Writing an abstract

1. Introduction Writing an abstract Evaluation Results Student Lab Exercise Methods of grading and consultation Does consulting with the professor result in greater improvement on the grade of a revised written assignment? John Moeller and G.R. Davis Department of Biology, Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC 29303 Communicating scientific results clearly and concisely is often difficult. Effective writing requires the student to conduct an experiment, analyze the results, interpret the significance of those results in the light of other scientific knowledge, and integrate this process into a written format. The purpose of this study is to determine if the time and effort spent in face-to-face consultation with students significantly improves grades on a 1-page abstract based on a lab exercise. Figure 2. Grade on abstract Figure 3. Grade improvement on revised abstract Using a grading rubric (Fig. 1) abstracts were graded by the two instructors (authors). The instructors did not have direct view of the names during the grading process. Original abstracts were returned with written comments and numeric scores based on the rubric. Students were then strongly encouraged to make an appointment with the instructor who graded their paper and discuss their abstracts before revising their abstract for final grading. Students were not required to turn in a revised abstract. Those abstracts that were revised and resubmitted in two weeks were graded according to the same rubric and without knowledge of original score or whether the student consulted with the professor. Grades on the original and revised abstracts were analyzed to ascertain whether consultation with the professor significantly improved the student’s abstract. Improvement in grade (points) Minutes consulted with professor During fall 2007, upper-division Biology majors in Wofford’s Human Physiology course (BIO 324) measured action potential conduction velocity of their own ulnar nerves using digital data acquisition hardware and software (ADInstruments.) Details are available at webs.wofford.edu/davisgr/bio342). Data collected from 4 lab sections (58 students total) was recorded on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet along with the additional information from each subject: 1) arm stimulated, 2) dominance of arm stimulated, 3) sex, and 4) whether subject exercised on a regular basis (self-reported). Figure 2 shows the average scores of original and revised abstracts. There was no significant difference between the average scores of the two instructors (unfilled circles). Fifty-six of 58 students submitted a revised version of their abstract. Thirty-eight students who met face-to-face with their professor to discuss their original abstract improved their grade by an average 22 points. Eighteen students who did not consult with their professor improved their grade by 15 points. There was a significant difference between the mean values of all three groups (ANOVA, p ≤ 0.001). Thus, even though students improved their grade on revised abstracts based on written comments alone, consulting with the professor face-to-face resulted in greater improvement. Students were asked to estimate how many minutes they met with their professor (Fig. 3). According to this survey, those students who consulted with their professor (n=38) met for an average of 20 ± 11 minutes. The median estimated meeting duration was 17 minutes. Based on student estimates, the two professors spent a total of 12.4 hours meeting with students to discuss abstracts. Figure 3 compares minutes consulting with the professor and improvement of grade. No obvious trends are visible other than those with lower original grades (F’s and D’s) showed the greatest improvements. There appears to be no correlation between the duration of the consultation and grade improvement. Figure 1. Rubric for Evaluating Scientific Abstracts Biology 342-Human Physiology Title (5 pts) Is the title descriptive of the experiment? Is it appropriate to that which was done? Is the title properly oriented at the top of the abstract? Score: ____ of 5 Background information (10 pts) Is the information pertinent to the investigated topic? Is the information accurate? Is the background material presented in a concise fashion? Score: ____ of 10 Purpose/Hypothesis (15 pts) Is it clearly stated? Is it reasonable? Is it well-informed? Score: ____ 15 Materials/Methods (15 pts) Are they listed in a concise fashion? Are they accurately reported? Are the most important methods highlighted? Are less important details omitted? Score: ____ of 15 Results (20 pts) Are they reported clearly? Do all reported means have accompanying SDs? Was a t-test performed? If so, was it interpreted correctly? Score: ____ of 20 Conclusion (20 pts) Does it relate back to the hypothesis? Does it state associations (i.e., it does not say something is “proven”)? Is it clear and concise? Score: ____ of 20 Additional Discussion (10 pts) Does the abstract contain one or more of the following: Relation of conclusions to additional literature, Suggestions for improvement, Identification of flaws in experimental design, Suggestions for future experiments? (These items need to be accurate, not simply included.) Score: ____ of 10 Miscellaneous (5 pts) Grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, appropriate terminology and spelling, Logical flow of ideas, overall conciseness Score: ____ of 5 Total: ____ of 100 Additional Comments: The students were given 2 weeks to generate an abstract reporting their findings with respect to one of six hypotheses distributed at random by the professor (e.g. For female college students, action potential conduction velocity in the ulnar nerve is faster in those who exercise regularly). Using the information in the spreadsheet, students selected the data relevant to their assigned hypothesis, calculated average conduction velocities for the subjects in their experimental groups, performed a Student t-test, and place their results in the larger context of published scientific literature. The students were instructed on the nature of the exercise, the biology of nerve-muscle excitation, the basis of statistical analysis, and the construction of a scientific abstract. They also had access to this material summarized on a course website, to a list of helpful hints and common mistakes, to sample abstracts on other topics, and to the grading rubric that would be used to evaluate their abstract (Fig. 1). Students improved rather dramatically with respect to their ability to communicate scientific results when given feedback and a chance to revise abstracts. Thus if the goal is to teach students how to write a clear and concise scientific abstract, providing clear expectations, written comments, and verbal feedback can substantially improve student’s performance. However, written comments seemed to have the greater impact on the student’s final work. Those students who had lower original grades showed the largest improvement regardless of whether they consulted with the professor or not. These students had the greatest opportunity for improvement and a clearer idea of their mistakes. Consultation did lead to overall improvements (about a half of a letter grade) but it did require time spent by the professor beyond that needed to grade the abstracts. When time is at a premium, this might not always be possible. This course was routinely taught by only one professor and there was little opportunity for a that professor to meet with each student or have the students revise abstracts after the first written feedback. However, there are potentially intangible benefits to face-to-face consultation, such as a demonstration that this type of exercise is beneficial to their education. Furthermore, consultations allow the professor to get to know the students better on a one-to-one basis. Consulted with professor Original abstract Revised Abstract No consultation