Sally Sommers Smith Kari L Lavalli Harry Griffin CGS11 CAS13 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 asse ID: 1048694
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Pondering the Pitfalls of Teaching Writi..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. Pondering the Pitfalls of Teaching Writing in the Natural SciencesSally Sommers SmithKari L. LavalliHarry Griffin CGS’11, CAS’13
2. BackgroundProficiency with reading and writing is fundamental to being a good student and a good worker in nearly any fieldStudent writing, however, typically is directed towards the instructor solely for the purpose of assessment (Britton et al. 1979)
3. Writing ProcessWriting process consists of 3 metacognitive actions:PlanningTranslatingRevisingFor 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. ExperimentYear 1:Two papers assignedFirst 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 reviseSecond paper on structured inquiry-like experiment, 2 week lab on fruit fly mating behavior and geneticsStudents 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. 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
10. 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.
11. 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.
12.
13. Why So Little Improvement?College students aren’t really proficient writers – they are novice writersRevision 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
14. ExperimentYear 2Break down scientific writing process further Poster, then paperPoster submitted prior to printing, revised, then printedStudents graded each other’s poster so that they could “see” faults in written sectionsStudents then reflected on how their poster experience would inform their paper writingPaper then written on fruit fly experiment
15. Explanations Provided
16.
17. Grading Rubrics Given
18. Reflection Assignment
19. Results Still Being AssessedBUT … instructor’s perception is that papers were more poorly written using this method than Year 1 method, perhaps because of hasteTHANKS TO 2011 Grant from CGS Center for Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning. And 2012 GUTS grant supporting undergraduate researcher, Harry Griffin
20. ReferencesBritton, 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.