Fostering and Measuring General Scientific Reasoning Expertise at the Second Year Level

Geoscience faculty members often debate about the definition and development of scientific expertise. Some will argue it emerges at the graduate level, others that novice students can develop relevant skills. The debate hinges on definitions of “expertise”, “scientific skills” and how these abilities are assessed. We present data from a second year geoscience course specifically designed to help research scientists foster generic skills associated with critical scientific thinking, presentation, and framing of scientific arguments and questions. To develop the course, key characteristics that professional scientists exhibit were identified from the literature and our experience. These are the abilities to: a) read critically; b) succinctly summarize and communicate; c) pose insightful questions; d) use and discuss models, data and their relationships; and e) work effectively as part of a team. To help with learning and assessment of these skills in students who do not yet have significant discipline-specific background, classroom practices were chosen so that students must think and act more like professional scientists. These include use of some team-based learning strategies, replacing exams with quizzes and projects, mixing team-teaching with solo-teaching, discursive rather than didactic instruction, and use of diverse topics representative of research in our Department. Specific strategies employed which enable “master geoscientists” to actively guide and assess novices as they practice desired skills are: homework involving reading, writing abstracts and posing questions for one or two articles each week, pre-post testing of model based reasoning abilities, interaction with guest scientists, and oral and poster presentations on topics chosen by students. Results of collecting data over two terms of using these general and specific strategies include: 1. Abstract writing skills improved during the first two thirds of the course, then leveled off in the last third. 2. The types of questions students posed depended on article type, and questions became more articulate during the course. Also, after adjusting pedagogy for the second year, questions were more discussion oriented rather than focusing on clarifying content of articles. Despite some precedent in the literature, defining how to assess question type and quality was found to be challenging, and we continue to investigate assessment of question posing as one measure of expertise. 3. Pre-post testing showed that students improved their abilities to recognize, distinguish and reason about relevant models, data and their relationships for each topic. 4. Survey responses showed students benefit from, and appreciate, opportunities to practice their communication and discussion skills, assess those of their peers, and work in teams. In conclusion, after working on this course for two terms, we show that second year students can measurably improve their mastery of generic scientific skills exhibited by professional geoscientists. Research continues on how these skills depend upon pedagogy and choice of topics, and how to assess them.