Chemistry and English: A New Bond David N. Bailey1 Department of Chemistry Leon Markowicz Department of English Lebanon Valley College, Annville, PA 17003
It is widely acknowledged that the writing skills of science students have been declining recently. This is shown by the constant statements of prospective employers that their number one problem with new scientists is a lack of communications skills rather than a lack of any particular scientific knowledge or skill. As further confirmation of the writing s k i problem the American Chemical Society recently introduced a course aimed a t improvinr.the written communications of its members. There have been a few reports of attempts to remedy this situation. In 1954, in THIS JOURNAL,Doody and Gibbens ( 1 ) described a course in Chemical Engineering a t Purdue University in which the teaching of report writing was central. Albrecht and Gould (21,in 1955, described the need for edum t i n ~technical writers and outlined a eraduate-level se-
velop pride in the student so that he or she would no longer be willing to turn in unattractive, inaccurate reports. 3. The manner of presentation of data. This problem appearek when data which should have been presented in a graphical format were presented only in tabular form or vice versa; when graphs or tables appeared in the wrong place relative to the accompanying text; when there was no clear method of organization of data within a table; or when the graph or tahle was not properly labeled and identified.The third objective was to help the student to decide which means-graph, table, or bothwas appropriate for the data and then to make sure that a proper format was followed. 4. The proper use and citation of scientific literature. This problem had two facets. The more serious was the quotation of long sections from textbooks or other reference works. The source was usually acknowledged. The second facet was the student's use of an incorrect style for the citation. Our objective here was to encourage the proper use and citation of literature. 5. The use of an aooro~riatestvle of writine. Maior oroblems ~
and speakiniinstruction were introduced into the freshman chemistry program a t St. Petershurg Junior College. The subject was not written on again until 1979 when Carlisle and Kinsinger (4) outlined another complete program for the education of technical writers which involved three complete-term courses in writing skills and Zimmerman ( 5 )wrote a one-page paper outlining the steps to better writing. This paper will describe an approach by which an English professor (LM) and a chemistry professor (DB) combined their efforts in a regularly scheduled and normally required course, Chemistry 316, Instrumental Analysis Laboratory, to guide the students' efforts in writing better laboratory reports. Since the course and the laboratory reports were already required, the students had no extra written material to produce-an aid in an already crowded program. The only "extra" work required was the self-imposed extra work of polishing the report to make the writing good enough to hand in to an English professor. The Problem It was agreed by both instructors that the students' prohlaboratory reports could he divided into lems in writing a number of areas and criteria could be established in each of these areas to serve as guides in the grading of the reports. These criteria were then spelled out in the course syllabus for the students. Each instructor contributed specific items to these criteria, then both thoroughly discussed and completely agreed on each item. The final criteria were: 1. The use of appropriate scientific words and phrases. For example, the word "scale," while acceptable in writing for a nonscientific audience, is not appropriate in a scientific report when the word "balance" is meant. The first objective was to teach the student that precision in writing a laboratory report is just as important as precisian in making the measurements in the laboratory. 2. The manner of presentation. A major problem in some reports was the visual effect of the report on the reader. Sloppy handwriting, poor corrections, and general lack of care characterized this problem. The second objective then became to de-
uation, and grammar and to increase the clarity of the writing
Bections arranged in-different orders. Our ohjective was to get the student to follow one standard major section format and to be aware that there should he a unified organization within these sections. We insisted upon the use of the standard ACS research journal format of Abstract, Introduction, Procedures, Results, and Discussion. The only latitude allowed the student was optional combination of the last two sections into aResults and Discussion section if he or she felt that the combination would better suit that particular report. Following these sections the students were toolace anv extended data tabulations.
heled and numbered Appendices. All these specific items emphasized the form of the report and attempted to make the students aware of the necessary relationship between form and the content for a total report which would he clear, concise, accurate, organized, intellisble, and intelligent. The Solution The attempts to solve the problems identified above began with a request by the chemistry professor for the English professor's help in improving the students' skills in report writing. This request met a rapid and enthusiastic affirmative response and a meeting was arranged during the Christmas vacation period. At this meeting the conduct of the lahoratory course was discussed. Such things as the type of experiments to be used,
'
Current Address: Department of Chemistry, Illinois Wesleyan University. Bloomington, IL 61701.
Volume 60 Number 6
June 1983
467
the syllabus of the course, the report requirements, the previously used grading scale, and the ohjectives of the course came under discussion. We agreed that there were two major objectives: one which could broadly be defined as chemical and one which could broadlv be defined as communicative. The syllabus was then altered to reflect these ohjectives. Obviously, the maioritv of the redesienine was caused hv the more exdicit inclusfon oi the " ~ n g h s hogjectives of the course. This redesign took the form of lengthening the section on laboratory report format to call the attention of the student to the previously mentioned criteria which we would he using to judge the merit of the report from the "English" standpoint and the alteration of the grading system to reflect the explicit inclusion of "Form" as well as "Content" in the grading scale, since the old grading system did not have a specific portion of the grade assigned to "Form." The major portion of this redesign has been discussed above. At the first meeting, it was also agreed that each instructor would read every report, assign tentative grades for both form and content, then meet to discuss the reports together before assigning final grades for each section and returning the reports to the students. Because it was considered imperative for the student to have immediate feedback so that errors could be corrected. each reoort was graded and returned hefore the student sihmitted the nextreport. In addition, the erade for the student's first reoort was not countedin the final grade to permit hoth student; and instructors to adjust to the svstem. Since the exoeriments were done on a rotatine basis because of equipment availability, only the grade and comments pertaining to form were made available to the student immediately. The grade and comments pertaining to the content and the laboratory work were withheld until all reports for that experiment had been submitted. The revised svllahus and a copy of an article from Analytical Chem~stryto serve as an example were distributed at the first meeting of the Instrumental Analysis lecture course which the lahoratory students were taking concurrently. At this time hoth instructors were present to explain what they were attempting to do, why they were attempting it, and the procedures that they intended to follow. The English professor explained to the class that he intended to he present at the lectures and in the lahoratory so that he would he able to understand better what was being written. Perhaps because there had been no prior warning that such a change in the course was being considered, some discontent surfaced as has been reported previously ( I ) . We are happy to report that, althoueh two students did dron the course after this change was announced, those who remained reported a t the end of the course that they thought that the change was a good idea and that they felt there was actually less work involved in the course because thev had become more efficient at writine rer-..-.
After the first report was read and graded, one class period was used to discuss the difficulties commonly found in the reports and to suggest ways in which they could he corrected. A; suhsequent reports were graded and returned, some class time was used if it were deemed necessary to mention some aspect in which a large number of students needed help. This rarely took more than ten minutes from the class. The total "invasion" into the reeular class amounted to anoroximatelv two class periods-oneucomplete period at the time of the first class and then small nortions of other classes as later reoorts were returned, T h e Evaluation
The results of this arts-science experiment were encouraging and rewarding. As the semester progressed the students became more aware of their writing and more interested and concerned about improving their report writing. We coustantly emphasized the necessity of applying this motivation on their own without our prodding or presence. This in itself made the time and effort worthwhile. Needless to say, the 468
Journal of Chemical Education
better students had few difficulties to begin with and responded more quickly to the criteria and to the evaluative remarks. The other students began with more difficulties and responded more slowly. They also were more inconsistent; often they would correct some difficulty from a previous report, but another difficulty would arise. A few students were plagued by the same problem throughout the entire semester. On the first two reports, terms such as "machine" instead of "instrument," "take an I R instead of "obtain an IR spectrum," appeared. Some grammatical problems such as semicolon and comma overuse were also corrected early. As the semester progressed and as the students received more feedback, they became more adept a t labelling their figures, graphs, and tables; at providing clear captions; and at organizing. The improvement of the literature cited format and the equation referencing format took longer. Although all the students had the Analytical Chemistry manuscript requirements for Literature Cited, several students could not or would not follow those requirements. In desperation, we insisted that they redo the Literature Cited until the entries followed the manuscriot exactlv. At first manv - reauirements . students did not indicate in the written text exactly where illustrated material was located. either in the bodv of the report or in an appendix. We explained that referencing provided ereater cohesion for the reoort. Another means of cohesion was the organization of the report. Early on, almost everv student followed the general organization format of Anaiytical Chemistry's manu&ript req&ements. A lingering problem occurred in the organization within those maior units. Here the students took longer to break the major units into headed suhunits and to relate those suhunits in an oreanized manner. At the end of the course, we were both impressed by the students' attention to their writing and by the; improvement. All the students, from the best to the worst, caredmore about the form and the content of their reports. All the students had visibly improved their reports. Srvrrnl .. - - - ~ -factors - - ~ ~ contributed to this imorovement. The presence of an English instructor at the lectuies and in the lab certainly helped. To the students, the English instructor would have been viewed as an "ignorant" reader, one who had not taken a chemistry course in 20 years; however, since he, too, was present for the lectures, he was updated and informed. The students must write accurately and clearly for such a reader. Another factor was the chemistry teacher's seriousness about his students' writine, a seriousness mani~
~
~
~
~
One occurred'in another course, Chemistry 322; Physical Chemistry Laboratory, taught by another chemistry instructor. The instructor of Chemistry 322 told the students who were in both Chemistry 322 and Chemisty 316 to apply what they were learning and doing in Chemistry 316 to his course. At the end of the semester he thought the reports he received were better written. Again he confirmed our results that the better students did better and the other students showed varvine of imnrovement. . . deerees ., \Ve ht,lll ;t,nsidrr ihi; arts science eul~c,rinirnt;I rta.;~rd~n:: I and u,mhu,hile vcnnlrt. l ' h t . >1111lt 111simurt w i l I I ~ I I I their writings and their attitudes toward their woik. The instructors grew and learned, important goals in any teaching. They also increased their respect for each other, which certainly helps to break down stereotypes and harriers hetween departments. We both hope such growth and understanding will continue and even spread to other disciplines. Literature Cited Doody,T. C., and Gihbens,V. E., J. CHEMEDUC.,31,s (18541. Albrecht. G. H.. and Guuid, J. H..J. CHEM. EDllc.. 32,407 (1955). McKaig,N.,Ir.,.l. CHEW. RDUC.,40.86 (196S). Crrlirle. E.F.. and Kinsinger. J. B., J. CHEM E ~ u ~ . , 6 4 , 6 1(19771 2 (61 Zmrnerman, S. S., J. CHEM EDUC..ST, 727 (1978).
(1) (2) (S1 I41
