Using redrafted texts to explore the principles of academic scientific writing

1. Using redrafted texts to explore the principles of academic scientific writing Jane Bottomley

2. context • Credit-bearing module on taught Chemistry Masters • CHEM61000 Research and Communication Skills • Highly collaborative: • course design, management, assessment • High degree of departmental appreciation of and commitment to the course: • “a cornerstone of the taught Masters Chemistry programme”

3. context • Semester 1 • input on research and communication skills put into practice through “Amazing Molecules” assessed essay and presentation • Semester 2 • fortnightly tutorials to support students as they produce a pre-lab literature review for their research project dissertation

4. written communication: broad objectives • ‘Embrace’ writing as a means of developing and communicating their chemistry knowledge, understanding and ideas in a clear, coherent, conventional way • Develop awareness that the writing process itself is heuristic, can clarify thinking, expose “woolly” thought (Woodford, 1967: 745) and lead to “further insights and connections over and above those previously residing in notes or in thoughts” (Swales, 1990: 221) • Use the writing process to help them develop as writers, thinkers and scientists (Schultz, 2009; McIntyre, 1997: 200; Turk and Kirkman, 1989; 18; Woodford, 1967; 743, 745)

5. written communication: specific objectives • Consider the competence and expectations of an actual reader, and to anticipate the reader’s experience as they move through the text • Consider the language/discourse choices available and to be aware of how these choices affect clarity and coherence, and thus the reader’s experience • Be aware of the constraints on choice, particularly individual competency, and be prepared to simplify (organisation, expression) as a strategy

6. Language/discourse choices

7. Some considerations • Grammar/Expression choice • “natural, but professional”; “precise and meaningful” (Schultz, 2009: 61, 87) • Conventional (Turk and Kirman, 1989: 15-16) • “language can be a wall as well as a window” (Turk and Kirkman, 1989: 7) • Verbosity does not impress but simplicity can (Smith and Brown study, Turk and Kirkman, 1989: 18-19) • Effect of syntactic and lexical choices on information flow (Caplan, 2012)

8. Some considerations • Eliminating/Condensing/Cutting • “Noise” interferes with the transmission of the message (Communication Theory, Chandler, 2012): “The more difficult a message is, the more disturbing noise is.” (Turk and Kirkman, 1989: 11) • “Be concise without omitting substance.” (Schultz, 2009: 61) ; “pruning superfluous material differs from pruning to the fewest possible words” (McIntyre, 1997: 201)

9. Some considerations • Helpful v unhelpful variation • Are variations necessary or “gratuitous” making language “harder to decode”? Is change “organic”, whereby the text “changes in some ways by small enough increments, but stays invariant in others”? (McIntyre, 1997: 200, 205) • “use the same word or phrase for the same thing, similar word patterns for similar or comparable things, and different words, phrases, and word patterns for different things” (McIntyre, 1997: 200)

10. processes • Individual writing tutorials • Tutors work individually with students to improve short drafts • Classroom activity • Task guides students towards noticing and evaluating the choices made by former students

11. Tutorials: process

12. Redrafting and reformulation • Mixed results/views re effectiveness and appropriateness of tutor reformulation: • Can be a positive strategy (Court, 2014; Yang and Zhang 2010) • Reported to be less effective than other corrective techniques (Wigglesworth and Storch, 2012) • Some objections on the grounds that it may appropriate the text, limit student ownership, identity and voice, and entrench dependency and existing power relations (Court, 2014: 331) • Allwright et al. (1988) and Swales (1990) discuss the value of reformulation in terms of the discussion it promotesrather than the improvements it makes to a single text: the “opportunity … to extract from the instructor something of the processes that led to the changes” (Swales, 1990: 221) • Small amount of reformulation mixed with student’s own redrafting • Only looking at a short extract of the student’s work – not a case of ‘rewriting’ entire texts

13. Classroom Activity: process

14. Classroom Activity: process

15. Classroom Activity: Aims and rationale • To encourage students to be active, critical readers of others’, and ultimately their own, work, developing an awareness of what makes a text clear, coherent and readable • To encourage students to develop an awareness of the language and discourse choices available to them within their competence level • Using work of former students helps situate current students in academic community and related discourse practices (Northedge, 2003) • Effective way to introduce students to redrafting process – often perceived as cognitively challenging and time-consuming (Court, 2014: 327)

16. Clarifying the message [B2] simple, clear. [In E2] “other antimalerials” clearer than “others” – not clear this [was] meaning. [F] repeats key words. [In F] every paragraph repeats of MOFs and then a different aspect.

17. Simplifying the message [C1] gets confusing. Simple words [in C2] – “technological methods” changed to “techniques”. [In D1] one idea per sentence. [E2] very focused. Just tells me what I need to know. [E1] gives me a lot of information I don’t need to know. [In E1] many linking words and more information but confusing.

18. Being concise and direct [C2] summarises in a few words exactly. [C2] more concise. [C2] got to the point. [D2] uses less words. [E2] concise. [D2] summarises better – being concise with ideas – to the point – better.

19. Structuring information But [D2] too many linking words. [D2] restructuring way he’s presenting ideas. Can understand better the concepts. [E2] sentence makes a good linkage between “derivatives” in sentence one and two. [In E2] each sentence refers back to previous one. [E2] message is in a line, [linear].

20. Outcome: tutorial checklist ‘tool’ • To encourage students to anticipate how the reader will interpret and react to (Schultz, 2009: 60-61; Swales, 1990: 220) what they write and thus improve clarity and coherence • Meaningful • Accessible • Interactive • Can students use this to write better first drafts or improve first drafts? • Will it inform tutorial discussions?

21. references • Allwright, R. Woodley M. and Allwright, J. (1988) Investigating reformulation as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic writing, Applied Linguistics, 9/3, 237-256 • Caplan, N. (2012) Grammar choices for graduate and professional writers, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press • Chandler, D. (2012) The transmission model of communication, http://archive.is/SwwM , [accessed 17/02/2016] • Court, K. (2014) Tutor feedback on draft essays: developing students’ academic writing and subject knowledge, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38/3, 327-345 • Fowler, N. (1965) Fowler’s modern English usage, OUP • Northedge, A. (2003) Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 17-32 • McIntyre, Michael (1997) Lucidity and science I: Writing skills and the Pattern Perception Hypothesis, Interdiscip. Sci. Rev., 22, 199-216 • Schultz, D. (2009) Eloquent Science: a practical guide to becoming a better writer, speaker and atmospheric scientist, American Meteorological Society • Swales, J. (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings, CUP • Turk, C. and Kirkman, J. (1989) Effective writing: improving scientific, technical and business communication, 2nd edition, Routledge • Wigglesworth, G. and Storch, N. (2012) What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374 • Woodford, Peter (1967) Sounder thinking through clearer writing, Science, 156(3776), 743-745 • Yang, L. and Zhang, L (2010) Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464-484