Hi Billy, Heh. Funny to see you quoting my friends over in Ars Technica. I agree, clear technical writing is a huge and poorly understood problem.
In a related vein, you might appreciate Kill Math: http://worrydream.com/KillMath/ The power to understand and predict the quantities of the world should not be restricted to those with a freakish knack for manipulating abstract symbols. -- Ernie P. On May 31, 2011, at 9:52 AM, [email protected] wrote: > ars technica > > May 31, 2011 > > Is our scientists learning to write? > By Jonathan M. Gitlin > In a recent issue of Science, Cary Moskovitz and David Kellogg consider the > way students are taught science and science writing in laboratory courses, > and whether current approaches really provide the best tools for the job. > They conclude that inquiry-based writing might be better than the current > approaches—writing to learn (WTL) and writing as professionalization (WAP)—at > developing students' skills of scientific inquiry. > > WTL treats writing as a tool to enhance learning about science, and it's a > teaching method that I don't think was a part of my own undergraduate > education. Students are asked to "address thought-provoking questions such as > 'What can I claim?' and 'How do I know?'" As the authors point out, this > isn't that helpful for developing the writing skills that are expected > further down the career path. > > The writing assignments I remember, especially those related to lab work, > would be classified as WAP, which is an extension of the kind of lab report > that was standard fare in high school. WAP has the students write in the same > formats they would encounter professionally; an experimental research paper, > conference poster, or literature review. > > Moskovitz and Kellogg point to some problems with this method, though. The > introduction of a research article is used by its authors to highlight a gap > in the current understanding of a topic, but undergrads lack the breadth of > knowledge to do this effectively. Even the methods section is problematic, > they suggest, as this mainly involves the students paraphrasing the protocols > they've been given. > > Inquiry-based writing builds on WAP by changing the relationship between the > student and the instructor grading their work. The example the authors give > turns a standard titration lab into a double-blind experiment. The students > are randomly assigned contaminated or uncontaminated reagents without being > told this has happened. The person(s) grading the lab reports is also in the > dark as to which student received what reagent. This changes their > relationship with the written work; instead of approaching it merely as a > grader looking to check off specific elements, they have to read the reports > the same way they would read the latest paper in the Journal of Whatever, > with the expectation that the students make convincing scientific arguments > to support their data. > > Moskovitz and Kellogg acknowledge that this would involve a good deal of work > for the teaching staff, but that's important enough that universities should > at least consider it as an approach, either introducing it gradually or > across the board. It seems like a good idea from where I'm sitting, but then > I don't have to do any teaching currently, so have little vested interest > other than my desire to fix lots of the problems we currently face with the > training of young scientists. > > I do have real concerns about the current state of science writing, and the > way that young scientists "learn" how to do it, although not really in the > way Moskovitz and Kellogg discuss it. Simply put, scientists really need to > be taught how to write well, and that probably means they should be taught by > someone other than their fellow scientists. Being able to explain your work > clearly ought to be one of the most vital skills scientists develop, but > reading an average journal article provides scant evidence of that being a > common ability. > > As with many specialist fields, science suffers from a strong tendency > towards the use of impenetrable jargon, and passive run-on sentences are very > much the rule, not the exception. The rare occasions when one runs into a > paper that's well written and accessible are a joy. Sadly, I think there's a > bias away from making papers accessible to a wider audience, which is a real > mistake given the terrible state of science literacy among the public that > funds the bulk of our science. > > The problem as I see it is that writing is a skill that requires practice > like any other. I know I'm a much better writer now than I was before I'd > written 600+ articles for Ars Technica; working with good editors is also a > huge factor in that. Unfortunately, most scientists don't get the opportunity > to write that often, and rarely see their work edited by anyone other than > their fellow researchers. > > Science, 2011 > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
