Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Revisiting the Writing Process in the Digital Age: The Development of
Undergraduate Writing Processes in STEM Disciplines
Dr Robert BlakeStudent Learning Advisor for the Faculty of Science & Technology
Lancaster University V9
V9
2
AbstractIn the late 20th century, there was considerable interest in the writing process, largely from a cognitive perspective, notably Flower and Hayes (1981). However, with the widespread use of computer technology, there have been changes in academic writing processes in universities. In addition, little attention has been paid to the writing processes of STEM undergraduates. Through multi method research, this paper investigates the development of writing processes of STEM undergraduates in Lancaster University over degree programmes in different disciplines. The results firstly indicate the increasingly computer-mediated nature of their writing processes. Secondly, they demonstrate how writing processes diverge over degree programmes according to STEM discipline. The writing processes of first year undergraduates in different disciplines were similar, consisting of initial planning, computer-mediated and handwritten drafting and an emphasis on local revision, assisted by Microsoft Word. By the third year, their writing processes comprised recursive planning, largely computer-mediated multiple drafting, and, recursive and comprehensive (global and local) revision, which also involved high levels of peer literacy mediation. These results have helped to update our understanding of the writing processes of STEM undergraduates. There are also implications for how we teach writing and work with colleagues in STEM disciplines.
3
1) The current study of Science & Technology Undergraduates
in Lancaster University
4
The aims of the current study
• to investigate the under researched writing processes of STEM undergraduates in Lancaster University (Biology, Engineering, Communication Systems, & Environmental Science)
• to investigate the development of their writing processes over their undergraduate degree programmes
• To update writing process research to reflect the impact of computer technology on writing
5
Figure 1. The multi-level, mixed-method research design of the study
PHASE 1 Quantitative Survey Questionnaires (self
report) of 360 STEM undergraduates
(1st , 2nd & 3rd years in Biology, Communication Systems, Engineering,
Environmental Science)
PHASE 2 QualitativeCross-sectional case studies of 6 STEM undergraduates (1st, 2nd & 3rd years in Biology, Communication Systems, Engineering, Environmental Science & Maths)
PHASE 3 QualitativeLongitudinal case study of an ES undergraduate over his degree programme (talk around texts, text histories)
6
2. Previous research on the writing process
7
1) Earlier studies on the writing process (i)
Considerable research interest in the writing process in the US in the late 20th century:
• Rejection of the staged representation of planning, drafting & revision in the writing process
• Began to represent the recursive and interrelated nature of these components•mostly cognitively based models
• limited recognition of the social context of writing• largely generic context of Writing Across the Curriculum in the US
8
Earlier studies on the writing process ii
• Previous studies• mostly late 20th century- conducted largely before computer-
mediated writing has become standard in student writing in HE
• Often based on undergraduates in arts & social science disciplines
• Little recent research into the writing process and the computer mediated nature of student writing in HE
• Until recently (e.g. JLDHE, 2012), writing processes and practices of STEM undergraduates has been little researched
9
Figure 2. Writing Process Model by Flower & Hayes (1981, p 370)
10
Figure 3. Model of the writing process by White and Arndt (1991, p.4)
11
Figure 4. Alternative representation of the Writing Process by Clark and Ivanič (1997, p. 98) emphasizing the social context of writing
12
Figure 5 The writing process approach (Curry and Hewings, 2003, p.34)
13
3. Updating our knowledge of the writing processes of STEM undergraduates
14
What are the typical writing processes of the STEM undergraduates you work with?
15
Figure 6 The writing process of the sample of 360 STEM 1st, 2nd & 3rd year undergraduates in Lancaster University
INFORMAL LITERACY MEDIATION DURING REVISION Classmates (66%) Assignment notes (59%)
Internet (57%)
LOCAL REVISIONGrammar (86%)
Spelling (82%)
Punctuation (73%)
Formatting & presentation (60%),
GLOBAL REVISIONEnsuring question is answered (67%)
Paragraphs & sentences (64%)
Modifying content/Organisation of ideas (53%) REVISION
BEFORE DRAFTING /PREWRITING Making notes from reading (63%)
Making notes of ideas (60%)
Analysing question (58%)
Planning paragraphs (52%)
DURING DRAFTING Making notes of ideas (58%), Making notes from reading (51%),
PLANNING
1 CM DRAFT (56%) 2 or more CM drafts >50%
With global & local revision
START
DRAFTING
1 handwritten draft >50%
16
The Planning of STEM undergraduates in LU
• In contrast with earlier UK studies (Hounsell, 1984), planning was universal- when taking into account physical & mental planning; mental planners may perceive themselves as non-planners
• Planning was conducted recursively (Flower & Hayes, 1981, Humes, 1983, Hyland, 2002),
• with more planning prior to drafting: paragraph plans, notes of ideas & notes from reading
• Note taking of ideas & from reading continued into drafting • Considerable variation in planning: the extent & timing, approaches to it & • 2 main approaches: cursory & thorough
• Cursory planners started with basic mental plans & bulleted lists, followed by ongoing planning, literature searches & reading
• Strategic planners made detailed notes of the overall structure & sections & paraphrased notes of reading
17
Planning- up to 6 steps
1. Analysis of the assignment brief often mental; depth varied considerably. Cursory: key words; thorough: detailed analysis of question n components & markers’ expectations
2. Background reading (largely strategic planners)3. Planning- physical and/or mental (mind maps, bulleted points, key
words, sentences, outline plans of headings/ paragraphs 4. Literature search5. Reading from literature search preparatory/on the spot while
writing6. Note taking from reading: preparatory/on the spot while writing
18
The Drafting of STEM Undergraduates in LU
• Computer mediated (CM) drafting standard- typically a single CM draft (from planning to submission) (56%) or less common multiple CM drafts (44%)
• Multiple drafting most common when considering initial handwritten (46%) & multiple CM drafts
• Drafting is a recursive process involving ongoing planning & revision (prompted by Word proofing highlighting)
• Drafting varied according to the writer’s approach to planning & the writing process
• The drafting of cursory planners included cycles of ongoing planning, literature searches and reading on the spot
• The drafting of thorough planners involved a crafting process drawing on plans, paraphrased notes, focusing on argument and final draft quality
19
The Revision of STEM undergraduates in LU
• Revision was universal & comprehensive (global & local) with variation in the range of activities
• In contrast with previous US studies, e.g. Dave and Russell (2010), in which revision was largely local.
• Standard local revision: grammar, spelling, punctuation (70-80%), also formatting and presentation (60%)
• Common global revision: addressing the question & paragraphs (approx. 65%); modifying the organisation of ideas/content 50-55%
• Effect of Word proofing tools in highlighting local errors• Greater problems with revision experienced by cursory planner
20
What has been the effect of computer technology on the writing processes of STEM undergraduates?
21
Computers and writing processes
• The writing processes of STEM undergraduates is now largely computer meditated, often from planning to submission within a single draft
• Initial handwritten drafting was still common (in 2008) • Question of what a draft now is & whether terms such as redrafting
still have validity• Substantial changes in revision due to the widespread use of Word
proofing tools. • Word proofing tools focus attention on local (sentence level) revision
during drafting and revision
22
3. The Development of the Writing Processes of Science and Technology Undergraduates
23
Do the writing processes of STEM undergraduates change over their degree programmes?
24
INFORMAL LITERACY MEDIATION DURING REVISION Classmates (71%)Internet (64%)
GLOBAL REVISIONParagraphs & sentences (69%)
Ensuring question is answered (57%),
LOCAL REVISIONGrammar (94%)
Spelling (89%)
Punctuation (85%)Formatting & presentation (56%),
1 CM draft (62%)2 or more CM drafts
REVISION
BEFORE DRAFTING /PREWRITING
Make notes from reading (62%), Planning paragraphs (57%), Making notes of ideas (51%) ,
DURING DRAFTING
1 handwritten (or more) draft/s (56%)
With local & also global revision
START
with local & also global revision
DRAFTING
PLANNING
Figure 7 The writing process of 1st year Communication Systems & Environmental Science undergraduates in Lancaster University.
LITERACY MEDIATION DURING REVISION Assignment notes (65%) Internet (65%),
GLOBAL REVISIONEnsuring question is answered (70%)
Paragraphs & sentences (66%)
Modifying content (61%)
BEFORE DRAFTING /PREWRITING Analysing question (68%)Making notes of ideas (53%), Making notes from reading (51%),
LOCAL REVISIONGrammar (81%), Spelling (68%), Punctuation (59%)
DURING DRAFTING Making notes of ideas (53%)
1 (or more) handwritten drafts
(56%)
1 CM DRAFT (59%) 2 or more CM drafts
PLANNING
STARTDRAFTING
REVISION
With global & local revision
with mostly local revision
CS ES
25
The Writing Processes of the 1st Year Communications Systems (CS) & Environmental Science (ES) Undergraduates
The writing processes of 1st years was very similarPlanning was largely preparatory, rather than ongoing/recursiveDrafting: Multiple drafting – first by hand & then computer-mediatedRevision: • Local revision: 3 main features: spelling, grammar & punctuation (&
formatting in ES) widely revised but at a higher level in ES• Global revision: Narrow range of 2 main features: checking question
had been addressed, & paragraphs & sentences (+ content in CS)• Widespread use of peer literacy mediators in ES but independent
revision in CS
26
INFORMAL LITERACY MEDIATION DURING REVISION Classmates 70%
Assignment notes (76%)
BEFORE DRAFTING /PREWRITING Making notes from reading (80%) Making notes of ideas (71%)* Analysing question (66%) Planning paragraphs (61%)
START
DURING DRAFTING Making notes of ideas (64%)*
Making notes from reading (62%)* Planning paragraphs (57%)*
GLOBAL REVISIONEnsuring question is answered (75%) * Paragraphs & sentences (71%)
Bring in reading (57%)*
Modify content (50%)*
LOCAL REVISIONGrammar (91%),
Spelling (84%)
Formatting & presentation (84%)*
Punctuation (79%)
Figures & tables (68%)*
2 or more CM drafts (58%)*
With global revision*
CM DRAFTING
PLANNING
REVISION
Figure 8 The Writing Processes of 3rd year undergraduates in Communications Systems & Environmental Science
CS ES
(LITERACY MEDIATION DURING REVISION)
Assignment notes (76%)
Internet (61%)
GLOBAL REVISIONEnsuring the question is answered (57%)Paragraphs & sentences (57%)
Organisation of ideas (52%)
LOCAL REVISIONSpelling (90%) Grammar (86%) Punctuation (71%)
Formatting & presentation (71%) Style (57%)
REVISION
DURING DRAFTING Planning paragraphs (62%)*
Making notes of ideas (57%)
Making notes from reading (52%),
BEFORE DRAFTING /PREWRITING Making notes of ideas (62%) Planning paragraphs (57%) Brainstorming (52%)
START
1 CM draft (70%))
PLANNING
With global & local revision
CM DRAFTING
The Writing Processes of 3rd Year Undergraduates in Communications Systems & Environmental Science
By the 3rd year, the writing processes diverged according to disciplinary requirements & cultures
Planning: In ES, there was a wider range & much higher levels of planning prior to drafting e.g. making notes from reading & making notes of ideas (70-81%) than in CS
However, there were similar levels of planning during drafting.
Drafting diverged: in CS - a single CM draft (76%) was standard; in ES, multiple CM drafting was most common (58%)
• Drafting by hand disappeared in CS & fell off in ES
Revision
• Local revision: Higher levels in spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting & presentation in both disciplines (71-91%); also figures & tables (ES); style (CS)
• Global revision: Wider range & high levels in ES e.g. addressing question, & paragraphing & sentences (averaging 73%) than CS (averaging 55%)
• In ES only, widespread use of peer literacy mediators in revision 27
28
What are the implications for working with STEM colleagues & students?
29
Conclusions
• The writing processes of STEM undergraduates are largely/totally computer-mediated depending on the discipline
• Planning is iterative- conducted before drafting & by the 3rd year during drafting• A draft is a typically a single computer-mediated draft, often a single document
from planning to submission• Multiple drafting is also common, when taking into account drafting by hand.
Does handwriting still have a place?• Revision is iterative & comprehensive – local (to a greater degree) & global • There is more local revision due to the assistance given by Word proofing tools
& also it is more widely understood• There are multiple writing processes rather than the writing process: dynamic &
evolving/diverging over the undergraduate STEM degree programmes according to discipline
30
What are the implications for working with STEM colleagues & teaching STEM students?
31
Some implications for teaching & supporting STEM undergraduates
• In LD work with STEM colleagues & students: use/adapt contemporary models of the writing process, which reflect computer-mediated composition, iterative approaches to planning & revision (using Word proofing, peer literacy mediation)
• Explore the relationship between cursory planning & difficulties with revision, thorough planning & higher grades
• Following Dave & Russell (2010), reconceptualise the notion of a draft for computer-mediated writing. Treat with caution terms such as ‘final draft’, ‘redraft’.
• STEM undergraduates seem to be more proficient with local revision due to assistance from the Microsoft Word proofing tools. Guidance is needed in revising the global aspects of their texts e.g. guidelines for peer literacy mediators
33
ReferencesClark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1997). The Politics of Writing. London: Routledge.
Curry, M. J., & Hewings, A. (2003). Approaches to teaching writing. In C. Coffin, M. J. Curry, S. Goodman, A. Hewings, T. Lillis & J. Swann (Eds.), Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education. (pp. 19-44). London: Routledge.
Dave, A. M., & Russell, D. R. (2010). Drafting and Revision Using Word Processing by Undergraduate Student Writers: Changing Conceptions and Practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(4), 406-434.
Day, T., Hilsdon, J., & Hagyard, A. (2012). Special Edition: Developing Writing in STEM Disciplines. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (4). Available from http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/ojs/index.php?journal=jldhe&page =issue&op=view&path[]=13. Retrieved 7 January 2014.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Hounsell, D. (1984). Essay planning and essay writing. Higher Education Research and Development, 3(1), 13-31.
Humes, A. (1983). Research on the Composing Process. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 201-216.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing (1st ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education/Longman.
White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. London: Longman.
