pondering the pitfalls of teaching writing in the natural sciences sally sommers smith kari l....

Pondering the Pitfalls of Teaching Writing in the Natural Sciences

Sally Sommers SmithKari L. LavalliHarry Griffin CGS’11, CAS’13

Background

Proficiency with reading and writing is fundamental to being a good student and a good worker in nearly any field

Student writing, however, typically is directed towards the instructor solely for the purpose of assessment (Britton et al. 1979)

Writing Process

Writing process consists of 3 metacognitive actions:PlanningTranslatingRevising

For proficient writers, the revision process should allow for assessment of writing, finding of errors, and formulating changes that lead to both expression of understanding and understanding of the subject matter itself

Experiment Year 1:

Two papers assigned○ First paper on free form inquiry-based, 2 week lab,

driven by students’ own questionsStudents given 2 weeks to write paperPaper graded, returned, students given

opportunity to revise○ Second paper on structured inquiry-like

experiment, 2 week lab on fruit fly mating behavior and geneticsStudents given 2 weeks to write paper; no rewrite

Science Writing Described –Aid to Planning

Grading Rubric Provided (Aid to Planning & Translating)

Sample Paper Illustrating Sections and References Cited Provided (Aid to Translating)

Sample Paper Illustrating Sections and References Cited Provided (Aid to Translating)

AbstractMean scores on the abstract between the first and second replicates. There was no statistically significant difference t(10) = 0.43, p > 0.05, between the mean score on the first paper replicate and the second.

IntroductionMean scores on the introduction sections between the first and second replicates. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean score on the first paper replicate and the second t(10) = 0.67, p > 0.05

Materials & MethodsMean scores of the materials and methods sections between the first and second replicates. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean score on the first replicate and second replicate t(10) = 0.99, p > 0.05.

ResultsMean scores of the results section in the first and second paper replicates. There was a significant increase in the mean score from the first to second replicates t(10) = 2.15, p < 0.05.

DiscussionMean scores of the discussion section in the first and second paper replicates. There was a statistically significant increase in the mean score from the first to second paper replicates t(10) = 2.37, p < 0.05.

ReferencesMean scores of the references section in the first and second replicates. There was no statistically significant increase in the mean score from the first to second paper replicates t(10) = 0.32, p > 0.05.

Why So Little Improvement? College students aren’t really proficient writers –

they are novice writers Revision of work by novice writers tends to just

have superficial changes (Butterfield et al. 1994; De la Paz et al. 1998)Word changes, spelling corrections, grammar

correctionsThese have minimal effect on quality of text

Experiment Year 2

Break down scientific writing process further ○ Poster, then paper

Poster submitted prior to printing, revised, then printed

Students graded each other’s poster so that they could “see” faults in written sections

Students then reflected on how their poster experience would inform their paper writing

○ Paper then written on fruit fly experiment

Explanations Provided

Grading Rubrics Given

Reflection Assignment

Results Still Being Assessed

BUT … instructor’s perception is that papers were more poorly written using this method than Year 1 method, perhaps because of haste

THANKS TO 2011 Grant from CGS Center for Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning.

And 2012 GUTS grant supporting undergraduate researcher, Harry Griffin

References

Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, I., and Rosen, H. 1979. The Development of Writing Abilities. National Council of Teachers, Illinois: 11-18.

Butterfield, E. Hacker, D., and Plumb, C. 1994. Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision. In: E. Butterfield, ed. Children’s Writing: Toward a Process Theory of the Development of Skilled Writing. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT: 83-114.

De la Paz, M., Swanson, P., and Graham, G.S. 1998. The contribution of executive control to the revising of students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 448-460.