Hi Billy, On May 31, 2011, at 10:02 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Ernie: > I thought I'd get a rise from you on this one. > > Actually, the writing I an familiar with from selected journals is mostly top > rate, > viz Scientific American, Discovery, etc. But, yeah, get to the more obscure > periodicals and the problem surfaces soon enough. Not only in the hard > sciences, > plenty of bad-news scrivening in behavioral science journals. > > The subject matter encroached into my territory, so it caught my attention. > Catchy title, too. > > Billy
In the Radical Centrist prefuture, I believe scientists will be trained to actually *write*, not just *publish*, because only when you can explain something properly in prose (and possibly pictures) do you truly understand it. -- Ernie P. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > message dated 5/31/2011 9:56:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > 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 > > > -- > 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
