My Mentored Teaching Project Evaluation
What skill/ability/behavior did the mentored teaching project set out to change?
I focused on their abilities to communicate scientific findings and information. In a previous semester, I found that the assignments contained plagiarism (apparently due to not fully understanding how to cite and synthesize ideas), were un-organized and hard to follow, and were not engaging or focused. Communication is very important in science, but I also felt learning these skills would improve their critical thinking, because the students would be learning to state ideas clearly and provide evidence to support them.
What assignments or activities were implemented to address the above question?
To supplement their traditional writing assignments, I assigned two non-traditional tasks. The first was to produce an informational pamphlet pertaining to a neurobiological disease (the course topic). It should be written such that a non-scientist would understand, visually appealing, and of course, informative. The other assignment was to write a news article about a recent scientific breakthrough pertaining to neurobiological disease, as you might find in the New York Times science section. It should be engaging and easy to understand.
What were the strengths of the assignments/activities?
I thought the strength of assignment 2, the pamphlet, was that it allowed students to write in a different style and use skills they may not otherwise utilize in their science classes. I think the importance of the layout and the need for the pamphlet to be visually engaging helped organize their thoughts better than in a lengthy paper about the same topic. I thought the strength of the third assignment, the news article, was that it would make them think about the type of language they used to explain complex problems to an audience of non-scientists. Both assignments came with a rubric to guide students.
What were the weaknesses of the assignments/activities?
I think the weakness of the science news article is that students were not familiar with the type of writing and reporting this entails, and if they had been given some examples in class to go over, rather than relying on the students to find examples in papers on their own time, would have provided them with a better basis to go off of. I thought it was helpful to give the students a lecture on writing skills and techniques, but they needed more practice and reminders throughout the semester to really benefit and make long-lasting changes.
What instrument was used to collect information for this project, and how effective was it?
Two instruments were used. One was a grading rubric that was provided to everyone, instructors and students, before each assignment. This rubric demonstrated what needed to be in the paper, and the scores that would be given for the completeness of each category. The second instrument was a survey given to the students to evaluate the effectiveness of the assignments and their thoughts on what they got out of them.
What did the information collected for the project indicate? How did this compare to previous semesters?
The surveys indicated that the students enjoyed the two non-traditional assignments. Comparing grades from the first traditional assignment to the last traditional assignment (the non-traditional assignments were completed in between these two traditional assignments), the grades were improved. Because of the small sample size, it is difficult to make any conclusions based off the grades alone.
What surprised you about the results?
I was surprised that even though the students did not perform as well at the science news article and expressed difficulties in completing the assignment, they still reported in their surveys that they enjoyed the assignment and enjoyed the challenge it provided them.
Were the assignments/activities useful to the instructor? What did the instructor gain from it? How did this compare to previous semesters?
I thought the addition of the rubric this semester was very important and made grading easier for me compared to the previous semester without rubrics.
Were the assignments/activities useful to students? What did the students gain from it? How did this compare to previous semesters?
Between the first assignment and the fourth, I saw an improvement in the organization of their papers. I like to think that assignment 2, designing an informational pamphlet, helped the most with this. Their pamphlets were very well made and organized. In their traditional writing assignments, I found several instances of jumping around on concepts and poor organizational flow, but the pamphlets were very nicely organized by topics.
What changes would you recommend?
I would make a few changes to assignment three, the science news article. I would first have them find a press release of a general news article written about a new finding or breakthrough, and I would have them locate the original scientific publication that the press release was based off of. This way they could read the original paper and see what the news outlet decided to focus on, and how well and accurately they did this. Then I would assign them the paper as before, pick another news-worthy publication and write a general audience science article about it.
Additional comments?
Another interesting assignment might be to discuss how misunderstandings in science have affected society, in order to have them understand why science, and the proper communication of science, is important.
I focused on their abilities to communicate scientific findings and information. In a previous semester, I found that the assignments contained plagiarism (apparently due to not fully understanding how to cite and synthesize ideas), were un-organized and hard to follow, and were not engaging or focused. Communication is very important in science, but I also felt learning these skills would improve their critical thinking, because the students would be learning to state ideas clearly and provide evidence to support them.
What assignments or activities were implemented to address the above question?
To supplement their traditional writing assignments, I assigned two non-traditional tasks. The first was to produce an informational pamphlet pertaining to a neurobiological disease (the course topic). It should be written such that a non-scientist would understand, visually appealing, and of course, informative. The other assignment was to write a news article about a recent scientific breakthrough pertaining to neurobiological disease, as you might find in the New York Times science section. It should be engaging and easy to understand.
What were the strengths of the assignments/activities?
I thought the strength of assignment 2, the pamphlet, was that it allowed students to write in a different style and use skills they may not otherwise utilize in their science classes. I think the importance of the layout and the need for the pamphlet to be visually engaging helped organize their thoughts better than in a lengthy paper about the same topic. I thought the strength of the third assignment, the news article, was that it would make them think about the type of language they used to explain complex problems to an audience of non-scientists. Both assignments came with a rubric to guide students.
What were the weaknesses of the assignments/activities?
I think the weakness of the science news article is that students were not familiar with the type of writing and reporting this entails, and if they had been given some examples in class to go over, rather than relying on the students to find examples in papers on their own time, would have provided them with a better basis to go off of. I thought it was helpful to give the students a lecture on writing skills and techniques, but they needed more practice and reminders throughout the semester to really benefit and make long-lasting changes.
What instrument was used to collect information for this project, and how effective was it?
Two instruments were used. One was a grading rubric that was provided to everyone, instructors and students, before each assignment. This rubric demonstrated what needed to be in the paper, and the scores that would be given for the completeness of each category. The second instrument was a survey given to the students to evaluate the effectiveness of the assignments and their thoughts on what they got out of them.
What did the information collected for the project indicate? How did this compare to previous semesters?
The surveys indicated that the students enjoyed the two non-traditional assignments. Comparing grades from the first traditional assignment to the last traditional assignment (the non-traditional assignments were completed in between these two traditional assignments), the grades were improved. Because of the small sample size, it is difficult to make any conclusions based off the grades alone.
What surprised you about the results?
I was surprised that even though the students did not perform as well at the science news article and expressed difficulties in completing the assignment, they still reported in their surveys that they enjoyed the assignment and enjoyed the challenge it provided them.
Were the assignments/activities useful to the instructor? What did the instructor gain from it? How did this compare to previous semesters?
I thought the addition of the rubric this semester was very important and made grading easier for me compared to the previous semester without rubrics.
Were the assignments/activities useful to students? What did the students gain from it? How did this compare to previous semesters?
Between the first assignment and the fourth, I saw an improvement in the organization of their papers. I like to think that assignment 2, designing an informational pamphlet, helped the most with this. Their pamphlets were very well made and organized. In their traditional writing assignments, I found several instances of jumping around on concepts and poor organizational flow, but the pamphlets were very nicely organized by topics.
What changes would you recommend?
I would make a few changes to assignment three, the science news article. I would first have them find a press release of a general news article written about a new finding or breakthrough, and I would have them locate the original scientific publication that the press release was based off of. This way they could read the original paper and see what the news outlet decided to focus on, and how well and accurately they did this. Then I would assign them the paper as before, pick another news-worthy publication and write a general audience science article about it.
Additional comments?
Another interesting assignment might be to discuss how misunderstandings in science have affected society, in order to have them understand why science, and the proper communication of science, is important.