Part of
Language, Literacy, and Learning in STEM Education: Research Methods and Perspectives from Applied LinguisticsEdited by Mary Jane Curry and David I. Hanauer
[Language Studies, Science and Engineering 1] 2014
► pp. 43–64
Edited by Mary Jane Curry and David I. Hanauer
[Language Studies, Science and Engineering 1] 2014
► pp. 43–64
Chapter 4. Writing and becoming a scientist
A longitudinal qualitative study of three science undergraduates
In many communication-intensive (CI) classes in the sciences, students are learning the essential practices for knowledge production in tandem with professional communication practices. In short, they are learning to communicate as a biologist or chemist or physicist. To explore this process more closely, we conducted a three-year qualitative study of 17 undergraduate and graduate students in science and engineering CI classes at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology via initial and end-of-year surveys, one-to-one interviews, classroom observation, and collection and analysis of student writing. In this chapter, we present the findings about three students who were sophomores at the beginning of the study and graduating seniors at its conclusion to understand if these students evidenced changes in their understanding of the roles and purposes of communicating science. Based on coded interview data and analysis of student writing, the case studies we report in this chapter offer insights into the intertwined relationship between students’ developing scientific knowledge and their shifting identities as students/scientists/engineers/writers. Understanding students’ perspectives on entering professional communities through their communicative practices, particularly given the constraints of school contexts, speaks to the need to design instruction that responds to students’ developmental levels and their readiness to learn to communicate in science and engineering.
References (29)
Artemeva, N. (2005). A time to speak, a time to act: A rhetorical genre analysis of a novice engineer’s calculated risk taking. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(4), 389–421. 
. (2009). Stories of becoming: A study of novice engineers learning genres of their profession. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world: Perspectives on writing (pp. 158–178). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Blakeslee, A. (2001). Interacting with audiences: Social influences on the production of scientific writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, B.A., Reveles, J.M., & Kelly, G.J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802.
Carroll, L.A. (2002). Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Connolly, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connolly & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Curry, M.J. (2012). Transcending ‘traditional academic boundaries’: Designing and implementing a science communication course for science and engineering Ph.D. students. Professional and Academic Writing, 40, 4–7.
Dannels, D.P. (2000). Learning to be professional: Technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(1), 5–32.
Ding, H. (2008). The use of co grant writing. Written Communication, 25(1), 3–52.
Ellis, R.A. (2004). University student approaches to learning science through writing. International Journal of Science Education, 26(15), 1835–1853.
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (2000). Write where you are: Situating learning to write in university and workplace settings. In P. Dias & A. Paré (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 31–60). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Haas, C. (1994). Learning to read biology: One student’s rhetorical development in college. Written Communication, 11, 43–84.
Hanauer, D.I., Jacobs-Sera, D., Pedulla, M.L., Cresawn, S.G., Hendrix, R.W., & Hatfull G. F. (2006). Inquiry learning: Teaching scientific inquiry. Science, 314(5807), 1880–1.
Haswell, R.H. (1991). Gaining grounding ground in college writing: Tales of development and interpretation. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press.
Herrington, A. & Curtis, M. (2000). Persons in process: Four stories of writing and personal development in college. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hodson, D. (1998). Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science and beyond the school laboratory. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 93–108). London: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lett, J. (1990). Emics and etics: Notes on the epistemology of anthropology. In T.N. Headland, K.L. Pike, & M. Harris (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate. Frontiers of Anthropology, 7 (pp. 127–142). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Leydens, J.A. (2008). Novice and insider perspectives on academic workplace writing: Toward a continuum of rhetorical awareness. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(3), 242–263.
Lindlof, T.R., & Taylor, B.C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mishler, E.G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415–442.
Odell, L., Goswami, D., & Herrington, A. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Writing research: Methods and procedures (pp. 221–236). London: Longman.
Patton, M. (2011). Writing in the research university: A Darwinian study of WID with cases from civil engineering. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Poe, M., Lerner, N., & Craig, J. (2010). Learning to communicate in science and engineering: Case studies from MIT. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Russell, D. (2001). Where do the naturalistic studies of WAC/WID point? A research review. In S. McLeod, E. Miraglia, M. Soven, & C. Thaiss (Eds.), WAC for the new millennium: Strategies for continuing writing across the curriculum programs (pp. 259–298). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Sommers, N., & Saltz, L. (2004). The novice as expert. College Composition and Communication, 56(1), 124–149.
Thaiss, C., & Porter, T. (2010). The state of WAC/WID in 2010: Methods and results of the U.S. Survey of the International WAC/WID Mapping Project. College Composition and Communication, 61(3), 534–570.
Yin, R.K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Falout, Joseph, Matthew Apple & Glen Hill
2022. Setting the Stage of STEM English for Students. In STEM English in Japan, ► pp. 3 ff. 
Paretti, Marie C., Andreas Eriksson & Magnus Gustafsson
2019. Faculty and Student Perceptions of the Impacts of Communication in the Disciplines (CID) on Students’ Development as Engineers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 62:1 ► pp. 27 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.