CPB 310
Chemical and Physical Biology Seminar
Course Overview

Instructor
Overview
Role of the Student Facilitator
Role of the Student Participant
Peer Participation Evaluation
Student Facilitator Evaluation
Tutorial Presentation
Due Dates

Instructor:
Michelle Sulikowski, Department of Chemistry
7330 Stevenson Center, phone 343-4106
michelle.m.sulikowski@vanderbilt.edu
Office hours: by appointment

Overview:
This semester you will each choose a speaker from the VICB seminar course to learn more about.  You will then create a tutorial about what you have learned and post that tutorial on BlackBoard which can be accessed through the following URL.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/OAK

You will then lead an on-line discussion about the speaker’s work. All of this will occur the week prior to the speaker’s arrival.  This part of the course will be conducted entirely on BlackBoard.

To get started you need to send Anne Lara, Manager of the Vanderbilt Institute of Chemical Biology, a rank-ordered list of your preferences for speakers by Thursday, September 15, 2005.  Her contact information is: Anne.B.Lara@vanderbilt.edu
Vanderbilt Institute of Chemical Biology
896 Preston Building, 37232-0146. 

Assignments will be made on a first come first serve basis.  If there are two speakers in the same time slot, you may choose to focus on just one speaker.

Anne Lara will also be the contact source for the administration of the course.  For example, you will schedule items, change speakers, and send all evaluation data to Anne.

Your grade for the course will be determined by your participation in the on-line portion of the course:

This will vary with the number of students in the course and will likely be between 35 – 50 total points.

Return to Top

The Role of the Student Facilitator: To create a tutorial which will enrich understanding of the research being performed by the CPBP 310 speakers.

• Search the speakers website for papers that relate to their area of expertise. You can also ask the faculty member for a lead article or book chapter that would be helpful in understanding the work, which they will present at seminar.

• You will become an ‘expert’ in that area and act as a tutor for other students prior to the actual seminar.  To accomplish this, you will prepare a PowerPoint Presentation or Word document about the research area and post that document on BlackBoard.

• The presentation should be mostly self-contained.  Your peers should not need to go to other papers or websites in order to understand your presentation.  However, links to the speaker’s website or papers of interest may be helpful to those who want to explore the topic in depth and a re encouraged.

• The presentation is a tutorial session not a literature review.

• The introduction should contain a synopsis of the work that is being done, a description of the impact or importance of the work, and a discussion of how this fits into the area of chemical biology.  The introduction is like the background and significance portion of a grant or a good paper.

• The body of the presentation should include a close look at the faculty member’s research.  Attention should be paid to areas which are likely to be new to most of your peers.

• The tutorial session should take students somewhere between 30 and 60 minutes to read through (depending upon their knowledge in that area).  We hesitate to give a page or slide limit as the focus is on a quality presentation and this may be accomplished in many ways.

• The conclusion of the tutorial will be in the form of an on-line discussion, which you facilitate. You will run two separate on-line discussions, which your peers will contribute to.  It is your job to keep the discussion at a high level and to maintain a discussion that is professional. Probably your most important job as a facilitator is to foster an atmosphere that is helpful to your peers and respectful of others thoughts and understanding of the material. There may be times when a student understands very little of the material because it is a completely new area for them.  Your job is to make them feel comfortable enough to ask questions without fear of being ridiculed or put down.

• Your goal is to facilitate the discussion. This may mean sending a friendly email reminder to those who have not yet logged on to the discussion. Please keep the discussion professional at all times.  Humor and sarcasm are not permitted as word of that type often lose their intended meaning when not used in face-to-face discussion

• Discussion 1: Questions and comments about the research. In this area you should respond to questions or comments that your peers post. Other students will also respond in this area.  If other students do not respond to a posted question or comment you may need to ‘jump in’ to get the ball rolling. At the end of the discussion, no question posted by your peers should go unanswered. So you may need to respond if no one else has done so.

• Discussion 2: A stimulus question about the research. In this area you will post one or to questions about the research that is meant to get your peers thinking about the research.  Good stimulus questions are difficult to write. Good questions ask students to think; they do not ask students to repeat what they have just read.  Some ideas for writing stimulus questions are shown below.

• Good questions are rarely one sentence long. Many times you need an introductory short paragraph to set the stage.

• Good questions ask students to analyze, compare, contrast, evaluate and apply their knowledge.

• Good questions connect to previously learned material in classes or other seminars in the series.

• You may wish to create a research problem and ask how the current material can be used to address that problem.

• You may ask about where the new line of research will take the field of chemical biology.

Return to Top



The Role of the Student Participant: Carefully read the tutorial presented and actively participate in the weeks discussion.

• Each week students are to log on to BlackBoard and carefully read the tutorial presented by their student facilitator.

• As a participant, you are to participate in the two discussion threads on Blackboard related to that week’s tutorial.

• Discussion 1 is a question and comment area. In this area you are to post any questions about the work – anything thing from “What is a nonmaterial” to “How does this work relate to the work being done by Dr. X.”  Basic questions as well as highly specific disciplinary questions are welcomed.  In this section you may also post comments on the research.  You can relate it to other areas of research, expand on the discussion presented by the facilitator or bring in new material that may be of interest to your peers.

• Discussion 2 begins with a lead question or comment by your student facilitator. You will respond to the facilitators query but may also respond to postings by other students in that area.

• Requirements:

• Make a total of five postings related to that week’s topic

• Make at least one posting in each discussion area.

• Make at least 2 of the 5 postings by midweek.

• Evaluate the student facilitator’s presentation and management of the on-line discussion.

Return to Top



Peer Participation  Evaluation
The student facilitator is to assign participation points to their peer participants in the activity.  These points are to be based on the quality and quantity of each student’s contributions to the discussion.  The grading should be holistic, meaning that each student’s contribution to the unit should be considered as a whole.  Participation points should be mailed to Anne Lara privately by the date indicated on the syllabus.

The following rubric can help you to determine how many points to assign.  It is designed to be flexible. In general, you should look for students’ strengths.  Don’t be reluctant to give most students full credit if they have earned it.  But you should feel responsible to maintain standards by making sure that the students really do meet the expectations for participation.

Points to Assign	Characteristics to Consider
5	ALL of the following characteristics are present: Student contributed to all posted questions by the facilitator Student contributed to posting by other students Student wrote a minimum of five postings that were substantive There is clear evidence that the student read the tutorial material posted by the facilitator Student posted on at least two different days Messages were edited, easy to understand and mostly devoid of grammatical and spelling errors IF students fall short of one of the above characteristics, they may still receive full credit if they did one or more of the following Contributed more than five substantive postings Contributed one or more truly exceptional postings Contributed several short messages that truly enriched the discussion Brought external material to the discussion in a thoughtful manner that enriched everyone’s understanding
4	Almost all of the above characteristics are present; if so, comments on strengths and make one suggestion on how to improve
3	Only three of the above are present; if so, comment on strength and explain what the student can do to improve
2	Student participated in the discussion, but fell short of expectations in several ways; generally this means that no more than two of the postings were substantive, or that the students only posted in response to one other student, make sure to include ways to improve for the student
1	Student provided minimal contribution; if so, describe what the student contributed and how this fell short of expectations; suggest ways to improve
0	Student did not participate in the discussion

Return to Top



Student Facilitator Evaluation
Your peers will evaluate your tutorial presentation and your management of the on-line discussion.  These points are to be based on the quality of your contribution.  The grading should be holistic.  Evaluation forms should be mailed to Anne Lara privately by the date indicated on the syllabus.

The following rubric can help you to determine how many points to assign.  It is designed to be flexible. In general, you should look for students’ strengths.  Don’t be reluctant to give most students full credit if they have earned it.  But you should feel responsible to maintain standards by making sure that the students really do meet the expectations for quality.

On-Line Discussion

Points to Assign	Characteristics to Consider
9-10	ALL of the following characteristics are present: The facilitator created a high quality stimulus question The facilitator contributed to the actual discussion but did not dominate the on-line discussion. The facilitator postings kept the conversation flowing or was generally viewed as helpful. The facilitator made at least 3 additional postings in each discussion area. The facilitator responded to other students’ postings with respect.
8	Almost all of the above characteristics are present; if so, comments on strengths and make one suggestion on how to improve
7	Only three of the above are present; if so, comment on strength and explain what the student can do to improve
6	Less than three of the above are present but the facilitator posted a question of good quality
5	Less than three of the above are present and the facilitator posted a question of poor quality
4	Facilitator posted a question but did not participate in the discussion
0	Facilitator did not post a discussion question


Return to Top



Tutorial Presentation

Points to Assign	Characteristics to Consider
35	ALL of the following characteristics are present: The tutorial was easy to read  - had proper font size, spacing and good quality graphics The tutorial did not have spelling or grammatical errors that distracted from the content The format chosen for the tutorial was appropriate for the material being presented The tutorial contained an introduction section or background and significance, and the remainder of the paper concerted itself with specific details of the speakers research The tutorial had links/ references to the speaker’s webpage and other papers of interest. There was evidence that the facilitator had a firm understanding of the material being presented The tutorial was presented in a way that made learning seamless The tutorial prepared me for the seminar speakers talk There was evidence that the tutorial was thoughtfully constructed. The content in the tutorial was accurate.
31-34	Almost all of the above characteristics were present but he presentation fell short in one or two areas. List the item missing and ways to improve in that area.
28 -30	Most of the above characteristics were present but the presentation fell short in more than two areas. List the item missing and ways to improve in that area.
24 - 27	Most of the above characteristics were present but he presentation fell short in most areas. List the item missing and ways to improve in that area.
20-26	The presentation was of overall poor quality, may have been late in posting and did not meet most of the above criteria
10-20	The presentation was posted more than two days late.
0	Did not create a tutorial

Return to Top



Due Dates

A schedule of due dates for the next semester will be available Summer 2007.


Return to Top