provocative opinion Writing across the Curriculum: TJe,$cienw Seament A Heretical Perspective Dominick A. Labianca Department of Chemistry, Brooklyn College of The City University of New York. Brooklyn, NY 11210 William J. Reeves Department of English, Brooklyn College of The City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11210 Writing across the curriculum, a strategy for teaching writing started in the 1970's and continues into the 1980's. In fact, with the advent of the core curriculum as an educational eoal for manv universities. writine across the curriculum competes with sentence comhining'il), classical rhetoric (2), the new rhetoric (2), and peer tutoring (3) as a major means of teaching college students to write. For teachers of science a t the college level, this method of writing instruction has serious implications, for a t its fullest implication, it can interfere with the main business of teaching science. Thispaper details the dilemma that writing acrossthe curriculum presents for science professors and science majors. That a problem in student writing exists no longer requires documentation. I t is an accepted fact that the perceived literacy problem of the 1970's has become an illiteracy plague in the 1980's. T o combat the low level of student knowledge and deficiencies in basic skills, many colleges have abandoned the "do-your-own-thing" approach of curricula planning and have opted for core curricula (4). An example of the core curriculum and its treatment of basic skills is provided by the Brooklvn Colleee core. ~ e v e l o ~ eaker d several years of intense debate, the Brooklyn College core curriculum was introduced in the fall semester, 1981. Based in the liberal arts, the core consists of the 10 courses listed in the table. They total 34 credits, account for approximately 25% of the credit requirements for the baccalaureate degree, and must he completed by the third year of the full-time student's academic program. The courses follow a two-tier arrangement, with the first five composing the first tier and the last five, the second tier. Thus, the science courses (Core Studies 7 and 8) cannot be taken until the student completes the first tier. In addition to the essential 10-course core are basic skills courses in mathematics and writine. The writine seauence offers four courses concerned with standard composition instruction. However. this nlan for oroducine - well-rounded. literate graduates faces a threat as the advocates of writing across the curriculum eather strength. One of the fuunders of the writmg across the rurriculum aDDn,arh is Elaine Maimon of Hearer College whose hook "writing in the Arts and Sciences" (5) off& sections on writine in the various disciolines and details, for 40 pages, the ways Gientists can teach &ting in their courses.'i'hk is nor the only researrh in this area. PyIe and Tramwell 16, have repor& a technique for teachingnonscience majors to write about science. They call for the requirement of "contemporary chemical essays." Richard Steiner (7) has described his method of assigning the writing of summaries of his organic chemistry lectures. Brillhart and Debs (8)have detailed their concept of teaching the writing of laboratory reports. At 400
Journal of Chemical Education
Brooklyn College scientists teaching in the core curriculum are res~ondinzto the requirement that writing be taught in of the core. p he types of writing assignments used all include the following: 1) papers hased on relationships of a particular science course to other core courses; 2) summaries of articles appearing in scientific publications; 3) papers based on museum trips; 4) papers based on library study and on discussion of experiments
conducted in the laboratory; 5) laboratory reports.
Some pedagogical questions arise relative to the requiring of writine in the science segment of the core. S~ecificallv, writing across the curriculum causes problems in terms of time, training, and techniques. The teaching of writing involves the commitment of a considerable amount of time. Assuming that every science class in a core curriculum has 100%content, then writing instruction, if i t is to he actual teaching, will eat into that content, probably to the extent of 10-15%. Conferences must he scheduled so that corrected papers can he examined with students, classroom time must be devoted to the examination of good, had, and indifferent reports with special attention eiven to the eoals/ournoses . . of each assienment. and to the Fhetorical strategies required to achieve i h e goals/purposes. At Brooklvn Colleee. an averaee core science class is 50 students. 1f aconferenci lasted just 10 minutes (and that would he a rushed meetine) and onlv two conferences per semester were held, then a Gnsidera6le time factor has been introduced. If such time is not soent and writine instruction is reduced to the assigning of papers and the marking of errors,
-
Brooklyn College Core Curriculum Cowre
Title
Classical Origins of Western Culture Introductionto Art (2.1): Introductionto Music (2.2) Core Studies 3 People, Power, and Politics Core Studies 4 The Shaping of the Modern World Core Studies 5 Introductionto Mathematical Reasoning and Computer Pragramming Core Studies 6 Landmarks of Literature Core Studies 7 Science in Modern Life I: Chemishy (7.1); Physics (7.2) Core Studies 8 Science in Modern Life 11: Biology (8.1); Geology (8.2) C w e Studies 9 Studies in African. Asian. and Latin American Cultures Core Studies 10 Knowledge. Existence, and Values Core Studies 1 Core Studies 2
Credits 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 2 2
2 2 3 3
then writine across the curriculum is simnlv . . another eductional gimmick. The time factor assumes significance as one considers the goal of a core curriculum. Certainlv the developmrnt of writing skills is a primary goal of high1.r education, hut an rqually. important coal i5 the ilrveloi~mentof science . literacy for nonscience majors. One result of &ting across the curriculum is that instruction time in science is sacrificed to the teaching of writing. In addition to a time problem, writing across the curriculum raises the question of teacher training. Are scientists trained to teach rhetoric? The assumption that anyone can teach writing flies in the face of theexplosion of research that is currently underway in rhetoric theory. From items as simple as the distinguishing between grammatical errors which are social and discredit the writer and content grammatical errors which make understanding difficult for the reader to the knowledge of prewriting a d on to techniques for editing, the teaching of rhetoric is a complex business and cannot simply be done as an aside by a person trained as a chemist or geologist. A student who takes a core science class in nhvsics receives (and exprcts) science instruction from a p&&ional. a Phl) trained in the area and involvrd actively in research. Should the same class also feature the attempts of a wellmeaning amateur to teach writing? Finally, thrre is the considern&n of thr techniques used to teach writ~ng.Writing arruss the curriculum oilerares with the thesis thatgood writing is good writing and that anyone can do it and that the more one does of this general good writine. -. the better one becomes. That is a daneerous assumption built upon certain untruths. Most professors of literature assign topics in their literature core classes that demand literary criticism. The teacher is a literary critic and can judge whether these fledgling efforts are acceptable. The same is relatively true of art historians, philosophers, and historians who ask the students to do the type of writing, on a lower level, that they as scholars do professionally. A scientist who attempts to teach writing may find that many of the techniques he uses in his professional writing may be alien to the student who has been taught rhetoric by a humanist and who is also a nonscience major. Writing in the sciences is not the same as writing in the humanities. A science writer tends to use different formats (lists as paragraphs, headings instead of transitions), and he is trained to think and communicate in a wav different from a humanist. A literary critic uses word, sentence, and paragraph as the tools of communication, and his teaching of writing is built on that usage. However, scientists also communicate with equations and diagrams and charts, and science writing integrates text and diagram in a manner foreign to most rhetoric instruction. For example, an equation giving the steps of a complex reaction will carry the dominant message in a paraaranh of a chemical pape;and the text (the writing) wiil serve only to guide the reader through the stens. The essential communiCation begins with theequiltim and not with the writing which highlights the equation. The p o i ~ is ~ rthat the srienre ~rofessor will draw upon his writing hickground to teach writibg in the core and use techniques inappropriate for the audience of nonscience majors in his classes. But why would a science professor cause more problems in teaching writing than a literature nrofessor? The answer lies in the aspecL of prewriting.'l'here are some "new rhetoricians" tsee. for examole. ref. 191, who hrlievr that the very process of writing itself cads to truths. For scientists, answers are reached through scientific investieation. and rhetoric serves to provide a ;lea1 format for the presentation of the findings. Scientific discovery precedes the writing, and the writing itself does not produce the discovery. Both classical and new rhetoric have three components: invention, arrangement, style. Invention is the locating of the topic from an analysis of the material during the procedure
-
~
~
~
~
~~~~
of prewriting. Scientists tend to ignore the component of invention and use arrangement (the ordering of the topic) and style (the manipulation of word, phrase, and sentence). A science professor must focus on the mastery of the science, for all writina moves from that ooint. A literature orofessor can begin forming the student's thoughts into m a t e h for papers as he teaches the works themselves. As the class discussion of the work of literature concludes, the invention process is well under way. A scientist would proceed differently and produce the complete discovery and then arrange it. The nonscience major would then have to master the science before he could begin writing, and the subtraction of 15%of the science content time would not he helpful in the achievement of that mastery. Of course, more writing never hurt a student, and professors of biology, chemistry, and physics can assign papers and mark them. However, assigning and marking papers are, as we have indicated, only a part of writing across the curriculum. The point that we move to is that little is gained by writine across the curriculum when it onerates to the full extent orits theory. An amateur does the &ting instruction; the nature of science writing works against some of the aspects of rheotric; and, finally, the knowledge needed to write-the mastery of the science--is reduced to accommodate the teaching of writing. In addition, writing across the curriculum nedects a maior concern of science educators-the teaching ofscientists"to write. At Brooklyn College, science maiors are excused from the core science courses if they intend take more advanced courses. For example, a chemistry major does not have to take the core chemistry course, and if he or she takes introductory courses offered by the departments of biology, geology, and .ohvsics. - . he or she can he excused from all the core science courses. Where, then, does the chemistry major learn to write as a scientist? We offer the followine nronosal. The traditional sequence of comp&kion courses should he emphasized. Our fear is that writing across the curriculum will assume the teaching of writing to the extent that composition classes devoted solely to writing will he eliminated, and the core will feature 10 courses with each course containing a 15% writing comnonent. Such an arraneement would not address the writing problems of scientists.We propose that all students take the traditional writing courses and be trained in the elements of rhetoric hut that three advanced courses be offered to upperclassmen. One of the classes would be an aduanced course for humanities majors, the second a business English class for accounting and husiness management majors, and the third a directed technical writing course for science majors. Depending on the major, the senior would select thr- appro~riateadvanced writing class. Melhndo ( 1 0 ) has reported success at the Cni. versity of Illinois with a course entitled Technical Writing and the Chemical I.iterature: A Unified Approach." At Brooklvn Collrre the science writing wurst. would advance from the positron that the s t u d e n t k o u l d function as scientists. The students in the class could use material from their senior projects and their advanced courses; they could learn to keep a real laboratory notebook, as described recently hy Anne Eisenherg (11); they could work on grant proposals. In short, they could assume the stance of scientists and produce writing which presents their material to someone who needs t o know about it. At this level the integration of figure and text could he taught because the materid would d e n k d the use of illustration and would not he merely an exercise. Ideally, the advanced technical writing course would he specific with hiologists, chemists, geologists, and physicists, offering small seminars in writing to a homogeneous class. Core curricula continue to he developed at major universities and colleees. We would advise that the writine across " the core juggernaut be resisted. Science coums for nonscience majors should be full to the hrim with content, and writing Volume 62
Number 5 May 1985
401
instruction would only, finally, reduce the content. An advanced course in science writing, resewed for the senior year, with a definite focus, taught to a class of similar majors and by a scientist can effectively handle the science writing problem. Literature Cited (1) Stmng, W., "Scntena Combining," Random House, Near York, 1983. (2) Connars, R. J., Coll. Englkh, 48,1(1983).
402
Journal of Chemical Education
(3) ~ m f f e e ,K., "A short
come in writinp.1)winthrop ~ u b ~ s h e rcambridge. s, MA,
1980. 14) &"en, W. J..sc~.E ~ U C64,583 ., (1980). (5) Maimon, E., "Writing in the ~ r t and a Sciences,"winthrop publishers, cambridge, MA, 1981. 16) Pyie. J. L., and Tramwell, G.L.,J. CHBM.EDUC.,59,959 (1982). (7) stcine., R,J. C ~ MEDUC.,SY, . 1044 (1982). 18) Bril1hart.L. V., and Debs, M. B., J Coll Sci. Teaching, 10,303 (1981). 19) ~ ~ r t h ~A,.f f", ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ m h i ~ k iwinfbrop ~ ~ ~ ~ publishers, ~ i t i ~ cambridge, ~ . 1 ) MA. 1982. (10) Meihsd0.L. L,,J Coll Sci Teaching. LO, 299 (1981). (11) Eisenberg, A, J. CHW. EDUC..59, 1045 (1982).
