Precisely! A Writing Exercise for Science and Engineering Classes This exercise, developed for science and engineering courses that have a signijicant writing component, teaches students the importance of linguistic precision.
W
hile the formats and conventions of scientific and technical writing vary from field to field, the transcendent requirement is precision, so that the work can be understood and, if necessary, reproduced. Science teachers undoubtedly tell students about the importance of precision in collecting data and analyzing results; what is less commonly emphasized is the need for precision in writing. Part ofthe problem is that students lack experience with the conventions of scientific writing, so expostire and practice are essential. More importantly, academic success does not depend on effective expository writing for most undergraduate science students. The term papers and essays that they do write presume that readers—graders, tistially—have prior knowledge of the subject. Students ordinarily lack experience writing for readers without prior knowledge of a subject, and they mtist be taught how to provide the context needed to understand their writing. The foiiowing exercise provides a starting point (and stark demonstration of the need) for teaching students to write from a position of expertise.
Julie Reynolds (
[email protected]) is a Mellon instructor in writing and biology and Steven Vogel is a James B. Duke professor in the Department of Biology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
By Julie Reynolds and Steven Vogel We developed this exercise for small, writing-intensive classes for biologists and engineers. However, it would be appropriate for any area of science and could be integrated into laboratory or discussion sections of large classes. We claim no great originality for it, having heard about similar activities implemented at several other institutions, but we have not seen any specific description or suggestions for usable mechanical devices.
The exercise In the first step of the exercise, each student receives an opaque plastic bag containing a unique mechanical device and the few simple tools needed to disassemble and reassemble it (Figures 1-5). Students disassemble their devices, taking notes, drawing pictures, or doing whatever is necessary to ensure that they can put them back together. Each student then writes a sequence of detailed instructions for reassembly, obeying our inviolable rule that the instructions cannot include any form of illustration. Af-
ter completing the instructions, sttidents disassemble their devices and retum all parts and tools to the bags. In the second step, the bags of disassembled devices and tools are exchanged with classmates who have not seen the assembled forms. Students then use their peers' written instructions to reassemble the devices. Students, now in the role of peer reviewers, annotate the instructions, both commenting on helpful portions and noting ambiguities and other inadequacies. Students should be instructed to avoid vague, minimally helpful comments such as "This is unclear" in favor of more specific comments such as "This sentence confused me because I did not know what screw you were referring to." We recommend that students describe their interactions
with the writing rather than provide solutions that fix the instructions. For example, a comment such as "Here you should have stated 'the middlesize nut"' simply offers a solution. In contrast, the comment "Since there were nuts of many different sizes, I didn't know which to use" gives the reader's reaction to the imprecision in the writing. Finally, it is important that peer reviewers do not communicate with the original writers until after the assignment has been completed. In the third and final step ofthe exercise, students use their peers' feedback to revise the instructions they wrote. Based on these comments, students must make choices about how to improve their writing. If time permits, we urge another iteration of peer review and revision—a course website can facilitate the exchange of written material outside of class. Alternatively, an in-class discussion ofthe most prevalent problems can provide a satisfactory wrap-up.
The devices For the instructor, the most challenging aspect of this exercise is collecting
FIGURE 1 A stop-and-waste valve for a bousehold water system. The assembled device is shown above its separated parts. Number of parts: 12. Tools required for disassembly and assembly: Pliers and a Philips-head screwdriver. Cost: S3.5O.
enough devices so that each student in the class has one to work with. While each device could be unique, the exercise works with multiple copies of at least two unique devices. With only two devices, half of the students write instructions for the assembly of one device, then use theirpeers' instructions to reassemble the other. For this scenario to work, however, the class must have an even ntimber of students. Therefore, we recommend using at least three unique devices. Not all devices are created equal. In otjr experience, appropriate devices should be composed of no more than 25 parts (unless many ofthe parts arc identical), including screws and nuts but excluding small washers. I^vices should have no awkward springs, very tiny parts, or greasy fittings. Furthermore, students should be able to disassemble and reassemble the devices with only one or two simple tools. Ideally, but not critically, a device's final form or function should not be obvious from its parts or partial assemblies, thus minimizing attempts by a peer to assemble it without carefully reading the instructions. We have mainly relied on various intcmals of defunct laboratory devices, but we do not expect other instructors to have easy access to such jetsam. Since multiple devices have to be purchased, each must be inexpensive—around $10, and preferably still less costly. Each must also be easily taken apart, and unforttinately most contemporary devices are not. Figures 1 through 5 give examples of satisfactory devices; all were obtained from the plumbing and electrical departments of national-chain building-supply and hardware stores. Before use, the in.structor should disassemble and reassemble each device, ensuring that the tools provided are indeed adequate for the ta.sk, and gaining sufficient familiarity to provide in-class guidance as to the intended level of disassembly.
Putting the exercise into practice The three parts of the exercise can be completed in a class meeting of about two-and-a-half hours. For shorter periods, the exercise might be split between
FIGURE 2 Orbit Watermaster sprinkler valve for lawn-watering system. The assembled device is shown above its separated parts. Tools required for disassembly and assembly: Philips-head screwdriver and pliers.Cost: $11.50.
two or three sessions, albeit with some loss of intensity. We suggest allowing about an hour for disassembling the devices and writing the instructions, and another hour for reassembly and peer review. One might allocate the la.st 20 to 30 minutes of class for the final revisions, in which students incorporate reviewer feedback. Discussion of lessons leamed should be left for another class meeting. This exercise can be incorporated into a class schedule in several ways. Since no student preparation is needed it may be implemented on the first day of classes. This timing is particularly appropriate for courses specifically devoted to scientific writing since it focuses attention on a centra! problem ofthe genre. This timing has the added virtue of helping the class develop a sense of community, which is especially usefijl with mixes of biologists and engineers, and of undergraduates and graduate students. In a more genera! course, the exercise will work at any point at which you want lo deal with the mechanics of writing.
MARCH/APRIL 2007
31
TABLE 1
Sample grading rubric. Item
Quality of writing
Written instructions
Reviewer was able to assemble the device with no struggles with the clarity of the instructions
Reviewer was able to assemble the device, with only minor struggles with the clarity of the instructions
Score: _ / 3 0
30-25 points
24-19 points
Peer review
Score;
/40
Revision of instructions
Score: _ / 3 0
Feedback was complete, commenting on both positive and problematic aspects ofthe instructions, AND articulating how the reviewer struggled with specific passages
40-31 points
18-13 points
Reviewer was not able to assemble the device using the instructions given
12-7 points
6-0 points
Feedback was acceptable, but lacked comment on either positive or problematic aspects of the instructions, AND offered suggestions for improvement rather than articulating how the reviewer struggled with specific passages
Feedback was minimal, limited to pointing out mechanical errors (typos, spelling, grammar, and punctuation) with no articulation ofthe reviewer's struggles with specific passages
30-21 points
20-11 points
10-1 points
The revision reflects writing choices that address most of the reviewer's struggles
The revision did not make any significant writing choices beyond those specifically suggested by the reviewer
30-25 points
24-19 points
18-13 points
JOURNAL n/COLLEGESCIENCETEACHING
Reviewer was able to assemble the device, but with excessive struggles with the clarity of the instructions
Feedback was fairly complete, but lacked comment on either positive or problematic aspects of the instructions, OR offered suggestions for improvement rather than articulating how the reviewer struggled with specific passages
The revision reflects careful writing choices that address each ofthe reviewer's struggles
Finally, consider the classroom itself. Before students arrive, we arrange the desks or tables in a circle. But (to the mystification of arriving students) the desks face outward, not inward. This allows students to work without being able to sec what their classmates are doing. One cotild also separate the students into groups, with all those writing instructions for one device in one area. A computer classroom is ideal for this exercise since it allows students to write and edit their instructions using a word-processing program, to exchange files electronically, and to annotate peer writing using text editors or tlie insert comment feattire. For those who do not
32
Reviewer was able to assemble device. but with significant struggles with the clarity of the instructions
regularly teach in a computer classroom, we recommend inquiring about borrowing laptops and flash drives.
Pedagogical value Our experience indicates that students will engage fully in the exercise regardless of whether you assign a g r a d e peer pressure is a powerftil motivator here. Nevertheless, if you plan lo assign grades., we suggest giving students the grading criteria before they begin. We divide the total score for the exercise among the three parts: 30% for the quality ofthe initial written instructions, 40% for the peer review, and 30% for the revised instructions. In otir grading
Writer fixed errors. but made no attempts at revision
12-1 points
No feedback was offered
0 points No revision was made
0 points
rubric (Table 1), we explain the basis of an A grade versus a B grade, and so on. Beneath each of these qtiaiity-of-writing categories is a range of scores that graders can assign at their discretion. A grade indicates little, however, about the primary benefit of this exercise, which is the insight that students gain from working with reviewers" feedback. This benefit becomes apparent to students as they revise., which is critical to the process of learning to write {Ferris 1995; Ferris 1997; Topping 1998). Through revising, students begin to understand and react to the interpretive struggles of their readers. To maximize the benefits ofthe revision process, how-
ever, students need specific guidance on how to offer feedback (Guilford 2001; Seals and Tanaka 2000). After students reviewed theirpeers' feedback, we asked them to reflect on what they learned. Their responses where overwhelmingly positive, with students making connections between this exercise and other writing they were working on. Tlie following are representative student comments: • "I found this exercise to be surprisingly useful. With it, I was able to see how difficult it would be to explain a complicated procedure to a person who does not have much idea what 1 am doing." • "[This exercise] challenged me to be very clear in communicating the necessary steps to assemble this contraption, but more specifically, I learned to be more aware of reproducibility in methods sections." • "The lessons learned from this exercise can certainly be applied to writing my own methods sections. 1 need to account for all steps and details, and double/triple/quadruplc check that someone could u.se the FIGURE 3 Internal assembly for recessed incandescent ceiling light fixture. The assembled device is shown above its separated parts. Number of parts: 18, of 11 different types. Tool required for disassembly and assembly; Stubby screwdriver. Cost: S6.00
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
Ballcock, refill tube, and tank float rod for household toilet tank.
Switch and outlet assembly for household wiring.
The assembled device is shown above its separated parts. Number of parts: 17, of 15 different types. Tool required for disassembly and assembly: Screwdriver, Cost:S7.00
The assembled device is shown above its separated parts. Number of parts:34, of 14 different types. Tool required for disassembly and assembly: Screwdriver. Cost: $6.50.
[. U
methods as a guideline for perfonning the experiment itself." • "I leamed that when wrifing instructions (or methtxis), one must consider not only whether or not the steps make sense, but also how they could be misinterpreted. One must look beyond what seems obvious and consider all the ways in which an outsider may view the situation." • "I realized that I must adequately introduce the big picture in the introduction. The necessity of this became very clear in the exercise because the assembler simply opened a bag with a bunch of pieces. Similarly, when my readers begin reading my papers, I want them to have a clear picture ofthe end result. Overall, I think the exercise was extremely useflil and I did iearn things that I will apply to the writing of my thesis." Although most students manage to reassemble their devices correctly, few find the task straightforward. The combination of laboring over their own writing and trying to interpret tlieir classmate's instructions reinforces our message that sufficiently precise writing demands
ILJ !U( S
carefial attention to definitions, logic, sequence, and the various biases that influence how readers interpret languiige. In particular, the exercise highlights the necessity of viewing ones own writing irom another readers perspective, and for focusing on what one's words will convey—with precision and freedom from ambiguity, m References
Ferris, D.R. 1995. Student reactions to teacher response in multi pi e-draf^ composition classrooms. Tesol Quarterly 29{\):
33-53.
Ferris. D.R. 1997. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. Tesol Quarterly 31(2): 315-39. Guilford W.H. 2001. Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education 250): 167-75. Seals, D.R., and H. Tanaka. 2000. Manuscript peer review: A helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advances in Physiology Education 23{\): 52-5S. Topping, K. 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Re\>ievi' of Educational Research 68(3): 249-76.
MARCH/APRIL 2007
33
