ACE 10 Question
Learning Objectives
Writing: Students will generally be writing in a scientific format for the first time. This may be very different from prior writing in the university. This will come from discussions in the classroom sessions and from feedback on the course paper chapters that are submitted during the progress of the course.
Oral Communication: This is reinforced by the presentation of relevant papers from the scientific literature during most of the class periods. Students need to learn to master the content of such papers, prioritize the important elements, and present them in a coherent fashion. The student effort receives intrinsic feedback during the process by questions and comments from the instructor and from the other students.
Critical Thinking: Critical thinking can only be done once a student has mastered a significant amount of foundational literature. Students at the start of the topic will have little ability to carry out critical thinking about the course theme. As students read more of the primary literature and seek out other references to flesh out certain aspects and to reconcile contradictory reports, they will be encouraged to reflect on the epistemology of the conclusions.
Ethics: Each section of the class involves one class session related to an ethical issue. This usually involves a case study that is read prior to the class and a group discussion. In some cases, it is productive to have students attempt to present differing viewpoints, but in for other topics, students seem able to grasp the diverse social impacts.
Student Work
Rubric for evaluating student work
Broad range of topics for each section of BIOC435
Method of Analysis
Findings
Improving ACE 10 Learnin

Harris, Ed

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Quality Initiative Accreditation
2014
Reading and Understanding the Scientific
Literature: ACE 10 Course: Biochemistry 435
Advanced Topics
Ed Harris
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, eharris5@unl.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/accredqi
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Accreditation at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Quality Initiative by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Harris, Ed, "Reading and Understanding the Scientific Literature: ACE 10 Course: Biochemistry 435 Advanced Topics" (2014).
Quality Initiative. 20.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/accredqi/20
Reading and Understanding the Scientific Literature 
ACE 10 Course:  Biochemistry 435 Advanced Topics 
Edward N. Harris  
Student Work Improving ACE 10 Learning 
ACE 10 Question Method of Analysis 
Findings 
 
Learning Objectives 
 
Writing:  Students will generally be writing in a scientific format for the first time. This may be 
very different from prior writing in the university.  This will come from discussions in the 
classroom sessions and from feedback on the course paper chapters that are submitted during 
the progress of the course. 
Oral Communication:  This is reinforced by the presentation of relevant papers from the 
scientific literature during most of the class periods. Students need to learn to master the 
content of such papers, prioritize the important elements, and present them in a coherent 
fashion. The student effort receives intrinsic feedback during the process by questions and 
comments from the instructor and from the other students. 
Critical Thinking:  Critical thinking can only be done once a student has mastered a significant 
amount of foundational literature. Students at the start of the topic will have little ability to 
carry out critical thinking about the course theme. As students read more of the primary 
literature and seek out other references to flesh out certain aspects and to reconcile 
contradictory reports, they will be encouraged to reflect on the epistemology of the conclusions. 
Ethics:  Each section of the class involves one class session related to an ethical issue. This 
usually involves a case study that is read prior to the class and a group discussion. In some cases, 
it is productive to have students attempt to present differing viewpoints, but in for other topics, 
students seem able to grasp the diverse social impacts. 
 
How are the learning objectives embedded in the course? This course focuses on the broad 
discipline of biological chemistry that cuts across the various life science disciplines. Students 
receive a few lectures of introduction, and then start reading journal articles selected by the 
instructor. Then, most of the remainder of the semester is comprised of students searching the 
primary literature and collecting relevant articles with information to build a coherent paper 
that proposes the direction of future research in one aspect of the general topic. Students learn 
to make presentations of their selected papers and reflect on how the data reported represents 
an incremental increase in knowledge and understanding. The individual sections of this course 
are taught by different instructors, thus the topics do vary. 
The college (CASNR) keeps all of the current archived data.  The 
department currently has not used any quantitative data from the 
ACE 10 courses to formulate correction, revisions, or additions to 
other biochemistry courses.  The department is currently building an 
assessment tool to measure student knowledge of biochemistry 
from freshman to senior years.  All the instructors have noted that 
the writing proficiency varies widely among the student body from 
barely proficient to very good. 
  
The Dept. of Biochemistry is always seeking to maintain a high 
quality of instruction with their undergraduates.  The BIOC435 
course was originally intended to expose students to the primary 
scientific peer-reviewed research articles and foster literacy across a 
broad range of topics.  The observation from all of the instructors is 
that despite the core-curriculum from the prior 3 years of 
instruction, including ACE 1-9, student preparation for this course is 
quite variable.  Several improvements have been made including: 
 
• Teaching students how to read a research article:  This means 
breaking the article apart with the students and putting the parts 
back together one at a time. 
 
• Instruction of new material begins with reviewing some of the 
material that the students learned in BIOC431/432 for familiarity. 
 
• The use of new teaching methods in the classroom such as Just-
In-time teaching (JITT) or peer instruction (PI) 
 
• Development of BIOC205, a new pilot course for biochemistry 
majors that utilizes the scientific literature to demonstrate how 
basic research enhances human therapies.   
Each instructor for each section provides the college with the 
syllabus and samples of student work.  Samples of the written review 
papers are uploaded in Blackboard and the current standard is to 
provide two samples of very good papers, two samples of average 
papers, and two samples of poorly written/poorly thought out 
papers. 
    
Writing sample:  A key aspect for critical thinking is for students to clearly write about the 
subject material.  In this course, students must read numerous research articles in their specific 
chosen subject and synthesize a paper reviewing current status of the research and what needs 
to be done in order to progress the field.  This involves evaluating the research methods, 
outcomes, and impact of the research in that particular field. 
 
To assess the student’s writing, the specific sections of the review paper are sent to the 
instructor in electronic format over the course of the semester.  The instructor then goes through 
the written work and uses the “Track Changes” feature in word to edit and make comments.  The 
students revise their work and should learn their own weaknesses in writing/thinking  about 
their subject.  Below is an example of the introduction part of the paper that the student sent in 
and received back from the instructor.  By the end, of the semester, the entire paper is evaluated 
and graded with the rubric (see top middle section).  The rubric was adapted from 
http://www.apsanet.org/tlc2007/TLC07Rublee.pdf 
Sent to the instructor Received back from the instructor 
Rubric for evaluating student work 
Broad range of topics for each section of 
BIOC435 
 Grade A B C <C 
Continuity Clear  
organization that  
walks the reader  
through the  
paper, does not  
stray off central 
theme  
  
Clear  
organization but  
strays slightly or 
sections not linked  
  
Organization is  
less than clear, or  
organization is  
clear but some 
digressions or poor 
development of a 
central theme  
  
Organization is  
lacking and/or  
paper strays  
substantially 
from topic  
  
Support Numerous,  
varied and  
relevant details  
and facts support  
coherent arguments  
  
Details and facts  
support  
arguments, but  
may not provide  
enough or may  
be as relevant as  
possible  
  
Some details and  
facts to support  
arguments, but  
not enough and  
some lack  
relevancy  
  
Little to no  
relevant details  
and facts to  
support  
arguments  
  
Content  
Knowledge 
Demonstrates  
excellent  
understanding of  
content and is  
comfortable with  
nuances in  
material 
  
Conveys content  
adequately but  
fails to elaborate  
  
Gets basic  
content correct  
but is otherwise  
uncomfortable  
with material 
  
Basic content is  
wrong,  
incorrect, or 
substantially 
incomplete  
  
Originality 
  
Demonstrates  
excellent  
analytical  
originality, either 
in creating new  
arguments or in  
relating facts in  
new ways  
(beyond what is  
covered in  
course material)  
  
Demonstrates  
some, but not a  
great deal of,  
analytical  
originality,  
either in creating  
new arguments  
or in relating  
facts in new  
ways  
  
Demonstrates  
little analytical  
originality, relies  
mainly on  
arguments and  
evidence already  
covered in class  
  
Makes no  
attempt to  
provide original  
analysis  
  
Citation Variety of  citations 
which support the 
text 
  
Adequate citations, 
but some sense that 
text describes the 
limited number of 
citations found  
  
Limited variety of 
citations.  Not much 
evidence of 
scholarship  
  
Few citations 
  
Vocabulary Rich and 
appropriate use of 
scientific 
vocabulary 
  
Generally good  
vocabulary  
use 
  
Limited scientific 
vocabulary, not  
always precise or  
accurate  
  
Incorrect use of  
scientific 
vocabulary,  
very limited  
range  
  
Grammar No major errors,  
a few minor  
errors that do not  
distract  
  
One major error  
or several minor  
errors that do not  
distract  
  
Two or three  
major errors 
combined with  
minor errors 
  
Numerous  
major errors 
  
Argumentation 
(final chapter) 
Paper has clear,  
original arguments  
that go beyond  
description  
  
Paper has  
discernable  
arguments but  
may be  
somewhat  
unclear or weak  
  
Paper has  
arguments but  
often falls into  
description  
  
Paper has little  
to no arguments,  
spends most  
time describing  
  
Writing Rubric for the review paper 
Evaluation of Presentation  Presenter’s name_______________________________ 
1.  I understood what the presentation was about.       NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
2. The flow of the presentation was logical.       NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
3. The presenter spoke clearly.         NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
4. The slides were clear and easy to understand.      NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
5. The presenter spoke to the audience.        NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
6. The presenter made good use with the pointer.      NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
7. The presentation was within the prescribed time limits (20 min +/- 2 min.).  NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
8. The presenter answered questions clearly (no B.S.).      NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
9. The presenter gave his/her opinion of the state of the science in this subject.   NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
10. I would enjoy listening to this type of presentation again.     NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 
 
Score:   _______/50  Your name___________________________________ 
Presentation Evaluation 
 
Names of Presenter:      
 
I. Was the subject clearly presented? 
 
(1) Organization of presentation material  A+,  A,  A-,   B+,  B,   B-,  C+,  C,   C- 
            
             
(2) Were the slides clear and easy to follow?   A+,  A,  A-,   B+,  B,   B-,  C+,  C,   
C- 
            
             
 
(3) Speech, attitude, and behavior  A+,  A,  A-,   B+,  B,   B-,  C+,  C,   C- 
            
             
 
II. Did the presenter make an interesting presentation? A+,  A,  A-,   B+,  B,   B-,  
C+,  C,   C- 
            
             
 
III. Any other comments and suggestions 
            
             
 
IV. Did you learn something?  
(Brief summary of presented material, significance of the topic, and the most 
important information you will likely remember.) 
Samples of presentation evaluation sheets 


Reading and Understanding the Scientific Literature: ACE 10 Course: Biochemistry 435 Advanced Topics

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnQuality Initiative Accreditation2014Reading and Understanding the ScientificLiterature: ACE 10 Course: Biochemistry 435Advanced TopicsEd HarrisUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln, eharris5@unl.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/accredqiThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Accreditation at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been acceptedfor inclusion in Quality Initiative by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Harris, Ed, "Reading and Understanding the Scientific Literature: ACE 10 Course: Biochemistry 435 Advanced Topics" (2014).Quality Initiative. 20.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/accredqi/20Reading and Understanding the Scientific Literature ACE 10 Course:  Biochemistry 435 Advanced Topics Edward N. Harris  Student Work Improving ACE 10 Learning ACE 10 Question Method of Analysis Findings  Learning Objectives  Writing:  Students will generally be writing in a scientific format for the first time. This may be very different from prior writing in the university.  This will come from discussions in the classroom sessions and from feedback on the course paper chapters that are submitted during the progress of the course. Oral Communication:  This is reinforced by the presentation of relevant papers from the scientific literature during most of the class periods. Students need to learn to master the content of such papers, prioritize the important elements, and present them in a coherent fashion. The student effort receives intrinsic feedback during the process by questions and comments from the instructor and from the other students. Critical Thinking:  Critical thinking can only be done once a student has mastered a significant amount of foundational literature. Students at the start of the topic will have little ability to carry out critical thinking about the course theme. As students read more of the primary literature and seek out other references to flesh out certain aspects and to reconcile contradictory reports, they will be encouraged to reflect on the epistemology of the conclusions. Ethics:  Each section of the class involves one class session related to an ethical issue. This usually involves a case study that is read prior to the class and a group discussion. In some cases, it is productive to have students attempt to present differing viewpoints, but in for other topics, students seem able to grasp the diverse social impacts.  How are the learning objectives embedded in the course? This course focuses on the broad discipline of biological chemistry that cuts across the various life science disciplines. Students receive a few lectures of introduction, and then start reading journal articles selected by the instructor. Then, most of the remainder of the semester is comprised of students searching the primary literature and collecting relevant articles with information to build a coherent paper that proposes the direction of future research in one aspect of the general topic. Students learn to make presentations of their selected papers and reflect on how the data reported represents an incremental increase in knowledge and understanding. The individual sections of this course are taught by different instructors, thus the topics do vary. The college (CASNR) keeps all of the current archived data.  The department currently has not used any quantitative data from the ACE 10 courses to formulate correction, revisions, or additions to other biochemistry courses.  The department is currently building an assessment tool to measure student knowledge of biochemistry from freshman to senior years.  All the instructors have noted that the writing proficiency varies widely among the student body from barely proficient to very good.   The Dept. of Biochemistry is always seeking to maintain a high quality of instruction with their undergraduates.  The BIOC435 course was originally intended to expose students to the primary scientific peer-reviewed research articles and foster literacy across a broad range of topics.  The observation from all of the instructors is that despite the core-curriculum from the prior 3 years of instruction, including ACE 1-9, student preparation for this course is quite variable.  Several improvements have been made including:  • Teaching students how to read a research article:  This means breaking the article apart with the students and putting the parts back together one at a time.  • Instruction of new material begins with reviewing some of the material that the students learned in BIOC431/432 for familiarity.  • The use of new teaching methods in the classroom such as Just-In-time teaching (JITT) or peer instruction (PI)  • Development of BIOC205, a new pilot course for biochemistry majors that utilizes the scientific literature to demonstrate how basic research enhances human therapies.   Each instructor for each section provides the college with the syllabus and samples of student work.  Samples of the written review papers are uploaded in Blackboard and the current standard is to provide two samples of very good papers, two samples of average papers, and two samples of poorly written/poorly thought out papers.     Writing sample:  A key aspect for critical thinking is for students to clearly write about the subject material.  In this course, students must read numerous research articles in their specific chosen subject and synthesize a paper reviewing current status of the research and what needs to be done in order to progress the field.  This involves evaluating the research methods, outcomes, and impact of the research in that particular field.  To assess the student’s writing, the specific sections of the review paper are sent to the instructor in electronic format over the course of the semester.  The instructor then goes through the written work and uses the “Track Changes” feature in word to edit and make comments.  The students revise their work and should learn their own weaknesses in writing/thinking  about their subject.  Below is an example of the introduction part of the paper that the student sent in and received back from the instructor.  By the end, of the semester, the entire paper is evaluated and graded with the rubric (see top middle section).  The rubric was adapted from http://www.apsanet.org/tlc2007/TLC07Rublee.pdf Sent to the instructor Received back from the instructor Rubric for evaluating student work Broad range of topics for each section of BIOC435  Grade A B C <C Continuity Clear  organization that  walks the reader  through the  paper, does not  stray off central theme    Clear  organization but  strays slightly or sections not linked    Organization is  less than clear, or  organization is  clear but some digressions or poor development of a central theme    Organization is  lacking and/or  paper strays  substantially from topic    Support Numerous,  varied and  relevant details  and facts support  coherent arguments    Details and facts  support  arguments, but  may not provide  enough or may  be as relevant as  possible    Some details and  facts to support  arguments, but  not enough and  some lack  relevancy    Little to no  relevant details  and facts to  support  arguments    Content  Knowledge Demonstrates  excellent  understanding of  content and is  comfortable with  nuances in  material   Conveys content  adequately but  fails to elaborate    Gets basic  content correct  but is otherwise  uncomfortable  with material   Basic content is  wrong,  incorrect, or substantially incomplete    Originality   Demonstrates  excellent  analytical  originality, either in creating new  arguments or in  relating facts in  new ways  (beyond what is  covered in  course material)    Demonstrates  some, but not a  great deal of,  analytical  originality,  either in creating  new arguments  or in relating  facts in new  ways    Demonstrates  little analytical  originality, relies  mainly on  arguments and  evidence already  covered in class    Makes no  attempt to  provide original  analysis    Citation Variety of  citations which support the text   Adequate citations, but some sense that text describes the limited number of citations found    Limited variety of citations.  Not much evidence of scholarship    Few citations   Vocabulary Rich and appropriate use of scientific vocabulary   Generally good  vocabulary  use   Limited scientific vocabulary, not  always precise or  accurate    Incorrect use of  scientific vocabulary,  very limited  range    Grammar No major errors,  a few minor  errors that do not  distract    One major error  or several minor  errors that do not  distract    Two or three  major errors combined with  minor errors   Numerous  major errors   Argumentation (final chapter) Paper has clear,  original arguments  that go beyond  description    Paper has  discernable  arguments but  may be  somewhat  unclear or weak    Paper has  arguments but  often falls into  description    Paper has little  to no arguments,  spends most  time describing    Writing Rubric for the review paper Evaluation of Presentation  Presenter’s name_______________________________ 1.  I understood what the presentation was about.       NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 2. The flow of the presentation was logical.       NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 3. The presenter spoke clearly.         NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 4. The slides were clear and easy to understand.      NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 5. The presenter spoke to the audience.        NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 6. The presenter made good use with the pointer.      NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 7. The presentation was within the prescribed time limits (20 min +/- 2 min.).  NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 8. The presenter answered questions clearly (no B.S.).      NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 9. The presenter gave his/her opinion of the state of the science in this subject.   NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES 10. I would enjoy listening to this type of presentation again.     NO 1 2 3 4 5 YES  Score:   _______/50  Your name___________________________________ Presentation Evaluation  Names of Presenter:       I. Was the subject clearly presented?  (1) Organization of presentation material  A+,  A,  A-,   B+,  B,   B-,  C+,  C,   C-                          (2) Were the slides clear and easy to follow?   A+,  A,  A-,   B+,  B,   B-,  C+,  C,   C-                           (3) Speech, attitude, and behavior  A+,  A,  A-,   B+,  B,   B-,  C+,  C,   C-                           II. Did the presenter make an interesting presentation? A+,  A,  A-,   B+,  B,   B-,  C+,  C,   C-                           III. Any other comments and suggestions                           IV. Did you learn something?  (Brief summary of presented material, significance of the topic, and the most important information you will likely remember.) Samples of presentation evaluation sheets 

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=accredqi

Reading and Understanding the Scientific Literature: ACE 10 Course: Biochemistry 435 Advanced Topics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska