| Description |
There exists a disparity between student scientific writing and professional scientific writing. The audience, format, and intention of student papers as presented in the science classroom is different from those in the scientific field where the goal is to fully convince an unfamiliar audience and communicate novel findings. By contrast, students write to an audience comprising teaching assistants and instructors with the intention of receiving a good grade. I performed an ethnographic study of the Molecular Biology of DNA Lab at the University of Utah to study this disparity in the teaching of scientific writing. From observations on the presentation of the class as well as the challenges faced by the students, I identified areas that were underrepresented in the classroom. I also performed an analysis of reports produced by students early in the semester before much writing instruction had been delivered and towards the end of the semester when writing instruction was completed. The method of analysis involved Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), a theory of language that centers on the function of language in a social context. The analysis of reports by SFL showed there was significant improvement in linguistic functions demonstrated by students during the course of the semester. However, there was also a high degree of variation among groups with some groups showing large improvements and others showing a decrease. Successful communication of scientific findings is integral to the success of scientists, and also to the advancement of science as a whole. If science students don't possess the confidence to express their findings to their target audience with the proper format and language, their findings run the risk of being overlooked. To address the disparity between student and professional scientific writing identified in my research, science writing instruction needs to be re-constructed. From my analysis, writing instruction in the Molecular Biology of DNA Lab course, and by extension science courses in general, would be well suited to adopt a teaching model that better exemplifies writing as practiced by scientists. Successful introduction to scientific writing could be achieved by providing instruction that familiarizes students with the audience, format, and intention that scientists encounter. Such instruction should be achieved by augmenting lab TAs with writing TAs who are unfamiliar with the purpose and expected outcome of the experiment in order to provide an objective, unfamiliar audience. The intention should be re-defined by removing the comfort and reliance on known findings and rubrics, generating a more conversation-based instruction in which students are performing the analysis and asking the questions, and integrating current science writing from journals into the curriculum. Students who hope to transition into the scientific field will benefit from being exposed to the intention and format of professional writing in the classroom. Importantly, the benefits extend beyond just those students pursuing a career in the sciences. Students who have had exposure to the format and intention of professional scientific writing will be better communicators, better prepared to analyze findings of current scientific research, and less susceptible to claims made by pseudo-science. Exposure to more effective science writing instruction will lead to an educated population comfortable with engaging and subsequently communicating the findings of scientists, to make informed opinions and decisions. |
