| U N I V E R S I T Y O F P I T T S B U R G H |
|
|
|
|
| Volume IX, Number 2 |
March
2004 |
| U N I V E R S I T Y O F P I T T S B U R G H |
|
|
|
|
| Volume IX, Number 2 |
March
2004 |
Karen Curto, BiologyEarly and active exposure to the course’s expectations serves to “set the bar” for achievement in the final documents.
In my Writing in the Biological Sciences course, students are required to write and give an oral presentation about a controversial biological topic, such as “Is the presence of SV40 contamination in polio virus vaccines associated with increased cancer incidence?” In previous versions of the course, sample student papers were available, but students rarely seemed to benefit from reading them. Their early drafts remained poor in format and argument structure. In addition, the oral presentations based on their papers were usually too long and lacked organization. Early last semester, I addressed this problem with an assignment to clarify the expectations for the paper and oral presentation. I used student final drafts from previous semesters to provide a choice of topics for groups of current students. The abstract and conclusion sections from these papers were intentionally removed. Each student in the group picked a section of the paper to present, but a resolution of the biological controversy based on the argument constructed by the former student was a group effort. This active engagement with the papers from previous semesters familiarized students with the format of the final draft assignment, exemplified argument structure, gave them experience with the oral presentation of biological data and the use of visuals or the blackboard. To ensure “active” listening, the audience was required to develop questions that challenged the presenting group’s resolution of the controversy. This group assignment allowed time for class discussion and questions as well as comments on delivery. Discussions after the presentations showed current students’ recognition of the success or failure of the former students’ drafts to convince the read-er about the resolution. The necessity for revision emerged as students identified problems with the science and writing in the former students’ papers. However, students also expressed admiration for a job well done. This early and active exposure to the course’s expectations served to “set the bar” for achievement in the final documents. Early drafts more closely resembled the final product than in previous versions of the class. The oral presentation, as a part of a group, was less anxiety provoking but alerted students to time constraints and the correct use of visuals in their later talks. | ||||
|
A newsletter devoted to the support of teaching and learning at the University of Pittsburgh |
||||
| Center
for Instructional Development & Distance Education |
||||
