e co 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: wbromer@stfrancis.edu. The technique proposed by Malcom McCallum to encourage discussion of scientific 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.

A Method for Encouraging Classroom Discussion of Scientific 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 Eco 101 July 2010 363

Eco 101 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 different manuscripts 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 finish up. At this time I randomly asked one student to tell briefly what their paper was about. After they had done this, I asked the other student who had that paper if the first students 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 presenters of the first 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 fluid and only required an occasional question to stimulate further participation (Fig. 1). Once the students were finished 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 sufficient time for the students to read them. I required students to finish 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 first-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 findings 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 field exam scores rose significantly (e.g. the class averages for the ETS major field 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-

364

Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America

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 papers instead 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 findings in sequence as they were discovered. For example, the first 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 influences 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 confidence 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 55:641649. Lynch, K. S., D. Crews, M. J. Ryan, W. Wilczynski. 2006. Hormonal state influences aspects of female mate choice in the tungara frog (Physalaemus pustulosus). Hormones and Behavior 49(4):450457. Ryan, M. J. 1980. Female mate choice in a neotropical frog. Science 209(445):523525. 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):305314. Malcolm L. McCallum 117 Linda Lane Texarkana, TX 75501 E-mail: malcolm.mccallum@herpconbio.org

Eco 101

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