![[Board
accepted]](../graphics/b2.gif)
Collaborative Instruction by Writing and Library Faculty: A
Two-Tiered Approach to the Teaching of Scientific Writing
Deborah Huerta
Science Librarian
George R. Cooley Science Library
Colgate University
dhuerta@mail.colgate.edu
Victoria E. McMillan
Research Associate in Biology
Chair, Interdisciplinary Writing Department
Colgate University
vmcmillan@mail.colgate.edu
Abstract
We describe the results of six years of experimentation with
the collaborative teaching of scientific writing to college undergraduates
at both beginning and advanced levels. Our goal was to devise a two-course
sequence for students interested in health and natural sciences, with
emphasis on information literacy and analysis, effective reading, drafting
and revising strategies. Beginning science students need help with many
basic aspects of college-level writing and information-seeking skills, as
well as an introduction to the most common types of writing assigned in
introductory science courses -- the lab report and the short review paper.
Advanced students are ready to learn sophisticated approaches to
scientific information retrieval as well as the style and format of
professional journal articles. They are also in a position to appreciate
the ways in which scientific writing is molded and constrained by the
scientific method, by the diversity of ways in which scientists
communicate both formally and informally, and by the impact of the digital
revolution on scholarly communication. Both courses are organized around
peer review of student work-in-progress, with the submission of a
portfolio of writing twice during the semester. We employ information
technology as appropriate. Together we plan and teach all aspects of both
courses in order to model the interrelated nature of research and writing.
This collaboration by science and library faculty, we feel, holds exciting
prospects for the future.
Introduction
At predominantly undergraduate liberal-arts colleges such as Colgate
University, cooperative instruction involving science librarians and
science teaching faculty most often occurs in concert with a
course-related research project (
Farber 1999;
Winner 1998). However, library instruction sessions are not
always effective at providing consistent help for students with
increasingly sophisticated information retrieval and critical thinking
needs (
Farber 1999;
Gill and Burke
1999;
Krest and Carle 1999;
Walter
2000). Other approaches include intensive library laboratories as a
segment or component of a course (
Chisman 1998;
Woodward 1996).
In addition, science writing instruction has become increasingly valued by
science faculty (Carle and Krest 1998), reflecting
faculty concern about the quality of student research papers, especially
those generated largely from inappropriate Internet sources. Like Dennis
Isbell (1995) working with American Studies at ASU West,
we saw the need for a cohesive approach offering information literacy
skills intertwined with science writing instruction. We recognized that
library anxiety and composition anxiety (Onwuegbuzie
1997) often accompany one another and there must be a way to work
through those impasses with students. We felt that this method would
benefit beginning science undergraduates and science majors at different
levels (Francis and Fisher 1995) in their education.
The Collaboration
We have co-taught two different courses in scientific writing since 1994.
This fall we celebrate our 10th course together. Our partnership began
several years earlier when Debbie was regularly invited to teach one-hour
library instruction sessions for Vicky's courses in invertebrate biology
or critical issues in health. We often discussed the benefits of teaching
a course for science students where a composition instructor/biologist
(Vicky) and a science librarian (Debbie) could walk through the research
process with students step by step (
Stein and Lamb
1998). We suspected that student procrastination, in part, and
"writing blocks" might be somewhat alleviated if students were confident
about how to obtain appropriate information. We knew that students
approached research paper assignments in a linear fashion, assuming they
would first do the research and then write the paper. We felt they might
perceive their own intellectual growth more clearly if they understood
that the process was dynamic and recursive. In other words, their initial
research provided an introductory level of comprehension on a particular
topic, but they would later reach a point in their writing where their
ideas needed further clarification. By returning to the literature at
different stages in their thinking, they could, in turn, renew their
writing efforts with greater insight and creativity.
Despite these admirable convictions, we never had time to sit down and create the
course until two unfortunate circumstances brought us together. Debbie's car broke
down in front of Vicky's house while Vicky was at home recuperating from an
illness. Temporarily immobilized, we began to sketch out our perfect course at her
kitchen table.
We knew that the writing and research needs of entering science students and those
of juniors or seniors were dramatically different. Those needs shaped the initial
curriculum of each course. Some problems, such as procrastination or failure to
proofread, transcend all levels.
First-year students and, occasionally sophomores, are making the
transition from high school reports to integrated research papers. Usually
they have not encountered a science research article and have difficulty
making distinctions between primary and secondary journal articles (Janick-Buckner 1997) as well as scholarly and non-scholarly
sources. Although they have done "online research," their experience is
predominantly Internet search engines rather than sophisticated
proprietary databases. They may not have done a lab report or one that
required literature citations. They have no idea how to read and interpret
a scientific paper (Etkina and Ehrenfeld 2000; Nussbaum, Jr. 1991). They have trouble with honest mistakes
regarding paraphrasing and plagiarism. Different styles of documentation
are incomprehensible. Yet if students wish to enter the sciences, they
must stretch intellectually and comprehend these very basic concepts. Even
comprehending the sort of work they will be expected to do may be
difficult for all but the brightest or best-prepared students.
On the other hand, students who have decided upon a science major or those
who plan a pre-med, pre-vet, dental or other health sciences career path
may have gotten as far as their junior year and still not have acquired
basic information literacy skills (Bruce 2000; Calderhead 2000) or had a challenging research assignment
requiring a paper. This group may include students who have succeeded with
laboratory or field work, are highly motivated and understand the demands
of college assignments. These students know they must acquire skills
needed for graduate or professional schools or wish to elevate their
research and writing abilities to a new level.
Course Content
Both courses are built around an initial assignment requiring students to
write a review paper on a scientific topic of their choosing (Table 1).
Assuming motivation based on choice, we use the assignment to teach
information-seeking skills including identifying the research question,
differentiating between primary and secondary literature (
Chisman 1998;
Muench 2000), narrowing a
topic, using scientific databases, and documenting sources.
Table 1. Comparison of assignments in introductory and advanced
courses in scientific writing.
| Table 1. Comparison of assignments in
introductory and advanced courses in scientific writing.
|
Introductory course
(Fall 2000)
| Advanced course
(Spring 2000)
|
- · Writer's Profile assignment
|
|
- · Scientific review paper on topic of student's choice
- · Preliminary topic statement
- · 2-paragraph description of paper aims and scope
|
- · Working bibliography
- · Paragraph analysis assignment
|
- · Annotated bibliography
|
|
· Article for popular science magazine
|
- · Lab report assignment
- · Abstract assignment (group work)
- · Choice of scientific case study or scientific biography
|
- · Newspaper article
- · Choice of scientific case study, poster presentation, or research
proposal/letter of application/resumé assignment
|
- · Final self-assessment of written works and progress as writer
|
Initial student assignments include a two-paragraph paper outlining their
aims and scope for their review paper, followed by a working bibliography
of sources. Both groups examine primary science journal article formats,
model review papers and documentation styles.
In both courses we expect students to continue their research throughout
the semester, posing increasingly sophisticated questions about their
topics. They are also expected to achieve expertise in their subject areas
and know who are the key research scientists. They must also search the
current awareness literature for key papers as they are published.
In addition, students in both courses must address science for a popular
audience. Assuming they are still spellbound by their initial topic, they
will use it to write a piece for a popular science magazine such as
Natural History or Smithsonian. They must
restructure their arguments and vocabulary for a different audience. They
may also select a different topic, but they must do the research to obtain
expertise.
The introductory course is tightly structured since it consists largely of
first-year students who are new to the demands of college research and
writing. Hence we give two exams to help keep them on top of the
material. Also we have more assignments focused on having them learn the
basics: using library resources, understanding the components of an
abstract, composing coherent paragraphs, doing a lab report. Since few of
them have ever thought about how they work as writers, we also introduce a
"Writer's Profile" assignment at the beginning of the semester in which
they describe their style and habits as writers. Final writing assignments
include a case study or scientific biography.
The advanced course takes into account the fact that students will by now
have had at least some experience with college writing, if not science
writing, and with college science courses. Many will have had laboratory
and library research experiences. However, we do not assume they are
knowledgeable about information literacy. It is possible to be a junior or
senior science major and not have had instruction on information literacy,
science literacy or advanced database usage. Nevertheless, we dispense
with the "Writer's Profile" assignment and other assignments particular to
the introductory level, and add different, more sophisticated assignments
such as an annotated bibliography of sources that will eventually be cited
in their review paper. The annotations very briefly mention the content of
each source, but focus more specifically on why that particular reference
is germane to their review. Although the students find this assignment
challenging, they quickly learn that it serves as an organization tool for
their paper.
The advanced students also rewrite their review paper topic for a popular
magazine and for a newspaper. These assignments thus make them delve more
deeply into issues of audience and format, which these students are in a
better position to appreciate. The introductory students struggle to
understand, much less master, the basic review paper format, and even the
notion of audience is usually new and strange. Advanced students also have
a greater range of choices for assignments during the second half of the
semester. These include pieces of writing that are focused on
post-graduate situations that many of these students will encounter, such
as presenting a poster at a scientific conference (Farber and
Penhale 1995); preparing a research proposal; applying for a job as a
research assistant, etc. They also may suggest another option. Most
assignments require that students return to the literature.
Other basic differences between the courses include the length of the review paper
and the minimum number of primary sources. We dispense with examinations in the
advanced class. In the introductory class, for simplicity and effective pedagogy,
everyone uses the CBE (Council
of Biology Editors/Council of Science Editors) documentation style and writes his
or her popular magazine article for Natural History or
Discover. However, in the advanced class, students must decide
themselves on an appropriate journal for their review paper and follow its
conventions by using the Instructions for Authors. The more advanced students are
better able to accommodate and appreciate the differences in style and format
without becoming confused. This is also true for their magazine piece, for which
they can select the magazine best suited to their topic (Scientific American,
Audubon, American Scientist, etc.)
All students in both classes do an assessment of their research/writing
achievements and difficulties that will continue to require additional
focus. This assessment is included in the final portfolio submission.
Course Formats
Both courses are seminars structured around writing workshops and
portfolio submissions (
Slater 1997). Throughout the
semester, students come to class with drafts of portions of their work,
which are "peer reviewed" in the writing workshops (entire class) or in
small groups. This technique not only models real science article
submissions, but attempts to train students who are otherwise reticent to
have others read their work. We believe the latter practice instills
healthy attitudes about writing and a desire to show others what one has
written. Portfolios consisting of all writing assignments to date are
submitted at mid-term and at the end of the semester. We tell students
that the portfolios should demonstrate their individual progress in
research and writing through successive drafts of the major
assignments.
In addition, we hold individual conferences with each student. As we all
know, students arrive at college with different backgrounds and abilities
in terms of research and writing skills. The conferences allow students to
pose questions they might not ask in class and receive guidance on
anything from research problems to basic grammar or documentation formats.
We place high importance on our mutual participation in each class. There
is no tag-team teaching. We meet to plan the week's experiences for the
students. We each read every assignment and grade them together. Even if
one of us takes the lead for a particular class, the other is there to
participate and support.
We also expect students to take responsibility for their own learning. Of
course, we help them pedagogically with structured self-directed
assignments, small group cooperative learning activities (Penhale 1997), and individual conferences. However, they
must implement their own time management and meet assignment deadlines.
Students must work outside of class to master the vocabulary of their
topics as well as do their research and writing.
For the advanced class we have invited guests to address particular
concerns. The development officer for the college gives a talk on grant
writing; the director of career services talks about scientific vitae and
resumes; another member of the Biology Department discusses how to
incorporate statistics into scientific writing. If there is a guest
speaker on campus who is involved in scientific writing or publishing, we
have invited them to have lunch with the class.
Conclusion
These courses depend upon models, just as science itself does. We model
research interaction as a team; the students use literature models to
write, and the class itself becomes a model of how to create a community
to help with writing and research questions. It has been the best forum we
have encountered for explaining how and why the library is central to the
lives of scientists who must write. Digital information, although
extending our abilities in ways exciting and thrilling, has made
literature research more complicated and, at times, incomprehensible for
practicing science faculty, let alone student novitiates. In our two
courses the library is fully integrated with working science projects and
professional science publishing. These courses provide opportunities to
experience basic and advanced skills at appropriate levels with supportive
specialists.
We revise each course annually. Changes in online access and e-publishing
dictate significant updates. Also, we modify both courses based on student
concerns. We have been privileged to receive excellent suggestions from
our students. They love the pragmatic flavor of the courses and the
intense engagement with a research experience of their choice. The idea
that two faculty members mentor them through the research/writing
processes and are available to answer their individual questions is very
compelling to students. After experiencing the initial writing workshop
with some amount of anxiety, they learn to look forward to the feedback.
We believe our experience can be useful for librarians and teaching
faculty who chose to collaborate. Obviously, librarians gain insights into
the lengthy research experience encountered by students (Donnelly 2000) and share with teaching faculty concerns
about the nature of pedagogy and the problems of undergraduates. These
kinds of courses encourage experimentation, because they are not limited
by subject content coverage and, to some extent, can function as multiple
independent study projects. In fact, although we make extensive use of
collaborative learning in groups, we are also adopting new pedagogies,
such as case studies
(http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/case.html) and
problem-based learning (Rangachari 1995;
http://www.udel.edu/pbl/) in each iteration of the courses. In addition,
these courses have been embraced by science teaching faculty; the
introductory course has been offered as a first-year seminar and the
advanced course is cross-listed by the Biology Department as a 400-level
course for majors.
References
Bruce, Christine. 2000.
Seven faces
of information literacy in higher education. [Online.] Available:
http://www2.fit.qut.edu.au/InfoSys/bruce/inflit/faces/faces1.htm.
[October 2000]. [Note: Link moved; URL changed 3/25/01 by
ald]
Calderhead, Veronica. 2000. Reflections
on information confusion in chemistry information learning: the meaning of
the shift from library instruction to information literacy. Research
Strategies 16(4): 285-299.
Carle, Daria O. and Margie Krest. 1998.
Facilitating research between the library and the science writing
classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching 27(5):
339-342.
Chisman, Janet K. 1998. Introducing
college students to the scientific literature and the library.
Journal of College Science Teaching 28(1):39-42.
Donnelly, Kimberley. 2000. Reflections on
what happens when librarians become teachers. Computers in
Libraries 20(3):46-49.
Etkina, Eugenia and David Ehrenfeld.
2000. Helping ecology students to read: the use of reading reports.
Biosciences 50(7):602-608.
Farber, Evan. 1999. Faculty-librarian
cooperation: a personal retrospective. Reference Services
Review 27(3):229-234.
Farber, Evan and Sara Penhale. 1995.
Using poster sessions in introductory science courses: an example at
Earlham. Research Strategies 13(Winter):55-59.
Francis, Barbara W. and Clarissa C.
Fisher. 1995. Multilevel library instruction for emerging
nursing roles. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association
83(4):492-498.
Gill, Richard A. and Ingrid C. Burke.
1999. Using an environmental science course to promote scientific
literacy: expanding critical-thinking skills beyond the environmental
sciences. Journal of College Science Teaching
29(2):105-110.
Herreid, Clyde F. and Nancy A. Schiller. National
Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. [Online.] Available:
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/case.html [October
2000].
Isbell, Dennis. 1995. Teaching writing
and research as inseparable: a faculty-librarian teaching team.
Reference Services Review 23(4):51-62.
Janick-Buckner, Diane. 1997. Getting
Undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature.
Journal of College Science Teaching 27(1):29-32.
Krest, Margie and Daria O. Carle. 1999.
Teaching scientific writing: a model for integrating research, writing &
critical thinking. American Biology Teacher 61(3):223-227.
Muench, Susan Bandoni. 2000. Choosing
primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goals: some
guidelines for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of prospective
research articles. Journal of College Science Teaching
29(4):255-260.
Nussbaum, Jr., Francis E. 1991.
Introduce successful library assignments to students in biological
sciences. American Biology Teacher 53(5):301-304.
Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. 1997. Writing a
research proposal: the role of library anxiety, statistics anxiety, and
composition anxiety. Library & Information Science Research
19(1):5-33.
Penhale, Sara J. 1997. Cooperative
learning using chemical literature. Science & Technology
Libraries 16(3-4):69-87.
Rangachari, P. K. 1995. Active learning:
in context. Advances in Physiology Education
13(1):S75-S80.
Slater, Timothy F. 1997. The
effectiveness of portfolio assessments in science: integrating an
alternative, holistic approach to learning into the classroom.
Journal of College Science Teaching 26(5):315-318.
Stein, Linda L. and Jane M. Lamb. 1998.
Not just another BI: faculty-librarian collaboration to guide students
through the research process. Research Strategies
16(1):29-39.
University of Delaware Problem-Based
Learning. [Online.] Available: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/ [October
2000].
Walter, Scott. 2000. Engelond: a model
for faculty-librarian collaboration in the information. Information
Technology and Libraries 19(1):34-41.
Winner, Marian C. 1998. Librarians as
partners in the classroom: an increasing imperative. Reference
Services Review 26(1):25-30.
Woodward, Patricia. 1996. Librarian and
faculty collaboration in Honors 301.88: an interdisciplinary computer
applications course. Research Strategies 14(3): 132-143.
| We welcome your comments about this article. Please
fill out this
form for possible inclusion in a future issue. |
| Would you like to be notified about new issues of ISTL? Join our mailing list. |
