Addressing the flaws in intensive science degrees

Intensive science degrees in Australia are highly regarded for the amount of technical material conveyed in only three years; however, most graduates of these degrees are not "educated" in the traditional meaning of the concept. Three important flaws in such degrees are:

1. a lack of written, oral and interpersonal communication skills;
2. a lack of understanding of the impacts of scientific and technological progress on society; and
3. a lack of understanding of both the demands of the workforce and traditional fields of learning.

This case study reports the methodology and outcomes of an 8-year project in Curtin's School of Computing to rectify this problem. Major curriculum innovations included:

• a mandatory first-year unit on written, verbal and interpersonal communications skills;
• a mandatory third-year unit covering both communication skills and professional practice (e.g., ethics and morality, business practices and skills, intellectual property, job applications and interviews, etc.); and
• a third unit (mandatory in one degree, optional in others) that reinforces these skills via a syllabus addressing history and philosophy of science; theories of measurement, classification, time, and the origin of life and the universe; scientific and technological change and its impacts on society; scientific insight and creativity; and legal and moral issues encompassed by technological developments.

Concurrently, in my capacity as course controller for two of these degrees (encompassing over 400 undergraduates), I have introduced an intensive advising, counselling and career selection programme (via material included in the above-cited units and an intensive, and often "intrusive", one-on-one advising program).

Outcomes have been very positive, as measured by improved written and oral presentation skills of third-year and higher degree students, on-going positive feedback from employers, and formal student evaluations. I conclude that, both given these outcomes, and the greater diversity of students currently starting tertiary study, greater attention needs to be given to the teaching of such communications and breadth units system-wide.

Introduction

their desire is to "get in, get trained, get out and get a good job". We do a pretty good job of meeting these expectations. But are the students getting an "education" or just very good training? (Kessell 1992: p. 8)

The undergraduate curriculum, particularly in economics and the science-based professions, is deficient in that it is producing highly trained, highly competent technicians who are under-educated in the traditional sense of the word. They are not familiar with the society in which they are going to practise. They do not have good critical capacities and they are not good communicators (Anderson,p.1)... The majority of graduates in medicine, engineering and other science-based professional courses... are cultural illiterates... (Anderson, p.4)

Almost all Australian universities now turn out... science graduates who have no knowledge of their societies or even the sociology of science ... with no concept of the likely impact of technological change on society (Gelber, p.4).

My own observation is that, given the greater diversity of students entering tertiary education over the past several years, the situation, far from improving, progressively is getting worse. Is it being addressed?

Curtin's (1995) Strategic Plan for Teaching and Learning lists as its first objective:

To produce graduates who value and practise the pursuit and application of knowledge and who are equipped for careers and employment in their chosen field (p. 3).

mastery and practical application of knowledge;
communication skills;
critical evaluation;
creativity;
teamwork;
problem solving and decision making; and
responsiveness to the Australian and international communities.

The first is clearly "blame the schools, blame the students, it's not our problem ... we can't waste time teaching communications skills and other soft subjects..." (presumably an additional subject in "advanced widget engineering" is more important than graduates who possess basic professional communications skills).

The second is to admit that the problem exists, and to attempt to find ways to solve it. Curtin did precisely this in producing a report on Communication-in-Context (Latchem, Parker and Weir 1995) that:

... acknowledges that communications skills is a term that embraces a wide range of skills, but it focuses particularly on writing skills. Students spend a major proportion of their working time writing. Writing is central to all forms of learning and is an important vehicle for assessing learning. Highly developed writing skills are essential for postgraduate study. (This) report also evidences the high priority placed by employers on graduates' communications skills, a finding whose significance universities have been generally slow to acknowledge (p.ix).

... the communication skills of all students (including those who have met institutional admission requirements to the highest level) need to be developed continually and that this should be accepted as an essential and integral part of the education of students within all disciplines (p.x).

A specific recommendation of Latchem et al. (1995) is:

Schools to develop their own communication skills policies based upon the needs of their disciplines and students and the expectations of the professional bodies and employers; Schools to provide discipline-specific communication skills units and/or adopt Communications-in-Context approaches, in order to meet these needs and expectations (p.xiv).

Educating the philistines: Teaching communications skills to science students

I voiced my great ambitions for this new unit, and outlined my draft syllabus; my colleagues from C&CS laughed quietly. Previously, our students, and most other science students at Curtin, had taken a "half credit", context-independent unit taught by C&CS, as their one and only university-level English unit. Sadly, the C&CS staff knew our students better than I did at the time. It probably would be an understatement to say that we started gently and have become more and more ambitious with each passing year.

English for Technical Communication 100 is a mandatory unit for all students in our undergraduate computing science, mathematics and geographic information systems degrees. It includes a two hour per week tutorial (taught by C&CS staff) that covers: basic writing (including grammar, spelling and punctuation) and public speaking; how to structure an essay or report; how to outline using decimal notation; how to use the Harvard citation system; and how to write a range of technical manuals. The practical/laboratory component is self-paced, to cater for students from a range of computing backgrounds. To pass this component, students must demonstrate competence in microcomputing, in using a modern office automation package (currently Microsoft Office for Windows) and must touch-type at least 40 words per minute error-free.

The lecture (one hour per week) has several key features. Most importantly, students see a senior academic, who is also their course controller, shouting to the rafters: "good communications skills are vital; you can be the best programmer in the world and nobody will buy your product if the manual is unreadable; you're going to spend 40% of your entire professional life writing and speaking, so learn how to do it properly!" They are regaled with many tales of young scientists that I have hired, maybe promoted, maybe sacked, depending on their communications skills. By this stage, I have their attention.

While there are perhaps 150 students in the lecture, I run it like a tutorial; there is a large amount of discussion, demonstrations ("explain how to ride a bicycle and I'll follow your instructions precisely" -- "explain how a word processor works to an expert typist who's never touched a computer" -- "explain, to your computer-illiterate friend, what happens when you 'boot' a computer"), role playing, how to use the library properly, even mock job interviews and the basics of intellectual property and copyright. This is also my captive audience of all our new students: we discuss survival at university, what to do if you have a problem (personal or academic), are overloaded, are broke, are homesick, think you're in the wrong degree, etc... I think that since new students get to know their course controller, very quickly, in such an environment, it greatly increases the chances that they will approach him when a problem arises.

Informal and semi-formal formative evaluation, as well as the standard student appraisals of teaching, have been undertaken every year; a number of changes have been made along the way. Currently, the assessment includes two written assignments, the presentation of a brief talk, demonstrated competency in personal computing and the library, satisfactory attendance and a two-hour written exam. All elements of assessment must be passed to pass the unit.

The ongoing evaluations have led to three major changes since 1993:

All entering students, regardless of TEE English score, must pass a comprehensive written diagnostic test before they may enrol in the unit; if they fail the test, they MUST complete appropriate remedial English unit(s) first. There are no exceptions.

An extra three-hour mandatory "study skills, time management, note taking, how to survive uni" tutorial has been added during the first week of classes.

The second written assignment is now the User's Manual for the second programming assignment they have just completed in another computing subject (in a further attempt to link the development of their written and computing skills).

We were off to a good start, but it was blatantly obvious that students who had successfully completed this unit still were not remotely prepared for the demands of the workforce or higher study. In 1989, we replaced the old pass-fail Project Preparation unit with an intensive, mandatory new third-year unit called Technical Writing and Project Preparation 391. "Tech Writing" briefly reviews the first year writing syllabus and then set off to a higher plane.

The first three weeks are an intensive exercise in editing: saying what you mean, stop the redundancy, drop the jargon, write and speak to the level of your audience. All students learn the use of proper proof reading marks and use them throughout the unit. The first two written assignments (there are usually seven or eight written assignments in all) are intensive editing and proof reading exercises. Students then write a 2000 word essay on the technical background to their third year project, and each student gives a 20 minute oral presentation on the same topic to his or her tutorial.

The next segment includes refining bibliographic and summarising skills; exercises include citing literature, writing summaries and annotated bibliographies, and how to write a critical review. The next segment includes the preparation of a written resume and the finer points of writing a job application letter. Students are given an appropriate job advertisement and must respond: letter, CV, referees. Several weeks later, the tutorial will include a job interview panel comprised of professionals they have never met; they will be interviewed in front of the class for the position for which they have applied (we also video the interview, so the students can "see how they went"). Most students rate "the interview" as the most terrifying but also the most useful and valuable component of the unit.

We next spend four weeks bringing together software engineering, the world of business, and writing; in groups of four, students must design a specification for a new software system, budget it and submit a formal tender. The tender is evaluated on realism of design, costing and overall quality of presentation. Several tutorials towards the end of the semester include role playing and group "brain storming, problem solving and design" sessions. The final two weeks are an intensive look at intellectual property and copyright.

Most of the unit's assessment comes from the eight or so written assignments and the 20-minute talk. There is a final "test", worth only 10% of the final mark, which the students must pass (the sole purpose of this test is to detect students who have been submitting written work of a standard that they can not match under controlled conditions).

As with English for Technical Communication 100, informal formative evaluation, plus formal questionnaires and student appraisals, have been conducted annually. These results, plus formal feedback from our external course Advisory Boards, have led to a significant number of cumulative refinements over the years. However, the philosophy and substance of the unit have changed very little in the last few years.

We thus require that two of the thirty subjects taken by our students to complete their pass degree are communications-in-context units. The vast majority of graduates, and their employers, rate these units as essential elements of their tertiary education, regardless of whether they plan to enter the professional workforce or pursue higher study. Every tutor in "Tech Writing" over the past seven years has noted students' substantial progress between the first week's diagnostic test and the final assignment.

Educating the philistines (continued): Science in a humanistic and moral perspective

IT&S introduces students to several interrelated fields of learning, as well as a different style of teaching, that are "new" to most our of undergraduates. The stated objective is:

... to provide students with an understanding of the scientific method, how science and technology change and grow, their impact on society and what might await the next generation. It also explores the nature of ethics, personal and corporate responsibility, time and space, the possible origin of the universe, and the evolving relationship among metaphysics, science and religion.

We spend several weeks examining where technology, especially information technology, is going and how it will impact all of us. We debate the ethical issues of genetic engineering and "big brother"; we ask if we'll ever have "A Theory of Everything" and how such a theory might even be recognised. We examine creativity from several perspectives, and discuss how well governments, the legal system and the ordinary person will cope with the emerging information society.

Assessment includes two written assignments. One is an essay on "how scientific progress over the past century has affected the way we perceive ourselves and our universe"; the other is "write a short science fiction story that deals with any issue discussed in this unit". Students must also present a 20 minute talk to their tutorial (and then lead the discussion for a further 30 minutes) from a list of authors including Fromm, Jung, Suzuki, Sagan, Asimov, de Bono and Feynman (amongst others). There is no formal end of semester examination.

The students' response to this unit has been tremendous; it has been successful beyond my wildest dreams. (It's also the only subject I've ever taught where the student appraisals of teaching often return a perfect 5 out of 5 from every member of the class.) They don't like it because it's easy (most panic during the first class when they realise they must read seven or eight books for just one subject!); they like it because it makes them think. My own rewards include: the student who found our discussion of terminating unreasonable life-support measures a significant help in dealing with his mother's recent death; the student who declared that "after three years of uni, I finally found a unit that made me think"; and the many who simply noted that "finally I've learned something real -- things that are worth thinking about -- questions without 'correct answers' -- something beyond rote learning".

Discussion

What can we conclude from this eight year experiment in teaching literacy and some breadth to science students? Clearly our communications-in-context approach has been highly successful according to students, employers and graduate supervisors. Attempts to expand this into a broader "writing across the curriculum" model (Cowen 1993), where quality of writing is assessed in all subjects, has been more difficult to implement.

What about "breadth vs. depth" in science degrees: have we found a solution? Crichton (1991) laments of scientists who "don't have intelligence... they have what I call 'thintelligence'... they think narrowly and call it 'being focussed'... they don't see the surrounds... they don't see the consequences..."

This is a much more value-laden question than simple literacy. Some of my colleagues, superiors and critics still see units such as IT&S as "soft... a waste of time... what's that got to do with computing?... we could teach an extra unit in advanced widget engineering in its place". These are the same colleagues whose approach to literacy is "blame someone else ... it's not our problem". Perhaps we just see "education" differently. I certainly am biased as a product of the American liberal arts system, and no doubt many of my colleagues value specialisation and research over breadth of learning and teaching. I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew Glenn's comments (Australia 1990: p. 47):

There is little doubt that the quality of teaching in universities varies from excellent to appalling. Most university academics are appointed on the basis of their research ...rather than because of their teaching ability. Teaching deserves to be taken seriously!

My greatest disappointment in my current position is that even the need for a proper discussion of "what is education, what balance between breadth and depth" is not taken seriously. Clearly it is easier to dismiss than to debate, to disparage than to discuss, to direct than to deliberate. This semester, the lecture and its "how to survive uni" were dropped from the first year literacy unit (ETC). Next year, my School plans to drop the third year "Tech Writing" in favour of an advanced software engineering unit; IT&S is being dropped as a core unit in the GIS degree and probably will not be taught at all.

As a colleague pessimistically suggested, "in a devolved chain of command, it takes only a couple of weak links to turn university policy into professorial hubris". Surely a technological university should be more than TAFE in fancy dress.

Literature cited

Australia (1990). Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training: Priorities for reform in higher education. Canberra: AGPS.

Australian Association of Graduate Employers. (1993). National survey of graduate employers. November.

Bate, D. and P. Sharpe. (1990). Student Writer's Handbook. Sydney: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.

Cowen, K. (1993). Responding to the writing crisis in universities: Writing across the curriculum. HERDSA Conference, Brisbane (15-16 April).

Crichton, M. (1991). Jurassic Park. London: Arrow.

Curtin University of Technology (1995). Strategic plan for teaching and learning: Summary. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

Davies, P. (1992). The Mind of God. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 16: 1243-1248.

Harvey, L. (1993a). Employer satisfaction: Interim report. Quality in Higher Education. Coventry: University of Warwick.

Harvey, L. (1993b). Employer views of higher education. Proceedings of the Second QHE 24-Hour Seminar. Birmingham: The University of Central England.

Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time. London: Bantam.

Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (1994). Chartered accountants in the 21st century. Sydney: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.

Kessell, S.R. (1992). What's a tertiary education -- and am I getting one? Australian Campus Review Weekly, 18 June.

Latchem, C., L. Parker and J. Weir (1995). Communication-in-Context: A report on communication skills development for the Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

Lee, A. (1991). Language and literacy in undergraduate education. In: F. Christie, P. Freebody, A. Devlin, A. Luke, J. Martin, T. Threadgold and C. Walton (Eds), Teaching English literacy: Project of national significance on the preservice preparation of teachers to teach English literacy (3 volumes). Darwin: Northern Territory University.

Russell, P. (1992). The white hole in time: Our future evolution and the meaning of now. London: Aquarian Press.

Author: Stephen R. Kessell, Department of Geographic Information Systems, School of Computing, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia 6001. Email: kessell@cs.curtin.edu.au Please cite as: Kessell, S. R. (1996). Addressing the flaws in intensive science degrees. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/kessell.html