Integrating Writing Activities in the Science Curriculum

Integrating Writing Activities in the Science Curriculum

Michael Seery

Academic Writing Centre Presentation May 2015

About

Where do we position writing in our curriculum?

Academic Writing: Our Perspective

1. Writing as a skill… to learn discipline (and as a

transferable skill)

2. Assessment of understanding (vs numerical)

3. How to integrate writing activities into curriculum

Teaching Writing Learning [discipline]

Lack of resources

Resources on how to write to learn [discipline] are rare

Obstacles

• Assignment design – what is an appropriate writing assignment?

• Progression – how can we develop writing assignments across a programme?

• Grading – how do we grade and find the time to grade?

Obstacles




Topic Type

Topic Type Format

Explanatory Focus is on subject (e.g. student explaining a technical topic)

Persuasive Focus is on audience, and arguing a position (e.g. a research method is viable)

Expressive Focus is on the writer, and their own personal experience (e.g. learning or reflective journals)

Conceptual Hierarchy Form Definition

Listing Display of important items

Definition Explanation of a word or concept

Seriation Ordered list or description of a procedure

Classification Application of specific categories to specific data

Summary Identification of important facts/ideas in a reading

Compare/ Contrast

Listing and some analysis of similarities and differences

Analysis Breaking down complex idea into its constituent parts

Academic/ scientific arg.

Use of facts and theories to support a proposition

Examples

Classification

Essentially all simple inorganic reactions can be classified as precipitation, acid-base, or oxidation-reduction reactions. Provide a clear definition and examples for each category. Identify the basis for classification of each example.

Examples

Summary

Summarise the Bohr theory of the hydrogen atom.

Compare/Contrast

Compare and contrast the three concepts of acids and bases: Arrhenius, Brønsted-Lowry, and Lewis. What essential features do they have in common? How do they differ?

Components of a Good Assignment

1. Instructional Objective

a) Content

b) Cognitive level (ref conceptual hierarchy)

c) Rhetorical form (ref topic type)


2. Audience

a) Experts (conceptualised as lecturers)

b) Scientifically-literate non-experts (conceptualised as class-mates)

c) General audience (conceptualised as friends/family members)


3. Process

a) Is there a draft and review stage?

b) Is there peer review?

c) Is plagiarism check a part of process?

d) Clear deadlines and expectations


4. Assessment

a) What is grading mechanism? (More later…)

Obstacles




Conceptual Hierarchy Form Definition

Listing Display of important items

Definition Explanation of a word or concept

Seriation Ordered list or description of a procedure

Classification Application of specific categories to specific data

Summary Identification of important facts/ideas in a reading

Compare/ Contrast

Listing and some analysis of similarities and differences

Analysis Breaking down complex idea into its constituent parts

Academic/ scientific arg.

Use of facts and theories to support a proposition

Examples (Atomic Chem)

In less than one page, list and explain the

postulates of Dalton’s atomic theory.

Conceptual hierarchy: listing

In a one page essay, summarise the Bohr theory of the atom and

show how it explains the emission spectrum of the hydrogen atom.

Conceptual hierarchy: definition, summary, analysis

In a one page essay, list the postulates of Dalton’s atomic theory and discuss how subsequent discoveries have caused these postulates to be modified. Have these modifications altered the essential content of the

theory?

Conceptual hierarchy: listing, analysis, scientific argument

1. In small groups, prepare a writing assignment, considering:

Where in the curriculum? Year 1 __ 2 __ 3 __ 4 __

Instructional Objective

Content (eg atomic theory) ______________________

Conceptual hierarchy ______________________

Rhetorical form ______________________

Audience _______________________

2. In particular considering the conceptual hierarchy, outline what preceding/succeeding assignment is needed/possible as a result of this assignment:

Obstacles




Types of assignment

Laboratory report

Abstract Historical paper

Proposal Summary and

Review

Annotated bibliography

Resume/cover letter

Popular article

Personal journal Short in-class

summary Concept paper Microtheme

Progression

Year Skills development Conceptual understanding

Attributes Examples

1

•Reading textbooks •Understanding and reporting lab procedures

•Deepen personal understanding •Develop critical thinking

•Connection to real world

•One page summaries •Peer review •Data analysis of labs

2 •Acquaint with professional literature

•Values of science

•Associating assignments to inform experimental work

•Experimental protocols •Annotated bibs or abstracts

3 •Professional writing in the discipline

•Nature of science

•Developing CV and cover letter, professional biography

•Extended lab reports •Proposals •Technical specifications

4 •Research literature •Professional standards of style

•Scientific argument •Application to professional world

•Research thesis






Rhetorical form ______________________

Audience _______________________

3. Again, reconsider your group’s writing assignment, but in this case in terms of skills development. What preceding/succeeding assignment is needed/possible as a result of this assignment?

Progression

Year Skills development Conceptual understanding

Attributes Examples

1

•Reading textbooks •Understanding and reporting lab procedures

•Deepen personal understanding •Develop critical thinking

•Connection to real world

•One page summaries •Peer review •Data analysis of labs

2 •Acquaint with professional literature

•Values of science

•Associating assignments to inform experimental work

•Experimental protocols •Annotated bibs or abstracts

3 •Professional writing in the discipline

•Nature of science

•Developing CV and cover letter, professional biography

•Extended lab reports •Proposals •Technical specifications

4 •Research literature •Professional standards of style

•Scientific argument •Application to professional world

•Research thesis

Moskovitz and Kellogg

• Lab reports do not reflect genuine professional settings

• Lack authenticity… reconsideration is necessary

• “Writing standard introductions… is a sham”

• Writing Methods for a procedure detailed in the manual

• Students do generate and evaluate DATA – lab report should focus on this

Moskovitz and Kellogg Opening statement highlighting main finding of experiment

Opening statement

Results and Evaluation

Results obtained and explanation as to their relevance. Selected to make the argument to back up the opening statement. Appropriate graphs, tables etc highlight ability to display data All on one page

Student positioned as apprentice scientist Instructor positioned as scientific readers

Obstacles




Scalability

• Advantage of programmatic over modular approach (number of assessments per staff member, progression of

assessment)

• Year 1 versus Year 4 (type of student, type of grading)

• Reconfiguration of current assessment protocols

What is being assessed?

Are you going to assess:

– Spelling and grammar?

– Adherence to word count?

– Neatness and presentation?

– Cognitive levels (list, summarise, etc)

Making these components clear will

help student and will aid correction

Assessment approaches: Two Types

Holistic grading – 6 point criteria (see e.g.s)

• Requires explicit guidelines on assessment

Analytical grading

• A detailed rubric on various components (See eg)

See Kovac and Sherwood

Level Content Assignment Convention Organisation

6 Clear, direct, and

accurate Responsive to topic

and intention No serious grammar

errors On topic and fluent,

logical

5 Largely clear,

sometimes direct, accurate

Responsive to topic but less conscious

of intention

Minor errors (apostrophe, spelling, etc)

On topic, less fluent (e.g. connections

between sections)

4 Usually comprehensible and technically correct,

but simplistic

Reveals a very general sense of

topic, or a tendency to veer off topic,

usually returns to it

Mechanically flawed (punctuation etc) but no serious

grammar errors

Fuzzy focus, stiff in introductions and

connections, lapses in logic but a

general sense of purpose

3

2 Sometimes incomprehensible and/or inaccurate, poorly constructed.

Lacks purpose, loses a sense of assigned topic and method

Mechanically and gramatically flawed

Too little content, illogical, unfocused,

confusing 1

Analytical example

See Kovac and Sherwood






Rhetorical form ______________________

Audience _______________________

4. What assessment criteria would you outline for this assignment?

5. If you were considering peer-review, what would you offer students as a guide for assessment?

Progressive Paper

Van Bremer and Baston http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed300312q

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed300312q

Summary

• Writing can be integrated in the curriculum but needs to be considered in a holistic manner by programme teams.

• Assignments should be explicitly clear on the type (rhetorical form), conceptual hierarchy, audience, process and assessment criteria.

• Assessment should be considered in light of staff and student workload. Reconfiguring current assessments (e.g. laboratory reports) is probably most feasible.

Additional Handouts

• A more in-depth discussion is available in Kovac and Sherwood, Writing across the Chemistry Curriculum, In Kevin St Library: 808.06654

• Moskowitz and Kellogg https://research.duke.edu/sites/default/files/moskovitz-05-20-11.pdf • Van Bremer and Baston


https://research.duke.edu/sites/default/files/moskovitz-05-20-11.pdf











Documents

Integrating Writing Activities in the Science Curriculum