**3.1 Disciplinary approaches**

The authors of this book chapter have come together to teach communication to chemistry students from very different vantage points. SS, a PhD in chemistry who has taught undergraduates and supervised undergraduate research for some decades, has approached the teaching of chemistry communication from a disciplinary perspective, consistent with the accreditation requirements specified by the American Chemical Society [2]. This approach is similar to that recommended by Robinson and colleagues in *Write Like a Chemist* [3] insofar as the intention of such teaching is twofold:


Such skills are necessary in order to enculturate students to chemistry as a discipline, certainly, but more importantly, effective communication helps transform students into members of a professional scientific community.

In contrast, LDT, a PhD in English with an MS in bioethics and decades of experience in biomedical writing practice, came to the teaching of communication in chemistry from a much less focused perspective. LDT's background included exposure to writing studies education as well as training in professional aspects of biomedical writing for expert audiences [26]. Unlike the type of training suggested in work like the *ACS Style Guide* [27] or *Write Like a Chemist* [3]*,* this perspective is multidisciplinary and therefore necessarily more flexible because chemistry is only one of the sciences represented. Furthermore, biomedical writing is also intended to reach various audiences outside the sciences, such as patients and caregivers. Thus, LDT viewed the aims of teaching writing in chemistry as layered:


### *Perspective Chapter: Metacognitive Approaches for Teaching Scientific Communication… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.114127*

In laying out these disciplinary perspectives, it becomes obvious how and why metacognitive approaches might be necessary to help students. First, the project of becoming a chemist requires specific reflection on and assessment of success in acclimating to the professional culture of chemistry. The authors consider three different settings for teaching written and oral chemistry communication to undergraduate students: laboratory reports, literature reviews, and oral exams. In each of these situations, metacognitive approaches that bridged prior knowledge from both chemistry and writing studies were used.

### **3.2 Laboratory reports**

A simple expedient that can help students to improve their performance both generally and in writing is to provide an opportunity for reflection and revision on the various parts of a laboratory report based on specific comments. Such an approach is metacognitive in that it requires that students respond to feedback and reflect on what they could have done better. It is consistent with wisdom in writing studies, which emphasizes that opportunities for revision generally help students improve not only a specific product but also future writing [24]. However, there are drawbacks to this approach in day-to-day teaching.

First, many courses require multiple laboratory reports, which could create logistical issues for students and faculty. The project of responding to faculty comments means that students must wait for feedback before finishing a laboratory report. Even if faculty are able to respond to writing within the space of a given week, students may be tasked with writing up a draft of a second experiment at the same time as a revision for the first experiment. This overlapping of assignments within a single laboratory course might also interfere with students' ability to handle their work in additional courses.

Second, providing specific written comments on individual laboratory reports can be burdensome for faculty members. As Heidbrink and Weinrich [15] have observed, faculty members in the sciences often lack specific training in pedagogy, which tends to extend to specific training in writing instruction. Furthermore, the increasing reliance of institutions of higher learning on part time faculty members and graduate students also raises questions about fair labor practices. Hence, although we do recommend specific written feedback for individual students and opportunities for revision, we question the logistical feasibility of this idea for very large classes, course designs that require many laboratory reports, and teaching situations in which faculty members carry a heavy burden of coursework. Certainly, advanced majors in upperlevel courses should receive this type of feedback.

In larger classes, particularly lower-level classes heavily populated by non-majors, providing scaffolded frameworks for lab reports where students only have to fill in certain details, explanations, and calculations may refocus student attention on chemistry content and vocabulary. Such an approach may also reduce grading burdens by limiting the volume of text students produce. Faculty may then organize these scaffolded forms around specific metacognitive questions designed to help students master difficult content.

For example, in the General Chemistry 1 lab class taught by SS, only one formal lab report is required [28]. All other reports are pre-formatted data pages and thought questions. All faculty who teach this course share a general format for the lab report specifying organization of sections, data and calculations. This ensures uniformity in presentation of information in the lab report, freeing up the student to concentrate

on analysis and interpretation. Students are prompted to follow the four C's, a concept developed by a scientist in consultation with writing studies colleagues: every Concluding sentence should refer to an observation, data, or calculation (relational phrase that discusses values/numerical results), Context, Comparison, and Clarity [29]. Students are also prompted to construct Claim, Evidence and Reasoning statements, which is a solidly scientific perspective [30]. Through these well-accepted constructs, students can implicitly apply metacognition. A suitable grading rubric was developed that emphasizes understanding along with accuracy of results, again asking students to reflect upon their experience and data. These measures assure a balance between writing concerns and scientific knowledge and thinking.

### **3.3 Oral exams**

Oral exams bear a direct relationship to the rhetorical and linguistic traditions Bazerman associates with writing studies. They are a common feature of graduate qualifiers in chemistry programs, especially in larger programs. According to the American Chemical Society, at least 50% of doctoral programs require an oral preliminary exam and/or a comprehensive oral exam, with larger programs requiring oral exams more often than smaller ones [31]. Oral seminars are also common features of graduate programs and professional meetings; furthermore, the metacognitive skills necessary for success in these practices are also important for any career path or program of study and therefore might be beneficial for undergraduates. Oral exams in undergraduate education gained popularity during the Covid-19 pandemic as instructors sought to assess student learning in environments that made it difficult to detect academic dishonesty or lucky guessing [32].

The published literature shows that oral exams can be successful in many kinds of chemistry courses. Dicks et al. found superior performance on oral exams in a large undergraduate Organic Chemistry course as compared with final course grades based on oral exams plus written exams [33]. Giordano and Christopher used oral final exams in Physical Chemistry and General Chemistry to assess student performance and maintain a personal connection with students learning remotely [34]. Kamber presented implementation of a final oral exam in an undergraduate Biochemistry class while teaching remotely [35]. In these studies, faculty noted that cheating opportunities were reduced. More importantly, oral exams allowed faculty to identify areas of confusion for students and to maintain personal contact during distance learning. Students found the exams themselves to be effective vehicles for learning and felt benefitted by personal contact with the instructors.

SS has used oral exams in various chemistry courses and incorporating different metacognitive elements, providing both scaffolding and feedback to students. By fostering student learning and connection during oral exams, SS observed benefits similar to those described in the studies cited [33–35]. Some examples of scaffolding might include presenting an example problem in class and explaining the thought process of problem solving, including possible false starts and rethinking. In-class small groups might also work together to solve problems and develop questions for the professor. A Socratic method can be helpful in prompting students to analyze how they thought through the problem solving process. Practice exams are another type of opportunity to practice. By using multiple forms of practice, students can be well-prepared for oral exams.

As with personalized feedback on individual laboratory reports, oral exams present logistical challenges, primarily for faculty members. Rather than preparing *Perspective Chapter: Metacognitive Approaches for Teaching Scientific Communication… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.114127*

an exam and administering it in a 1- to 2-hour block, faculty members must set aside 10–15 minutes per student. So much time investment is impracticable for very large classes, although online meeting platforms such as Zoom make this easier. Further, faculty must consider student performance in different areas such as presentation skills, content mastery, and ability to answer questions about their thinking. The time commitment of oral exams can be more feasible if an automatically graded online exam is used in conjunction with a brief oral exam. Since students may discuss their experiences with each other, it is necessary to randomize questions or calculations to prevent cheating.

Most studies of oral exams solicit student opinions via formats such as a follow-up anonymized survey. As noted by Kamber, [35] many students have not experienced an oral exam before starting college. Placing the only oral exam at the end of a semester may cause greater anxiety than breaking up the oral exam experience into multiple smaller exams throughout the semester.

Additional options for oral input and feedback might include asking students to make short videos explaining a specific problem or concept—this option also could apply to small groups, for instance, which would foster connection not only with faculty but also with other students in distance-learning settings.

### **3.4 Literature review and seminar**

As discussed in a prior publication, [9] the authors coteach a course for advanced chemistry undergraduates in which students must complete a literature review following an American Chemical Society journal format as well as delivering a 10 minute oral presentation on their research. The course was originally designed by SS as a structured experience in which students heard sample seminars and read example papers to reproduce and provided feedback via a written form and were required to ask a set number of questions following a peer's seminar [36]. The benefits of such a structure were clearly tied to the American Chemical Society accreditation guidelines [21] and were intended to impart specific skills in chemistry communication as well as provide an opportunity to engage in peer review. After LDT joined the course as a coteacher, the experience evolved to address changing accreditation guidelines, to meet the changing needs of students as the major diversified, and to focus more strongly on metacognitive approaches to the work. This metacognitive focus became more important as the course expanded to serve an increasing number of students interested in forensic science and STEM education. It is worthy of note that forensic science, as an applied discipline, requires metacognitive approaches to problem-solving, while STEM education requires students to consider communication as an essential part of their work as opposed to an activity that takes place after the real work is done.

The current configuration of this course is inherently metacognitive in that it requires students to collaborate with peers and faculty to choose an overarching theme, such as climate change or food science. Students then each develop a literature review and seminar presentation within the overarching theme, which is shared incrementally as a work in progress with the group for informal discussion. The students also complete a common project centered around the overarching theme. Readings draw from work about writing by and for scientists as well as texts from writing studies are brought in as preparatory work. Students discuss these texts with each other and with faculty in connection with the course theme and their own projects. During each class meeting and each assignment, faculty and students work together to identify their goals, assess their own progress, and evaluate the relative

success of various works. They also share experiences to help foster a sense of community collaboration which is unique in the students' experiences because collaboration is usually limited in STEM lecture classes.

Since this is a specialized course open only to certain students, it is easy to foster a sense of shared community and purpose. The inherently metacognitive nature of this work is made possible by the prior preparation of students—who are generally advanced in their course of study—as well as the ongoing engagement between the two faculty members. It is worthy of note that this kind of open-ended discussionbased workshop is fairly common as an approach in writing studies, but not in undergraduate STEM education, so faculty focused on scientific study and teaching may not be comfortable with what might appear to be a lack of structure.

### **4. Discussion, conclusion, and recommendations**

Above, we described some course design elements that employ metacognitive approaches that can be used in various settings in STEM education such as examinations, writing laboratory reports or literature reviews, and oral communication. We conclude that although the shared experiences that led us to create these design elements overlap in the teaching of chemistry, similar approaches may be used in various settings in STEM education, the social sciences, and writing studies.

A consciously metacognitive approach in teaching oral and written communication can improve student learning, retention, and performance in scientific communication. However, the role and application of metacognitive approaches may differ in the sciences and writing studies. We discussed different communication settings in which metacognitive approaches drawn from chemistry education and from writing studies may both be applied: the laboratory report, the seminar presentation, literature reviews, and oral examinations. In each of these settings, students may benefit from metacognitive activities, such as reflections, co-creating the curricular environment, oral exams, and course discussion. Our observations in the context of undergraduate chemistry courses are broadly applicable to all STEM education.

In each of the settings just described, metacognitive approaches can incorporate similar elements for students. First, students should be asked to reflect generally on their ability to understand and convey concepts and calculations in a specific course setting. Second, students should be asked to explain specific concepts and calculations and why their approach is appropriate. Finally, students should be asked to explain how and why their answers apply to the specific tasks at hand. These elements correspond to the ideas of planning, monitoring, and assessment that Chick [4] mentions.

In each of the settings described above, one or more faculty members considered the possible connections between metacognitive approaches to scientific content—in this case, chemistry—as well as writing and then planned, monitored, and continually assessed their own work, making adjustments to meet student needs. A side benefit of this ongoing engagement has been publication of information about the seminar course. More significantly, SS has published more papers with student researchers. This was unanticipated, but it has also benefitted students enrolled in these various classes because such engagement necessarily enriches subsequent teaching. We recommend considering metacognitive elements when teaching any type of scientific communication.

*Perspective Chapter: Metacognitive Approaches for Teaching Scientific Communication… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.114127*
