1 / 20

Pondering the Pitfalls of Teaching Writing in the Natural Sciences

Pondering the Pitfalls of Teaching Writing in the Natural Sciences. Sally Sommers Smith Kari L. Lavalli Harry 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

eadoin
Download Presentation

Pondering the Pitfalls of Teaching Writing in the Natural Sciences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pondering the Pitfalls of Teaching Writing in the Natural Sciences Sally Sommers Smith Kari L. Lavalli Harry Griffin CGS’11, CAS’13

  2. 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)

  3. Writing Process • Writing process consists of 3 metacognitive actions: • Planning • Translating • Revising • 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

  4. Experiment • Year 1: • Two papers assigned • First paper on free form inquiry-based, 2 week lab, driven by students’ own questions • Students given 2 weeks to write paper • Paper graded, returned, students given opportunity to revise • Second paper on structured inquiry-like experiment, 2 week lab on fruit fly mating behavior and genetics • Students given 2 weeks to write paper; no rewrite

  5. Science Writing Described –Aid to Planning

  6. Grading Rubric Provided (Aid to Planning & Translating)

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

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

  9. Abstract Mean 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. Introduction Mean 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

  10. Materials & Methods Mean 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. Results Mean 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.

  11. Discussion Mean 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. References Mean 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.

  12. 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 corrections • These have minimal effect on quality of text

  13. 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

  14. Explanations Provided

  15. Grading Rubrics Given

  16. Reflection Assignment

  17. Results Still Being Assessed • BUT … instructor’s perception is that papers were more poorly writtenusing 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

  18. 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.

More Related