f

C IEvL

~r) Rating 3.47'tO4.00 n.15

~

n. 12

,oE ULJDO C I Ev L S Em

Figure 2 The Concept of Science Among Professional Biochemists. Key words used in the written answers were grouped according to the following six concepts: Cosmic Component (C): Nature, Universe, The Laws of Nature, Reality, To See; Intuitive Components (I): Intuition, Subjective, Common Sense, Creativity, Instinct; Evalu. ation (Ev): Scientific Method, To Test, Precision, Criticism, Honesty; Logic: Reason, To Correlate, Organize Systematically, Logic, Coherence; Status: Recognition, Competition, Those That Publish; Emotional Component (EM): Curiosity, Pleasure, Spirit of Adventure, Excitement. The ordinate shows the percentage of individuais that used in their answers at least one word from each conceptual grouping; n is the number of individual in each group. Scientists were assigned to groups I to IV according to the average of the numerical rating they received in the peer-group evaluation, as shown at the top of each group term, and most could not describe what it was. Some answers indicated that intuition was something that "either you have it or you don't" (like a genetic component). Others considered intuition as something that can be developed by experience, training, etc. This is illustrated by examples of answers given by scientists at opposite ends of the range of peer-group ratings and in the age range 42-48 years.

Scientists rated between 3.5--4.0 (1) "The idea of scientific discovery is exciting, to notice something for the first time in the Universe. The scientist needs methodology, to learn how to break barriers. This encompasses not only concepts, hut also method. But I believe there are moments when one cannot be just mechanistic. There is instinct, something that comes unsupported by anything, the intuitive thought: but this, one cannot learn or teach, one either has it or one does nOt".

(2) "First the method, that must be in equilibrium with something else that I do not understand, that is to see; this is a contradiction that worries me. To see does not have a m e t h o d , it is irrational. ~The method used for testing it, that is what is r a t i o n a l . . . The discovery is very intuitive.

131 This is not genetic, it is conditioned by training, it starts at childhood. Scientists rated between 2-3 (1) "It is to think according to the scientific method. It is to conclude on the basis of experiments". (2) "It is to follow the scientific method: from an initial idea based on previous knowledge a hypothesis is built that will be exhaustively tested in the most critical way. To think scientifically is to think critically". When the responses of students were examined in order to verify whether this set of attitudes was present during the training of the individual, a different trend was observed (Fig 3). Amongst undergraduates, logic was a strong concept whereas all other factors such as evaluation, status, intuitive or cosmic components were cited at approximately the same frequency but at a lower level. Among students working for their MSc degrees there developed an increased interest in evaluation, whereas the emphasis on logic remained unchanged, and there was a decrease in cosmic and individual factors. Among students working towards a PhD degree the interest in evaluation supplanted all other factors. In Fig 4 each of these factors was assessed individually. Cosmic and intuitive factors were cited by the undergraduate students; the number of answers that cited this concept decreased as the students proceeded towards doctoral work and then increased again to reach their highest level at the top of the career. The number of replies that attached importance to evaluation of data increased steeply from the undergraduate level to PhD candidates and the biochemists given peer-group rating at the intermediate level, and then decreased in the highly rated group. Finally, logic was cited at all stages at various levels, whereas status and emotional components were not considered important at any of the stages of professional life. The answers given by respondents appeared to be independent of the emotional state of the individual. Responses showing the same components were obtained when the question was asked again 3-6 months later. The frequency of citing cosmic and intuitive factors was not related to the age of respondents. We tested whether the results represented the thoughts of particular groups of biochemists because of 'inbreeding' within this scientific. community. That this was not the case was demonstrated C~ADUATE sTUOENTS

_PRD

I00

n. 17

o "" C

IEv

1"7,--,

L SEre

UI~E~TES (~n.34

I~Srim~ (MS) n. 30

C I EvL

$Ern

lqnE)oD C [Ev

L SEre

Figure 3 The concept of science among biochemistry students. Abbreviations as in Fig 2 BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 17(3) 1989

(C) Cosmic Compone~

(I) Infulflwl Compon~t

(Ev) (L) Evoluotio~ LOgic

o

o

o L ~

~,..~c~e.~.., . . . . . . . . . . . .

iS) $t~s

(Em) Emotional

60[ f~ ~/:~bC°mp°nent o

b-r~ ~ , ~ i i ~

Figure 4 Evolution of the concept of science. Data from Figs 2 and 3 were re-plotted to show changes in the concept of science from beginners to top-rated scientists. On the abscissa, UG, MS and PhD refers to undergraduate, MSc and PhD students in biochemistry. L If, III and IV are professional biochemists defined by peer-group rating as in Fig2

by study of the first, second and third generation groups of graduates of four laboratories. No correlation was found among the members within a group, or between the members and the head of the group. This observation corroborates the suggestion that the different emphases in the answers we obtained represent a professional developmental change and do not reflect a particular school of thought. To verify the possible influence of a family environment on the concept of science, nine couples in which both were biochemists were studied. No significant correlation could be observed between the answers of husband and wife and once more the answers reflected the peer-group rating given the individuals concerned. To ascertain whether these subjective answers were a characteristic of a specific, 'closed' community, 12 biochemists from USA, Germany, Italy and Belgium were assigned into two groups. Group 1 consisted of scientists who are frequently invited as main speakers at international congresses. Group 2 was composed of scientists who participate in congresses by presentation of their work as posters or oral communications but who are invited as speakers only rarely and, only for minor. meetings. As can be seen in Fig 5, Group 1 wrotelittle about evaluation and logic and much more about cosmic and intuititve concepts whereas.Group 2, like the lowerrated Brazilian biochemists, emphasized evaluation. This indicates that the attitudes found in the Brazilian biochemical community are very similar to those of the international biochemical community. For example, two scientists from Group 1 wrote: "Organization in the sense that you want to know where are you going, ie you need an hypothesis and then you need to decide how you are going to get there. You need

132

I00,

[ ] - International rating high ( n =7 ) ~'2l- Brazilian rating 3.47 to 4.00 ( n= 15)

6020 0 ~]-International rating low (n= 51

I00.

~ - Brazilian rating 2.1to 3.0 (n.-12)

adapted themselves to the scientific model of developed countries. Alternatively, it may be that the sense of hierarchy and the evolution of logic, evaluation, intuition and cosmic factors, reflect in reality the natural path followed in the learning of science and are therefore not affected by local cultural influences. What is still unclear is whether intuition and preoccupation with cosmic factors, whose perception exists in beginners and is quite strong in highly rated biochemists, are vocational factors inherent to the more talented, or are characteristics that develop through long experience of productive work.

Acknowledgement This investigation was supported by Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos and Fundafio Amparo Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. The authors are grateful to Dr Vivian Barral Dodd for helpful discussion of the manuscript.

60. 20' 0

References C

I

Ev

L

S Ern

Figure 5 Comparison between international and Brazilian biochemists. The ordinate shows the percentage of individuals who used words in their written answers that characterize a concept. The meaning of C, 1, Ev, L, S and Em is as in Fig 2 to design an experiment. To be honest, it is not always like that. There are things that must be and then you go ahead and do the experiments to show that this is true. The initial thought is not the product of an active, organized process, but simply appears in your mind and I can not tell where it came from." "Work, never lose contact with your subject. It is one of the most rewarding experiences if the results meet the proposal made. You get the feeling that you follow a little nature (Nature or God). A scientist should not ask or pursue what would be useful to society (technology). If he concentrates on what is needed he does not become creative. It turns you away from nature. I am not religious (practicing) but science is a kind of worship". A scientist from Group 2 wrote: "All your ideas must be tested experimentally and on the basis of data available, you develop theories. You discard theories if they don't support the scientific method. I don't think in great schemes, no general explanation which encompasses everything. It is only important to elucidate questions".

Conclusion The results presented in this study suggest that the scientific attitude of a productive group of biochemists in a developing country (Brazil) is essentially the same as that of their colleagues from countries where scientific output is high. This could arise from two circumstances. First, it is reasonable to assume that scientists who publish in international journals and maintain contact even if only sporadically with the international community, have

BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 17(3) 1989

tMartin, B R, Irvine, J, Narin, F and Sterritt, C (1987) Nature 330, 123-126 2Garfield, E (1983) Sci Publ Policy 10, 112-1127 3Data from CAPES - - Professional Improvement Coordination - Brazil, a science funding institution 4Morel, C M and Morel, R L de M (1978) Ciencia da lnformafao 7, 79-83 SLancaster, F W and Carvalho, M B P (1982) Ciencia e Cultura 34, 627-634