E. Fred Carlisle and Jack B. Kinsinaer Michigan State university East Lansing 48824
I1
I
Scientific Writing A humanistic and scientific course for science undergraduates
The news is out, and no matter how accurate or simplistic, or even mistaken, it may be, the publicseems convinced that undergraduates are less and less able to write clearly. No one even asks whether they can write well. The national press and national magazines like Newsweek, Harper's and Change have taken UD the issue. and they lav the hlame for the shocking state'of undergraduate iUiteraEy on the colleges and universities generally and on English departments specifically. Let's assume that the media report us accurately, even if they make the problem newer and more dramatic than it is. Some students do indeed write badly, and many do not write nearly so well as one would like. That's no news in English and science departments. If anything, the publicity has created urgency, hut the difficulties we have teaching students to write and read well or to master complex technical communication skills have been with us a long time and in fact define our jobs as teachers. We have not solved the problems; we cannot sensibly lay the hlame elsewhere; and we have to keeplooking for better ways to teach. In the specific case of science students. we believe that Enelish and science deoartments must cooperate to find solutions and to develop new approaches. At Michigan State University, we have a beginning. Writing well in science is not simply a matter of some ahstract ideal: wouldn't it be nice for educated people to write well! Nor is it only a matter of communication, although clear and effective communication in science is critical. But the issue extends even further-into the heart of science and the profession. Manv scientists are convinced that the quality of bne's science and the quality of the report or description of that science are virtually inseparable. Others go even further and suggest that the form of a description is intimately related to the process or phenomena being described. For them, language, communication, and writing have become as important to science as scientific investigation itself. So, however one connects writine with science. the wav a scientist exoresses himself makes decisive difkrencein the quality and accentance of his work. in its distribution. and in its verv character. This concept' is one of the major premises b f our course.l Our second major premise for the cuurse identifies one of its humanities dimensions. The goals, organization, and acti\,iries rest un humanistw assumptions ahuut language and writine. Let us briefly. specifv . . them: ( I I 1.anguage designs or model; experience; it names, selects, organizes, G d interprets, and language also models or controls a writer's vision. We see mainly what our words or models enable us to see. Therefore, the way a writer describes a situation or experiment makes a fundamental and often critical difference. (2) Laneuaee occurs between people; i t is basically intersubjective. yherifore. a listener or reader is alwavs a t least implied. . . and since readers may differ a great deal, how one approaches his reader-how he molds and directs an audience's understanding-makes a crucial difference. (3) Language carries attitudes and values-it is basically oersonal-no matter how objective or impersonal it might seem. If nothing else, it reflects the community or professional values of a given group or discipline. Therefore, it is essential for writers to understand the values implicit in their own language and to recognize, also, the personal variables and effects of their writing. Finally, (4) in many ways, written and spoken language are 632 1 Journal of Chemical Education
analogous. Although writing is somewhat more fixed and formal. it shares manv features with soeech. Both involve a fundamental transacGon-somebody si' saying something to somebodv else in a oarticular situation-and both writine and speaking can convey immediacy, vitality, and presence. These assumptions are primary to the sequence. Good, clear, direct, functional scientific prose is quite consistent, and it is even encouraged by them. Even where scientific writing is highly specialized, it nevertheless shares basic characteristics with other kinds of writing. It is fundamentally transactional and imaginative. When a scientijt wires profrssionallv, he is saving somet hinr about his work or his field to someone else. In doing so, he must shape a process or structure a set of concepts into language forms. Although the individual character of his activity is not always clear, shaping and structuring are, in effect, individual and imaginative activities. Besides professional papers, scientists also write in other forms. They write for periodicals with a broad appeal within a particular scientific domain (such as this one), and they oooular audiences-inwrite. as well. for even lareer. more . . cluding both scientists and non.scientists -to explain some Other ort6t-ssional asurcr 01their iidd or sciencr reoerallv. activities require scientists to write reports on conferences, research proposals, textbooks, lectures, letters, and so on. Some even G i t e narrative, autobiography, history of science, and speculative or philosophic essays, and these, too, are really part of a scientist's extended profession. In a year long course, we can take up-with more or less emphasis-every one of these forms to show students how broad and interesting-how humanistic, in fact-science is; and of course, we also use these materials to help students hecome better writers. As we try to describe the great variety of scientific writine. ". we also emphasize the situational character and common functions of all the forms. The exact character of a scientist's writine will denend on his subject (is he writing about a highly cknplicated and t onlv a few would understand or technical e x ~ e r i m e nwhich about a more general theory?), i n his audience (is he writing to colleagues, scientists in other fields, students, or the nonscientific, literate public?), on himself (how does he see his work?), and on his intent (what exactly does he wish his reader to understand?,. The writer's manneiand style will vary with each element, or variable, of the writing situation.
-
'The course itself is a year long sequence that addresses the general writing, liberal education, and special subject area needs of undergraduate science majors. As both a liberal and specialized education course, the sequence satisfies the University's basic writing requirement, and it provides students with extensive reading and writing in science. At present, we are in the second year of a two year experimental period. Bath years have been funded by the Michigan State University Venture Fund (partly financed by the Ford Foundation), the University's Educational Development Project, and the three cure departments-English, Chemistry, and Physics. The idea far the course originated with us (when Dr. Kinsinger was Chairman of the Chemistry Department) after a graduate workshop in scientific writing sponsored by Chemistry (at which Dr. Carlisle,from the English Department, presented one day of a three day program). It seemed to us then that the University needed a writing and reading course emphasizing science, and so the present project is the result-a humanities and science sequence.
The sequence develops through three related courses, and it progresses from general writing activity, through careful reading and analysis of a wide range of writing by scientists, to writing about topics within a student's particular science. Term 1. Writing Workshop On the first day of class, we send students to the Art galof any serve as well-and ask leiypa them to observe a particular object very carefully. Based on that ohservation, they then write three short Papers: a detailed, objective description of the ohject (write it so that your reader could find it), an impressionistic account of it (show your reader the thoughts and impressions stimulated the ohject), and a narrative or story about it (imagine,for example, a situation that involves the ohject or a series of events that caused or made it). Each of these purposes requires a different way of looking a t the ohject and a different mode of writing. The first calls for an orderly, detailed description; the second for a relatively free series of associations or thoughts; and the third asks for a carefully constructed story. So, from the heginning of the course, students aware of approaches and styles in writing, and they begin to see how writing can change as the four variables change. Through the rest of this first course, we ask students to continue writing in several different modes so that they experience the variahles in writing, begin learning to control them, and start developing flexibility, fluency, and vitdity-interest and skill as well as clarity. By the end of the term students complete as many as ten writing assignments, as well as keep a daily journal or writing workbook, The early assignments invite mainly personal and general responses-autobiographical narratives, character studies, personal essays, and exposition. Duringthe last three or four weeks, students shift their attention to scientific autobiographies and to operations. and processes-usuall~ x i entific or technical-with which they are already familiar. Students have written in detail about telescopes, derivatives, different kinds of bicycle wheels, curve halls, isomers, and the growth of their interest and chess as as knowledge in science. a he purpose of the course is very simple. It tries to develop and define a student's general writing ability. During it, hoth the teacher and the students evaluate and discuss the Papers, attending particularly to the writing situation (writer, subject, audience, and intent) and to the appropriateness and effect of the language, style, and structure. More specifically,we ask students to write a wide variety of pieces in order (1) to dee velov facilitv in various tvoes .. of writina. - (2) to ~ r o v i d vrohlems in ohservation, perception, and imagination, (3) to demonstrate that certain fundamental principles apply to several types of writing, (4) to ask students to write in some of the forms tauaht in the second course, and (5) to ask them to write in creative or humanistic modes as part of their general education. Term 2. The Scientist a s Writer Scientists write science fiction, fiction, autobiography, poetry, and philosophic and personal essays as well as professional reports, papers, and hooks. In exploring a wide range of these tvves, this course examines a scientist's motives for writing; the characteristics and effects of each form (style, rhetoric, and audience); the differences and similarities among conventional scientific writing, popular, historical, and vhilosophic scientific writing, and non-scientific writing; and thr ui~ysw r h t\.pe explains, upporra, and extends the uther. Studt.nts also write frequent enalyw.; nnd commentarlri about the readings. The course, for example, opens with several readings about DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick or by Watson alone-the two original Nature articles that appeared in 1953, the longer explanation published in August, 1953, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, a chapter from Watson's
hook "Molecular Biology," and selectionslfrom "The Double Helix." Lectures and discussions take up the ways "The Double Helix" includes autobiographical and historical material that scientific papers, like the Nature pieces, quite deliherately exclude, and the classes also discuss the reasons for the differences. The textbook chapter illustrates yet another kind of writing. We also explore the differences-and the reasons for them-hetween the Nature papers and the Proceedings article. In fact, we give close comparative readings of the articles to show precisely where, how, and why they differ. ~h~ watson and Crick pieces also provide excellent at every level. examples of good scientific The course also includes a section oh history of science will read from Thomas S. KuhnXs writing. hi^ year m ~ h copernican e ~ ~ ~ ~L~~~~ l ~~ i ~ ~ Mi ~ ~D l ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~n x ~ ~ c ~ ~and C,~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ME^^^^^ ~ ~ , din the x~ ~l l iof % M ~~~ t ~ chanics.n p ~only ~ do t these scientists write in very different ways, but they have quite different views of science and conceptions of its history. So they provide alternative examples of how to write about science as well a hasis for discussing its character. class, we try to explore hoth in some detail. The students also read a series of general essays about science such as ~ ~"Fragmentation h ~ in Science ' ~ and Socie t y p, ~ B, ~ ~ C C conceptions Td ~ ~ ~of science; ~ ~ i ~~ h ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~o ~~ ~~ and D, ~~W.i~~h b~ ~ ~ lb ~~~l , j~! ~ , Schlegel's "some ~ ~on the philosophy ~ of~hemistry.n ~ ~ Besides these types, we have included personal essays by scientists, autobiography, fiction, and science fiction. Last year, we ended the course with two articles about gravitation: 'G~ravitationT ~ ~by clifford ~ ~ will ~ ,andx yy,e ~h~~~~ of by Richard P, peynman, We continue to require students to write in this course. "owever, given the reading load, they write less than in the first and third terms. Several of the assignments are related to those from the writing workshops, and others direct student attention to particular readings. Students are required, for example, to interview a scientist and write a report of that interview or a profile of the scientist; this derives from the character assigned in the first course. They are also asked to write a critical or analytical paper about one of the readings; in this they must apply the terminology and insights writing that they are learning. Students also prepare a scientific paper, an paper, in some cases a science fiction narrative. ~~~h of these continues and extends one of the writing forms from the first course, Term 3. Scientific Writing This course emohasizes the writine" of functional vroseclear, direct, unambiguous, effective, and fitting writing. But such writing need not he faceless or merely conventional and surely not dull or wooden. Even here, a scientist is making a statement, to which he is presumably committed, to someone else, and in many cases, the statement is more than a routine reoort: . . it also reflects the scientist's own oercevtion . . of his work and its significance. So in important ways, scientific writing is personal as well as public or professional, though it rarely manifests belief, commitment, and imagination in the ways literary or creative writing does. Although the course recognizes the need for clear, unambiguous, appropriate communication in science, it does not teach a uniform, inflexible style or model. Instead it encourages students to develop their own clear, and even interesting, styles for science that a t the same time adhere to professional requirements and expectations. 1%) rht, tmd oiihe t&n,students wrlwiit lewt one pupular viney, tu.t, scientific papers, en evalunriw~of a pourly writtrn. published article, and two extensive revisions. Besides these, they select two or three assignments from a list of options: a report on a conference or seminar, a thesis or research proposal, a set of instructions, the text of a lecture, and a series of letters or memoranda. The purpose here is quite specific: to provide experience and foster improvement in rather speVolume 54, Number 10, October 1977 1 633
cialized scientific writinp. The students normally write within their fivlds or maprs. h i n g thii course. we also prwide a numlwr of examples of poor, as wrll as effective, published writing, and w've come across wmr real howlers. Hut we have also disnwered a gnLatdeal of quite rumpetent- rven euritine-writine k o t only%as the year-long sequence been generally conceived and annroved bv scientists and humanists toeether: it has bee11p l a r k d in detail and taught by staff from chemist&, I'hvsics. and Ene1ish.l This isonr of its most unusual asnecrs. ~ i h o u g hthe ~ i ~ l i Department sh has assumed the major teachine " and administrative resoousibilitv (Dr. Carlisle is the Project Director), science faculty have served as consultants and visited and taught classes, and science graduate assistants have participated, first, as interns and, then, as teachers. The oilot uroiect has provided a one year (or less) intern period during which science graduate aisistants can develop sufficient experience and skill to teach courses on their own. That is the point of the internship, and given our attempt to bridge the gap, some plan for instruction about the teaching of writing seems necessary. This is obviously a difficult, but critical, aspect of the course, and it requires science departments to select assistants (and faculty consultants) who have some interest, competence, and experience in writing and who also have some awareness of the features of good and bad prose. Our plan is working so far, but it has yet to he tested bevond the nilot oroiect. i)uring th'e first Gar, for evaluation we relied mainly on staff and student auoraisal of the seauence. Since the first year was simultaneousi~aplanning and teaching year, therewas simply not time, money, or need, really, to attempt other modes of evaluation. The staff met almost weekly for two terms to discuss the effect of the previous week and to review plans for the next. In the third term, we met only every other week. At the end of each course, we met for a long, detailed evaluation of it. The group used both their own individual evaluations and student questionnaires as a basis for judgment. Through the year, students completed five evaluation questionnaires. The responses are complex and detailed, and so it is difficult to reduce them to a few sentences. On the whole, however, the sequence seems to have worked very well in its first year. Students responded very favorably-especially those who completed the entire sequence, and most students' writing improved. But since the questionnaires in-
634 1 Journal of Chemical Education
vited-almost required-students to criticize the courses, as well as respond favorably, the summaries are not uniformly positive. Every new course needs improvement, and so students were asked to make suggestions, and they did. In this second year, we are developing a more detailed and extensive system of description and evaluation with the assistance of the Learning and Evaluation Services office a t Michigan State. When we list the achievements of this course, they seem rather considerable, and since we declared onlv to have a heginning here at ~ i c h i g a nState, we feel somewhat hesitant to make these claims. But they are, after all, endorsed by every member of the staff as well as by a number of science faculty. So, here is what we have accomplished: (1)Like any successful writing course, this one helps students improve their ability to say what they mean clearly. There's evidence for that. I t also shows them ways of fitting their subjects and purposes together with their audience and their own voices. Above all, the course enables science students to improve their writing by writing about science and by writing science. (2) The second course, especially, requires students to read science materials carefully and critically, and in this, it develops their critical reading abilities. (3) Our project also gives students insights into science which introductory science courses and even entire science curricula often cannot. Various issues in the philosophy and history of science come up, and these encourage students to think about the nature of science. Some of the readings also provide insights into the personal and professional worlds lying behind the formal articles in professional journals. In short, the course broadens students' views of science and shows them that it is a varied and complex human endeavor. (4) Although not our most important aim, students, nevertheless, begin to discover the necessity for communication between science and the public. They recognize the importance of good, intelligent, and informed popularization of science. (5) Finally, this sequence represents a small, but significant, effort by scientists and humanists to work together. And we intend to continue.
'The teaching .Inif cunrsrsot hlil hael K. Hrnndl. L)rparrrn~ntof I ' h w r i : D r w H . Fl;hhurn. Enehih: .Am C. I.oclnp\.. F.n~lt:h: and
ifh hard R. Rice, Chemistry;plusihe Project ~ i r e c t o r . ~ teaching ~he~ assistantshave contributed a great deal both to the development and teaching of the course.
