Teaching Science Writing in a Research University: Students’ Experiences vs. Faculty Expectations

1. Teaching Science Writing in a Research University:Students’ Experiences vs. Faculty Expectations P. Hirsch1, B. Yalvac2, J. Cline1, K. Carmichael1, and J. Anderson1 1 Northwestern University, 2 Texas A&M University AERA Conference Chicago, Illinois April 12, 2007

2. A problem in science education • Faculty, industry, and government agree that science writing skills are increasingly important for science students. • Many schools value science writing instruction and some mandate Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) programs. • However, complaints in leading scientific journals suggest that science students still need more & better writing instruction*. * Aschwanden, C. (2006). Learning to lead. Cell, 125, 407-409. * Emanuel, E. J. (2006). Changing premed requirements and the medical curriculum. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(9), 1128-1131.

3. Research team Three writing faculty, a learning scientist, and a technology expert Purpose of this study Research Questions • (1) What are the students’ experience and • confidence levels in science writing? • (2) To what extent do science faculty teach • science writing, and what expectations do they • have for thei rstudents? A research university that values writing instruction but also departmental autonomy Setting

4. Methods: part I-- collecting quantitative data from students • Instrument: An online student survey (two versions) • To elicit information about students’ demographics, their science writing experience (on a 3 point scale), their comfort levels (on a 4 point scale), and future expectations (open ended) • Participants: 30 students who took a science writing course offered by a writing program • Winter and Spring 2006 • Recruited in class • Data collection: Pre and post survey • Students completed the online survey before and after each course • Data were collected online and stored in electronic form

5. Methods: part 2-- collecting qualitative data from faculty • Instrument: A faculty interview protocol • Explored faculty expectations and the context for any science writing teaching • Included a few demographic questions and a semi-structured protocol • Participants: 9 science faculty • All natural science departments represented • Recruited through recommendation by department chairs • Data collection: One-on-one interview • Approximately one hour long • Conversations were tape-recorded

6. Analysis • Quantitative survey data analyzed using SPSS • Descriptive statistics computed • Students’ experience (pre) and confidence levels (pre and post) were documented • Independent t-test analysis was performed to explore changes in confidence levels due to students’ course participation • Qualitative interview data analyzed using constant comparative method • Common themes across faculty identified and documented • Faculty expectations and their science writing teaching context presented as an ongoing discussion • Departmental differences identified

7. Student Writing Experience (n=30)

8. Student Confidence Levels (n=30)

9. Faculty Interview Results • Faculty consider the following to be crucial writing skills: • Synthesizing data from published papers • Reporting on peer-reviewed literature • Writing a lab report • Writing up results and observations • Creating a bibliography and citing sources properly • Science faculty indicated significant interest in the development of new resources • To assist science faculty and graduate students in teaching science writing • To assist science students in developing science writing skills • More than half the faculty interviewed voiced strong interest in collaborating with writing faculty to develop science writing resources

10. Discussion • Findings point to a significant gap between faculty expectations and student experience • At the pre-survey the mean score for all students was “less than confident” (<3 out of 4) in all five areas that faculty value most: • Synthesizing data from published papers • Reporting on peer-reviewed literature • Writing a lab report • Writing up results and observations • Creating a bibliography and citing sources properly • Courses in science writing can close the gap • At the post-survey the mean score for all students was “confident” (>3 out of 4) in all of these five areas.

11. Recommendations • For science faculty • Stress the importance of science writing • Encourage students to take science writing classes and read well-written science articles • Collaborate with writing faculty to eliminate barriers to science writing instruction • For writing program faculty • Offer stand-alone classes in science writing • Identify science writing instructional materials currently in use and disseminate them to science faculty • Offer workshops for new science faculty who will be teaching writing • Offer grant-writing workshops for undergraduate science majors