The need for undergraduates

What Makes Us Who We Are? What Makes Us Who We Are? Investigating the Chemistry Behind Genetics in an Interdisciplinary Course for Undergraduate Stud...
2 downloads 0 Views 220KB Size
What Makes Us Who We Are?

What Makes Us Who We Are? Investigating the Chemistry Behind Genetics in an Interdisciplinary Course for Undergraduate Students By Amy Flanagan Johnson and Chiron W. Graves This article details the aim, development, and implementation of the Chemistry-Genetics Course Collaborative (CGCC), a cotaught offering of a human genetics course with an honors introductory chemistry course. The CGCC was formed to fully integrate the two courses, along with the associated chemistry lab, to create an interdisciplinary scientific community among the students and their professors. The design of the courses was purposefully aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards, incorporating its interwoven strands of disciplinary core ideas, scientific practices, and crosscutting concepts. This article represents Part I of the research and contains the original interdisciplinary plan for the semester, along with the revised schedule after repeated, unified, and purposeful attempts by both faculty members to encourage students to buy into the course design were largely unsuccessful. Detailed descriptions of course assessments and rubrics, issues to be considered in designing such a nontraditional course structure, and reflections on the experience of implementing one are also included. Part II of the research, to be published separately, will focus on the analysis of assessment, attitude, and interview data.

T

he need for undergraduates to be able to understand and apply interdisciplinary concepts has been highlighted by a variety of national and international organizations. Publications and projects from the National Research Council (National Research Council, 2003), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011), the American Chemical Society (2013), and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (2013), among others, have all supported curricula that mirror the interdisciplinary and collaborative research environments of practicing scientists. Further, the NRC (2015b) has emphasized the need for student-centered, authentic learning environments for undergraduates. Numerous examples of interdisciplinary undergraduate courses have been described in the pages of this journal (e.g., Coticone & Van Houten, 2015; Kouh & Merz, 2013; Murray, Atkinson, Gilbert, & Kruchten, 2014; Train & Gammon, 2012). Although descriptions of these courses vary in structure (seminar vs. lecture), audience (majors vs. nonmajors, or a combination), and disciplines integrated (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, neuroscience), they all have at their core a focus on helping students develop a deep and integrated understanding of scientific topics. As discipline-based educational researchers and university colleagues, we were inspired by the literature to

create our own take on an interdisciplinary course that used studentcentered instructional strategies. Although there is commonality in our fields through the subdiscipline of biochemistry, we were interested in collaborating on a course for our respective nonmajors, students who typically don’t get exposed to biochemistry concepts. As we contemplated the area of focus for the new course, we kept returning to the idea that chemistry is widely regarded as the “central science” for a very fundamental reason: Chemical elements are the building blocks for matter in the universe, including humans. The genetic information that determines so much of who we are has a chemical basis, making this a perfect area for our interdisciplinary investigation.

Course design Once we identified the chemical basis of genetics as our theme, we began to brainstorm how to structure the course. Although we could have designed one course serving one set of students led by one professor who covers various interdisciplinary topics or a seminar bridging separate chemistry and biology courses, our interests converged around a more unusual design. We wanted to create a scientific community, with the two of us in the classroom together for extended periods of time to explore topics and share our disciplinary perspectives with a diverse group of students. This is one point at which

Vol. 46, No. 3, 2017

19

our course diverges from the other interdisciplinary courses referenced earlier, which were either taught by one faculty member for the semester (Coticone & Van Houten, 2015; Kouh & Merz, 2013; Train & Gammon, 2012) or cotaught by multiple faculty but met only a handful of times over the semester (Murray et al., 2014). One of the likely reasons for not having more descriptions in the literature of courses taught by faculty from different departments is the multitude of administrative issues that exist, including dividing enrollment numbers in these times of ever-increasing pressure to increase enrollments, calculating course-load assignments for faculty, not wanting to decrease the amount of discipline-specific information in a course for interdisciplinary material, and institutional inertia (i.e., we just don’t do that). Our solution to these concerns was offering two existing courses from our respective departments as completely separate courses on paper, but in practice running them together. The courses were not cross-listed with each other. Each was scheduled in its own room, though one was purposefully scheduled in a classroom that could hold the projected combined enrollment. The courses were scheduled on the same days at the same times, meeting twice weekly for 75 minutes per meeting. Even though we were able to address the typical administrative concerns of a cotaught course, having the support of our department heads and instruction committees was paramount because we were doing something quite unusual. For pragmatic reasons, we selected courses for this project that we were already scheduled to teach so as to maximize our previous experiences and to minimize administrative headaches. A key component of getting them on board for this project was to demonstrate how the various learning objectives

20

Journal of College Science Teaching

of the two courses were still being met even by combining the sections. In this way, we were able to offer the first cotaught offerings of BIO 255: Human Genetics with CHEM 115H/116H: Chemistry and Society (Honors) for Winter 2015. BIO 255 is a three-credit lecture course for nonbiology majors designed to provide a framework for understanding current human genetics issues. It has an introductory biology course as its prerequisite. CHEM 115 is a three-credit lecture course designed for nonscience majors and has a broad emphasis on the chemistry of humans and their surroundings. CHEM 116 is its one-credit companion lab. Selecting the honors sections of CHEM 115/116 was intended to bridge the content and experience divide between the firstyear students who typically enroll in CHEM 115/116 and the second-year students who typically enroll in BIO 255. Further, as honors students, the CHEM 115H/116H population would have previous high school chemistry experience, which would allow for us to delve more quickly into the interdisciplinary topics of interest. Because honors courses at our university are capped at 20 students, that was our maximum enrollment for CHEM 115H. Typical enrollment patterns suggested we would be close to or at the cap. Although BIO 255 is traditionally capped at 30 students, the Biology Department head permitted us to limit the enrollment for this section at 20 so that we would have equal numbers of students from each course. This allowed us to plan for small group interactions with 10 groups of four students each, two from CHEM and two from BIO. Although there was not a typical class session, we strove to include in every meeting opportunities for students to ask questions about the material after having completed the readings for the day, for us to provide additional information in support of

the day’s readings, and most important, for students to thoroughly discuss the topic(s) of the day in small groups and then as a whole class. Our preliminary class schedule is shown in Table 1. Many of our ideas for the design of the Chemistry-Genetics Course Collaborative (CGCC) were influenced by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which presents a powerful vision for K–12 education and beyond (NGSS Lead States, 2013). In particular, we eschewed textbooks in lieu of journal articles and websites; we focused on having the students discuss open-ended questions while evaluating evidence; we incorporated journals, reports, and presentations in which the students analyzed and evaluated claims instead of using exams; and the CHEM 116H students designed multiple rounds of their own laboratory investigations (National Research Council, 2015a). Determining how to best incorporate the lab into the lecture was challenging as there was not an analogous lab component for the BIO students. After considering several arrangements, including not integrating the lab at all or having the CHEM students present their results to the BIO students in a conferencestyle setting, we ultimately decided on a highly integrated structure. We scheduled a lecture meeting after each experiment to allow the CHEM students to analyze data and collaborate with their BIO colleagues on NGSS core scientific practices (SPs), such as constructing scientific questions, planning an investigation, analyzing and interpreting data, forming explanations, arguing from evidence, and communicating results (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Because the BIO students would have at least as much college-level science laboratory experience as the CHEM students, we envisioned that they could serve as a fresh set of eyes for working through the data analysis and conclusions,

What Makes Us Who We Are? TABLE 1 Initial meeting plan for the cotaught Chemistry-Genetics Course Collaborative courses. Date

Course activities

In preparation for class

Jan 06

Class introduction and philosophy; attitudinal survey; anonymous note card with student hopes/concerns/topics they want to learn; nature of science (NOS) activity

Jan 08

NOS activities continued and discussion

Assigned readings, reading journal

Jan 13

How to find, use, and cite scientific resources

Assigned readings, reading journal

Jan 15

Introduction to amino acids (AA) [meet separately and use separate readings to develop disciplinary content]

Assigned readings, reading journal

Jan 20

AA modeling

Assigned readings, reading journal

Jan 22

AA modeling continued

Assigned readings, reading journal

Jan 27

Lab team meeting

Review data

Jan 29

Introduction to protein structure based on AA sequence [meet separately and use separate readings to develop disciplinary content]

Assigned readings, reading journal

Feb 03

Lab team meeting

Review data

Feb 05

Protein structure continued

Assigned readings, reading journal

Feb 10

Lab team meeting

Review data

Feb 12

Protein structure interdisciplinary group presentation

Feb 17

Protein structure interdisciplinary group presentation

Before class: Prepare presentation In class: Complete peer review questionnaires for other groups

Feb 19

Protein structure interdisciplinary group presentation

Feb 24, 26

Winter break

Mar 03

Introduction to protein diversity [meet separately and use separate readings Assigned readings, reading journal to develop disciplinary content]

Mar 05

Protein diversity continued

Assigned readings, reading journal

Mar 10

Lab team meeting

Review data

Mar 12

Introduction to nucleotides and nucleic acids [meet separately and use separate readings to develop disciplinary content]

Assigned readings, reading journal

Mar 17

Lab team meeting

Review data

Mar 19

Nucleotides and nucleic acids continued

Assigned readings, reading journal

Mar 24

Lab team meeting

Review data

Mar 26

Introduction to transcription and translation [meet separately and use separate readings to develop disciplinary content]

Assigned readings, reading journal

Mar 31

Transcription and translation continued

Assigned readings, reading journal

Apr 02

Transcription and translation continued

Assigned readings, reading journal

Apr 07

Course and interdisciplinary topics wrap-up

Apr 09

Workday/feedback on group presentations

Prepare draft for comments

Apr 14

Final group presentations and papers due

Apr 16

Final group presentations and papers due (final regular class meeting)

Before class: Prepare presentation In class: Complete peer review questionnaires for other groups

Apr 23

Final group presentations and papers due (final exam meeting)

Vol. 46, No. 3, 2017

21

that this extra interaction time would further enhance the interdisciplinary connections in the course, and that these interactions would strengthen the sense of community among students.

Interdisciplinary content We envisioned the CGCC students working together to articulate and investigate authentic research problems that required the application and integration of core ideas in genetics and chemistry. In doing so, the students would work collaboratively by pooling their knowledge of the disciplines to build a more comprehensive, interdisciplinary understanding of the topics. The learning experiences for the CHEM students would be enhanced through interacting with the BIO students and grappling with real-world, geneticsbased applications of the chemistry concepts under study, whereas the learning experiences for the BIO students would be enhanced through interacting with the CHEM students and developing a stronger molecular perspective to more thoroughly understand genetic diseases and techniques. Our student learning outcomes included the development of an integrated, authentic understanding of the following concepts that span both chemistry and genetics: • Chemical changes cause changes in molecular structure and function. • Cells communicate with each other through molecular interactions. Diverse molecular structures produce diverse molecular signals. • Organisms store energy as chemical energy and access it through various biochemical reactions. Through these areas of study, the students had multiple, purposeful opportunities to apply and analyze

22

Journal of College Science Teaching

the SPs as well as all seven of the NGSS crosscutting concepts (CCCs): patterns; cause and effect; scale, proportion, and quantity; systems and system models; energy and matter; structure and function; and stability and change (NGSS Lead States, 2013). This active integration of the NGSS SPs and CCCs is another point of uniqueness for the CGCC. Although much has been written about NGSS for K–12 educators, the importance and connection of NGSS to undergraduate science education, aside from courses for preservice teachers, is currently much less documented (Cooper, 2013; McDonald, 2015; Pellegrino, 2013). Other than a two-semester general chemistry curriculum that is informed by the NGSS (Cooper & Klymkowsky, 2013), no published reports on specific interdisciplinary science courses were found. As such, this manuscript reports one of the first NGSS-aligned undergraduate courses.

Course implementation As sometimes happens when the best-laid plans encounter reality, actual enrollment patterns didn’t align with our predictions. Although all but one of the CHEM students were in fact first-year nonscience majors, all of the BIO 255 students were juniors or seniors, many of whom were science or preprofessional majors who had taken multiple biology classes. In other words, the content and experience divide between the two populations was much greater than we anticipated. Further, although the enrollment in CHEM 115H was essentially what we expected at 19 students, only 12 enrolled in the BIO course. As such, we had to modify the group sizes and distributions. Whether it was because of the differences in anticipated versus actual enrollment or it was a function of the dynamics and personalities of this particular group, the student response to the courses was not positive. Even though we both

made repeated, unified, and purposeful efforts throughout the first 3 weeks of the semester to explain and demonstrate the purposes and benefits of the cotaught course design, one could reasonably sum up the student response as “This is not what I signed up for. I don’t want to do this.” With continued pushback from the students on the joint class meetings, we decided it was necessary to do a serious revision of the schedule starting with Week 4. The actual course schedule is shown in Table 2. Even though we split up the courses, we still individually maintained a commitment to our original interdisciplinary, NGSS-aligned, student-centered instructional design.

Course assignments and evaluation To promote cross-course integration, we elected to weight assignments equally, to write assignments and rubrics collaboratively, and to grade the interdisciplinary components of assignments collaboratively. For each course, 30% of the student’s grade was comprised of daily preparation and participation (DPP) points, 30% of the grade was assigned to the protein structure interdisciplinary group presentation, and the remaining 40% of the course grade was allotted to the final group presentation and individual topic paper. Because the courses didn’t use exams as assessments, it was important for us to have a regular mechanism by which to assess students’ understanding of and engagement with the reading material. To do so, we implemented the DPP points, which were comprised of a participation component based on the quality of their classroom interactions for each day that we met and a preparation component in the form of a reading journal for each class meeting for which there was an assigned reading. Each journal entry contained a summary of the key information from

What Makes Us Who We Are? TABLE 2 The actual meeting plan for the Chemistry-Genetics Course Collaborative courses after revisions. Date

CHEM 115 activities

Jan 06

Class introduction and philosophy; attitudinal survey; anonymous note card with student hopes/concerns/topics they want to learn; nature of science (NOS) activity

BIO 255 activities

Jan 08

NOS activities continued and discussion

Jan 13

Concluded NOS, discussed quality of articles of the day on ABO blood typing

Jan 15

Introduction to atoms, subatomic particles, mass and atomic numbers, isotopes, periodic table

Jan 20

How to find, use, and cite scientific resources; introduction to protein presentation project and assign groups, protein for project

Jan 22

Amino acids (AA) modeling: forming peptide bonds, conservation of mass, law of multiple proportions

Analysis of ABO gene sequences using the NCBI BLAST resource

Jan 27

AA modeling continued: skeleton structures, identifying AAs in polypeptides

Preassessment of student understanding of genetic mutations

Jan 29

Introduction to protein structure: bonding in proteins (H, ionic, covalent)

Investigation of the impact of genetic mutations using ABO gene sequence analysis

Feb 03

Protein structures continued: secondary and tertiary

Investigation of the molecular mechanisms that generate genetic diversity (i.e., the role of meiosis in generating genetic diversity)

Feb 05

Group project workday 1

Feb 10

Group project workday 2

Feb 12

Protein structures continued: the role of R groups and missense mutations

Feb 17

Group time to work on protein structure presentations

Feb 19

Group time to work on protein structure presentations

Feb 24, 26

Winter break

Mar 03

Protein structure presentations

Mar 05

Protein structure presentations

Mar 10

Protein structure presentations

Mar 12

Blood type group activity with cross-course explanations, focus group interviews

Mar 17

Blood type group activity with cross-course explanations, focus group interviews continued; discuss final project

Preassessment of student understanding of key molecular genetic terms and ABO blood typing (gene, chromosome, trait, allele, genotype, phenotype, homo-/heterozygous, etc.)

Continued to work on protein projects

Mar 19

Chemical reactions: classifications, balancing

Discussed final project teams and topics

Mar 24

Enzymes: catalyst, enzyme, substrate, active site, energy diagrams

Analysis of primary literature for genetic linkage and multifactorial inheritance

Mar 26

Nucleotides and nucleic acids: structure, base pairing, H-bonds

Discussed student-selected research articles on gene linkage

Mar 31

From DNA to proteins: transcription, mRNA, translation, tRNA

Continued discussion about gene linkage research articles, including “questions to ask when reading a research article” handout

Apr 02

Final group presentation meetings and consultations

Analysis of primary literature for genetic engineering of viral vectors for HIV gene therapy; group work time and consultations

Apr 07

Article roundtable presentations and discussions

Group work time and consultations

Apr 09

Article roundtable presentations and discussions continued

Group work time and consultations

Apr 14

Final group presentations

Apr 16

Final group presentations (last regular class meeting)

Apr 23

Final group presentations, end of course attitudinal surveys (final exam meeting time)

Vol. 46, No. 3, 2017

23

the reading as well as at least three thoughtful questions or concerns the student had about, or connections they made with, the reading. The score for the participation component was based on a student’s consistent and productive contribution to both small-group problem-solving efforts

and whole-class discussions. An example of a small-group activity through which students analyzed interdisciplinary course topics is shown in Table 3. The rubric we used for assessing the DPP components is shown in Table 4. The second evaluation compo-

nent of the courses was the protein structure interdisciplinary group presentation. This assignment allowed the students to demonstrate their understanding of the concepts investigated during the first half of the semester. We assigned members to interdisciplinary teams and then

TABLE 3 A small group activity in which students construct an explanation based on their evaluation of information about the molecular genetics associated with ABO blood type determination. Question to explain

Terms to include

Additional instructions

BIO 255 students

Explain to your CHEM 115H partner(s) the concepts behind and answer to the following question: How does a person with Type A blood differ genetically from a person with Type B blood?

In your explanation, be sure to include at least the following terms: amino acid sequence, mRNA sequence, genomic sequence, gene, and chromosome.

Record both your oral and written explanations using the Doceri app on the provided iPad.

CHEM 115H students

Explain to your BIO 255 partner(s) the concepts behind and answer to the following question: Why do the differences identified in the question above lead to the chemical changes that make someone Type A or Type B?

In your explanation, be sure to include at least the following terms: amino acid sequence, R group, polar, nonpolar, charged, hydrogen bonds, and salt bridges.

Record both your oral and written explanations using the Doceri app on the provided iPad.

TABLE 4 Rubric for assessing daily preparation and participation (DPP) in the Chemistry-Genetics Course Collaborative. Score

Class preparation criteria

Class participation criteria

0

No work submitted

Absent

1

Demonstrates little engagement with or understanding of the material in the journal entry and/or the entry is missing either the required summary or questions/ comments.

Responds when called on but does not offer much insight. Demonstrates very infrequent involvement in discussion.

2

Demonstrates adequate preparation: entry contains basic facts, but does not show evidence of trying to interpret or analyze the material.

Demonstrates adequate preparation: knows basic facts, but does not show evidence of trying to interpret or analyze the material. Offers straightforward information (e.g., straight from the reading), without elaboration. Does not offer to contribute to discussion but contributes to a moderate degree when called on. Demonstrates sporadic involvement.

3

Demonstrates good preparation: journal entry indicates that the author knows material well, has thought through implications of it, tries to relate current material to other readings, discussions, experiences, etc.

Demonstrates good preparation: knows material well, has thought through implications of it, tries to relate current material to other readings, discussions, experiences, etc. Offers interpretations and analysis of material (more than just facts) to class. Contributes well to discussion in an ongoing way: responds to other students’ points, thinks through own points, questions others in a constructive way. Demonstrates consistent, ongoing involvement.

Note: Rubric adapted from Maznevski (1996).

24

Journal of College Science Teaching

What Makes Us Who We Are? randomly assigned them a single-gene protein to explore. For their 15-minute presentations, the students were asked to address the questions listed in Table 5. Each group member was expected to speak for an approximately equal amount of time and contribute to the 5-minute question-and-answer session after the presentation. The students in the audience completed an evaluation form for each presentation, including at least one question they had about the research. The students were evaluated on whether their part of the presentation and the overall presentation were clear, coherent, correct, and thorough; if they contributed

consistently and satisfactorily to their group, as determined by self- and group-evaluation forms; and if they provided thoughtful feedback to their peers on their presentations via the presentation evaluation forms. Our grading rubric for the presentation is shown in Table 6. The third evaluation component was the final group presentation and individual topic paper. With the students’ continued reluctance to engage in cross-course interactions, we opted not to use interdisciplinary teams. The goals of this assignment were for the students to demonstrate their understanding of the topics from the second half of the semester and to de-

velop skills to clearly and effectively communicate scientific information to others both verbally and in writing. All groups selected their presentation subjects in consultation with their course professor. The topics for the CHEM presentations were agricultural genetic engineering, gene therapy, radioisotopes, DNA fingerprinting, 3D modeling and computational chemistry, and the environmental impacts of chemical pollution. The topics of the BIO presentations were genetic engineering, gene therapy, animal models, and genetic linkage analysis. Although two of the topics were similar for both groups, each was considered from its particular disciplinary perspective. In

TABLE 5 Topics and guiding questions for the protein structure interdisciplinary group presentation. Assigned proteins: cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, huntingtin protein, sex-determining region Y protein, phenylalanine hydroxylase, 7-dehydrocholesterol reductase, alpha-1 antitrypsin, galactose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase, beta globin, neurofibromin, and adenosine deaminase. Primary question to address in your presentation

Additional information/subquestions to consider

Who is responsible for the question(s)

How was your protein discovered?

Include historical context and nature of science connections.

All group members

What is the gene responsible for synthesizing your protein?

Where is the gene located (what chromosome)? How big is the gene (i.e., how many base pairs make up the genomic sequence)?

BIO students

What is the mRNA sequence that is transcribed from the gene?

How big is the mRNA coding transcript (i.e., what’s the total number of nucleotides in the mRNA sequence involved in coding for a protein)? How many exons is the mRNA composed of? In which exon is the start codon located?

BIO students

What is the amino acid sequence of your protein?

How many amino acids does the protein contain? Is it a relatively large, small, or average-sized human protein? Highlight a subset of amino acids, their structure and particular R groups, and the interactions that those R groups can have.

CHEM students

What is your protein’s structure?

Include a picture. How do the particular amino acids and their interactions lead to the 3D structure of your protein?

CHEM students

What is/are the common mutation(s) of your protein that lead to a diseased state?

BIO students

How do the particular changes in amino acid sequence caused by the common mutation(s) lead to structural changes in the protein?

CHEM students

What biological function does your protein perform?

BIO students

Vol. 46, No. 3, 2017

25

addition to their 15-minute group presentation and 5-minute question-andanswer session, all students submitted an individual three-to-four page paper researching a particular aspect of their group topic. Although the students were working in disciplinary groups, the presentations were given to the whole CGCC to continue to promote an interdisciplinary perspective. Our goals for the students giving the presentation were twofold: (a) to demonstrate to us what they learned through the semester and (b) to educate their colleagues about a biochemical topic of interest to their group. Our goals for the students listening to the presentations were also

two-fold: (a) to learn about interesting biochemical applications of the concepts they’d been learning about in class and (b) to participate meaningfully in discussions about these applications as part of a community of scholars. The grading rubric for this assignment is shown in Table 7.

Reflections and lessons learned We discussed the impact of the particular focus of the course as we were developing it, but not of the cross-course structure, as we simply did not anticipate that being an issue with the students. We have both integrated nontraditional aspects such

as academic service-learning projects, flipped classrooms, and case studies with role-playing games into previous courses with positive results. This course structure felt like a natural extension of what we have been working toward in previous courses. As such, we didn’t do any special advertising for BIO 255 because it was still a course about human genetics, just with an enhanced molecular perspective. We did do additional advertising for CHEM 115H/116H, however, as we were taking a much more personal view of the environment of humans (i.e., the body and its molecular makeup). The Honors College e-mailed

TABLE 6 Grading rubric for the protein structure interdisciplinary group presentation. Target

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Is your part of the presentation clear, coherent, correct, thorough, and proofread?

15.0, 13.5

12.0, 10.5

9.0, 7.5

Is the overall presentation clear, coherent, correct, thorough, and proofread? Does it contain the required components?

5.0, 4.5

4.0, 3.5

3.0, 2.5

Have you contributed consistently and satisfactorily to your group? [self/ group evaluations]

5.0, 4.5

4.0, 3.5

3.0, 2.5

Have you provided thoughtful feedback to your peers on their presentations? [presentation evaluations]

5.0, 4.5

4.0, 3.5

3.0, 2.5

Target

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Is your written component clear, coherent, correct, thorough, and proofread? Does it contain the required components?

12.5, 11.5

10.0, 9.0

7.5, 6.5

Is your part of the presentation clear, coherent, correct, thorough, and proofread?

12.5, 11.5

10.0, 9.0

7.5, 6.5

Is the overall presentation clear, coherent, correct, thorough, and proofread?

5.0, 4.5

4.0, 3.5

3.0, 2.5

Have you contributed consistently and satisfactorily to your group? [self/ group evaluations]

5.0, 4.5

4.0, 3.5

3.0, 2.5

Have you participated meaningfully in our intellectual community by contributing thoughtful questions and/or comments for the other presenters?

5.0, 4.5

4.0, 3.5

3.0, 2.5

TABLE 7 Grading rubric for the final group presentation and individual topic paper.

26

Journal of College Science Teaching

What Makes Us Who We Are? students before registration with a description of all of its offering for the semester, including detailed information about the focus of this particular version of CHEM 115H/116H. The first author also attended an open house sponsored by the Honors College for students to talk to faculty and learn about the various course offerings. Unfortunately, both the content and the course structure were issues for both sets of students. On the endof-course evaluations, seven of the 16 CHEM 115H students who provided written comments negatively responded to the integration of the courses, whereas four others responded negatively to the biochemistry focus of the material. Of the nine genetics students who provided written comments, seven responded negatively to their integration with the chemistry students. In addition to the end-of-course evaluations, we collected pre-and postcourse attitude surveys and had a student researcher conduct group interviews with the students. Those data and analyses are being written up in a separate manuscript. Although the CGCC didn’t turn out as either of us had anticipated, it was certainly a valuable learning experience. The biggest realization for us was how big of an impact student expectations have on how they perceive a course. Our takeaway lesson from this experience is not that such an effort cannot be more successful, but rather that the expectations of the students have to be much more carefully considered. In other words, although the foundation of this project is well-supported by the literature, its implementation must be fine-tuned. Moving forward, we feel it is likely that a combination of recruiting students who we and/or their advisors know are open to new educational experiences and making it clear that this is a cotaught course with a high degree of cooperation with another course will help with

the buy-in issues. We do think that efforts to enhance transparency and normalize cross-course interactions will lead to a more successful cooffering of the courses next time and hopefully encourage students to seek out and be open to these unique learning opportunities. ■ References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: Author. American Chemical Society. (2013). Science education policy. Retrieved from http://www.acs.org/content/dam/ acsorg/policy/publicpolicies/invest/ educationpolicies/science-educationpolicies.pdf Cooper, M. M. (2013). Chemistry and the next generation science standards. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 679−680. Cooper, M. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2013). The trouble with chemical energy: Why understanding bond energies requires an interdisciplinary systems approach, CBE—Life Science Education, 12, 306–312. Coticone, S. R., & Van Houten, L. B. (2015). DNA, drugs, and detectives: An interdisciplinary special topics course for undergraduate students in forensic science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(2), 24–29. Howard Hughes Medical Institute. (2013). National experiment in undergraduate science education (NEXUS). Retrieved from http:// www.hhmi.org/programs/nationalexperiment-in-undergraduate-scienceeducation Kouh, M., & Merz, R. (2013). Light, brain, and action: An introductory, interdisciplinary course on optogenetics for undergraduate students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(2), 60–64. Maznevski, M. L. (1996, January). Grading class participation. Newsletter of the Teaching Resource

Center for Faculty and Teaching Assistants. Retrieved from http:// cte.virginia.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2013/04/TC_Spring_1996_ Maznevski.pdf McDonald, J. (2015). The next generation science standards: Impact on college science teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(1), 13–14. Murray, J. L., Atkinson, E. J. O., Gilbert, B. D., & Kruchten, A. E. (2014). A novel interdisciplinary science experience for undergraduates across introductory biology, chemistry, and physics courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(6), 46–51. National Research Council. (2003). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2015a). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2015b). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). Proficiency in science: Assessment challenges and opportunities. Science, 340, 320–323. Train, T. L., & Gammon, D. E. (2012). The structure and assessment of a unique and popular interdisciplinary science course for nonmajors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(1), 50–57. Amy Flanagan Johnson (ajohns82@ emich.edu) is a professor in the Chemistry Department and Chiron W. Graves is an associate professor in the Biology Department, both at Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti.

Vol. 46, No. 3, 2017

27