Supporting Research Writing || Using strategic, critical reading of research papers to teach scientific writing: the reading–research–writing continuum

73

Using strategic, critical reading of research papers to teach

scientifi c writing: the reading–research–writing continuum

Valerie Matarese

Abstract: Scientifi c literacy is a fundamental attribute that supports researchers in both research and research writing. This chapter describes the rationale and design of a course that uses strategic, critical reading to teach research writing to doctoral candidates. The course, ‘Effective Biomedical Reading and Writing’, was designed by an authors’ editor with scientifi c qualifi cations. In the course, students are guided through the independent writing of a research paper using their own data, according to a scheme in which a paper is built up around the results. Through reading and critical discussion of published papers representing a range of qualities and topics, students develop a framework of knowledge that helps them assess the effectiveness of their own writing. They are supported throughout the course, in reading and writing, by the instructor’s knowledge of the research topics and methodologies. Subject specialists who work as language professionals and who acquire language teaching skills are uniquely positioned to develop courses for doctoral students in their own fi elds.

Key words: browsing, second-language reading, literature-based learning, peer discussion, small-group learning.

5

74

Supporting Research Writing

Reading in the research setting All research writing, like all research, is based on knowledge derived from the scientifi c literature. Researchers read the recent literature to understand the state of the art in their fi eld, follow its evolution, and expand their knowledge into related fi elds; these activities help them ask meaningful questions and plan effective studies. They also read the literature to appreciate how their new discoveries relate to prior knowledge; this enables them to integrate the new work into current thinking and thereby advance scientifi c understanding. Moreover, they read the unpublished literature, for different purposes and assuming different roles. In the academic setting, as a professional favour for colleagues, they read and comment on manuscripts in the fi nal phases of preparation. When their collaborators take the initiative to draft manuscripts, they read and revise the developing texts at multiple stages as part of the responsibility of becoming a named author. As peer reviewers, they read and review manuscripts submitted to journals for possible publication. Finally, they read and edit their own drafts of research papers, reviews, grant applications and more.

Scientifi c literacy, therefore, is fundamental for both research and writing. Together, they form a continuum in which reading stimulates research, leading to the writing of papers, which in turn are read by others who design new experiments and contribute additional reports to the literature. Reading also directly impacts upon a researcher’s own writing, not only through the provision of needed facts, but also from the experience of trying to interpret others’ writings and from the familiarity with the research paper genre that is gained in the process.

The reading done in the research setting is not (or should not be) the same as that used for general comprehension of everyday texts. It is not linear reading, from start (abstract) to end (conclusions), nor does it give equal importance to all parts of a text. It is strategic reading, i.e. performed with particular goals in mind and according to a systematic but self-regulated and fl exible approach that adapts to the characteristics of the text being read (Dewitz 1997). Strategic reading is selective, non-linear, forward-and-backward and, especially for online text, involves referral to online supplementary material, cited papers, databases of molecular sequences, chemical structures, registered clinical protocols, and more (Renear and Palmer 2009). It is also critical reading, i.e. performed to analyse, probe, question and evaluate the text being read. Critical reading permits one to assess the relevance, accuracy and credibility of a text, to determine if there is adequate evidence and justifi cation to support the

75

Strategic, critical reading to teach scientifi c writing

authors’ claims, and to understand implications, generalizability and applicability.

Doctoral students, early career researchers and physicians who approach clinical research late in their careers may not be skilled in strategic, critical reading. They may lack an effective approach for identifying pertinent research articles (e.g. when doing bibliographic research) or for distinguishing rigorous, credible papers from faulty, dubious ones. They may not be naturally sceptical or, if they trained in environments that discouraged the questioning of teachers and other ‘experts’, may have learned to avoid critiquing. If they are unfamiliar with the process of scientifi c publishing, they may assume that the literature is by defi nition valid; they may be more likely to blame their inability to understand a text on their own lack of knowledge rather than on the authors’ weak argumentation. These issues are compounded for non-native English speaking (NNES) researchers: limited vocabulary (Schmitt et al. 2011; Hellekjaer 2009) and slow reading (Hellekjaer 2009) are major barriers to second-language academic reading comprehension. Moreover, when faced with a confusing text, NNES researchers may blame their own language skills rather than those of the authors. Therefore, teaching reading strategies to researchers-in-training, especially those who use English as an additional language, should help them with both their research and their research writing.

Strategic, critical reading may be learned in the context of subject-specifi c courses and journal clubs, where students evaluate and discuss recent reports from their fi eld under the guidance of a skilled group leader (Deenadayalan et al. 2008). It can also be explicitly taught in scientifi c writing courses, where students evaluate the published literature as a counterpart to self-criticism and revision of their own fi rst drafts of research papers. This chapter describes the use of strategic, critical reading as the basis for teaching research writing to NNES doctoral candidates in the basic biomedical sciences.

A writing course based on reading To help explain the rationale for the course’s design, which is a product of my own education and professional experiences, I should provide some personal background. I studied biochemistry and cellular and molecular biology at US universities at a time when there had already been a shift away from lecture-based teaching to individualized,

76


peer-discussion-based learning, as recounted by my own professor (Calvo 1978). In both college and graduate school, I received informal yet rigorous training in reading and writing research papers. Although I was never taught specifi c strategies, I learned implicitly and through mentoring. After a postdoctoral stint and several years of research in industry, involving a move to Italy, I decided to work independently in editing and related services. I began by copy-editing for English-language medical journals published in Italy, where I observed errors in writing indicating that the authors were unfamiliar with the structure of a research paper and with scientifi c reporting conventions; these problems suggested to me that the authors did not have an effective approach to reading in their discipline.

When presented with the opportunity to lead some reading-the-literature workshops for local physicians, I recalled my own fi rst literature-reading course at Cornell University where we were given a research paper and, after a few minutes and without any instruction, were expected to discuss tables and fi gures. Mimicking but trying to improve on that, I devised a simple method to help workshop participants look inside a paper’s contents rather than start with the often poorly legible abstract. The six-step method, called ‘browsing’ ( Table 5.1 ), permits a fi rst quick appraisal of research papers in about as much time as it takes to read an abstract (Matarese 2006). The method involves scanning for specifi c content and quality indicators particular to biomedical research papers in IMRaD format (or in related variant formats) and reading short parts of the text body. In the workshops, I combined lessons on the scientifi c method, the organization of a research paper and indicators of quality with practice sessions where participants read in small groups, then presented and discussed the papers according to elements defi ned in the browsing method. Already in these fi rst experiences I saw how this didactic approach helped the participants begin in-depth reading (going beyond the abstract) and gain confi dence to discuss issues such as the credibility and applicability of the studies. Convinced about the effectiveness of the approach, when I was invited to teach scientifi c writing in a graduate programme in molecular medicine, a fi eld close to my own, I based the course on reading as this was, in my mind, the best way to show what the research literature is, how it is produced and consumed, and what determines its successful impact.

Course design, prerequisites, conduct

‘Effective Biomedical Reading and Writing’ is a course designed for graduate students (or early stage researchers) who have already generated

77


Step Action Key issues

Title Determine the paper’s main subject and its investigative approach, in context of the journal in which it is published

Concerns about declarative titles

Authors Take note of authors’ names and affi liations. Refer to endnotes for authors’ contributions, funding sources, confl icts of interest and other information giving perspective to the study

Relationship between the fame of authors (and institutions) and the quality of research. Importance of recognizing groups of researchers in one’s own fi eld. How a confl ict of interest can lead to biased results and conclusions

Study objectives

Focus on end of the Introduction for a statement of the hypothesis tested and, ideally, a statement of action (experimental approach)

Problems posed by Introduction sections summarizing results

Graphic elements

Examine each table and fi gure in sequence, collecting information on study materials, tests performed, main outcome measures and key fi ndings. Read fi gure legends and table titles and footnotes in detail

Graphic elements should be understandable without referring to the text. Distinction between well written and poorly written papers, regarding presentation of results

Authors’ interpretation

Refer to the Discussion for a summary of key outcomes. Assess authors’ interpretation in light of what emerged from a rapid reading of fi gures and tables

The Discussion section is often written freely without a standard structure, making this the most diffi cult step of browsing

References Scan citations for a preliminary evaluation of: overall interest and orientation of the subject (cited journals); urgency or novelty of the subject and authors’ awareness of the recent literature (dates of citations); strength of the supporting evidence (types of cited documents)

These parameters are not absolute indicators of importance and quality but permit an immediate evaluation

* This method is taught immediately following a lesson on the characteristics and structure of a research paper.

Source: Modifi ed from Matarese (2006) with permission.

Six steps of browsing, a fast, superfi cial but structured approach for the fi rst evaluation of a biomedical research paper, designed to substitute abstract reading*

Table 5.1

78


some original data that can be the basis for writing an—albeit preliminary—research paper. As the course was developed for Italian students but materials, lessons and discussions are entirely in English, a second requirement for participation is English profi ciency in the four skills of language, namely listening, speaking, reading and writing.

The course is held on seven or more days, at intervals of approximately two weeks, throughout one academic semester. Each day of the course offers two or three classroom lessons (30–60 minutes each) interspersed with two or three practice sessions of reading in small teams, presentation to the class and discussion (each 60–120 minutes). This design refl ects current best practices in the teaching of science. In particular, the emphasis on small-group learning enhances conceptual understanding and promotes critical thinking skills (Gaudet et al. 2010). Moreover, the use of peer discussion and instructor-led critical debate enhances scientifi c reasoning abilities (Osborne 2010). A seven-day programme for 15–20 participants is outlined in Table 5.2 . For more students or for less-intense days, the programme can be spread over eight to ten days (16–20

Content and structure of the course ‘Effective Biomedical Reading and Writing’, as organized for a seven-day programme

Table 5.2

Day Main lesson (selected subtopics)

Practice sessions Assignment

1 Biomedical research journals (characteristics; quality; performance; open access; peer review). Articles published by research journals (types; IMRaD as guide for reading; problems with abstract-only reading; browsing ). Designing graphic elements (tables and fi gures)

Simple browsing* Browsing with discussion on graphic elements

Preparation of one or two graphic elements using one’s own data

2 Basic techniques of scientifi c writing (sentence–paragraph–section; verbs and IMRaD; facilitating reading by formatting and punctuating). Writing the Results

Scientifi c writing exercises. Browsing with discussion on results. Preparing graphic elements

Revise graphic elements. Write the Results

79


3 Writing process, part I (before you start; authorship; outlining; drafting). Writing the Materials and methods

Browsing with discussion on methods and results. Writing texts to accompany fi gures and tables

Revise text (Results, graphic elements). Write the Materials and methods

4 Statistics in scientifi c writing. Writing the Introduction

Browsing with discussion on statistics. Browsing with discussion on the Introduction. Mapping one’s own Introduction

Revise text (Materials and methods, Results, graphic elements). Write the Introduction

5 Original professional writing (citation; quotation; paraphrasing; plagiarism). Writing the Discussion

Paraphrasing exercises. Browsing with discussion on citation and the Discussion. Mapping one’s own Discussion

Revise text (Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, graphic elements). Write the Discussion

6 Writing the Abstract. Completing the text with closing notes (contributors, funding, confl ict of interest, acknowledgements). Writing process, part II (revising)

Peer review in class, I: exchange of papers and informal discussion in pairs. Browsing complex texts with critical discussion

Revise text (Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, graphic elements). Complete the text with closing notes

7 Introduction to peer review. Corresponding with journals about submissions (cover letter, inquiry letter). Responding effectively to peer reviewers and editors

Peer review in class, II: random exchange of papers in class followed by formal open review. Closing: instructor-led discussion on issues of writing and publishing

None

* All browsing sessions involve the reading of research papers in groups of three to four, presentation of the papers by group representatives and moderated discussion.

80


weeks). Larger groups require longer practice sessions to accommodate more reading teams while giving everyone a chance to participate in discussion. However, groups of over 25 students are diffi cult to manage.

The fi rst lessons introduce the context of biomedical research journals and the articles published therein. The origins of IMRaD in the scientifi c method are explained and then the complete structure of a biomedical research paper is examined from the viewpoint of the reader. The abstract is presented as a part of the text important for bibliographic research—both searching and selecting papers worthy of further examination—but not for comprehension given the many known problems of abstract-only reading. (As discussed in Matarese (2006), reasons to avoid reading the abstract as a surrogate for the full paper include its generally poor legibility, the lack of information on the level of evidence of the reported results, and the high likelihood of fi nding errors and inconsistencies with the text body.) At this point, in the afternoon of the fi rst day, browsing is presented. The method is illustrated by the instructor and then the students break into teams of three or four and browse a simple paper. For small classes (two or three teams) each team has a different paper but, for larger classes, each paper is read by two teams to keep sessions manageable in terms of both time and students’ attention. The teams have 15–20 minutes to browse a paper and discuss it among themselves. Then, the PDF is projected while one team’s representative presents the article to the class according to the steps of browsing ( Table 5.1 ). The instructor leads a discussion between the presenter, his team and, in large classes, the ‘competing’ team (which read the same paper but may have formed a different viewpoint), while those who did not read the paper are encouraged to ask questions (15–20 minutes). In particular, the instructor explains unknown terminology and methodologies, points out important issues of statistical analysis, and answers queries on any aspect of the research. The second and possibly third papers are presented in the same manner to complete a one-hour session.

Once the basic method of browsing is established, the course continues with alternating lessons and practice sessions ( Table 5.2 ). Main lessons address key steps of writing a research paper following a strategy that, again, has roots in my education. In this strategy, a paper is built up from the presentation of data in tables and fi gures (day 1), with the progressive addition of accompanying paragraphs of Results (day 2), then Materials and methods (day 3), an Introduction (day 4), a Discussion (day 5), and closing notes (day 6). These lessons describe the fi ne organizational

81


structure of IMRaD sections, provide strategies for writing each one, and emphasize the need to address the reader; this last point is achieved by noting the different reading patterns used, for example, by competitors, colleagues, students and journalists. The lessons on composing IMRaD sections are intermixed with others addressing supporting topics such as basic writing techniques (day 2), statistical reporting (day 3), citation and paraphrasing (day 5), revising (day 6), submission and peer review (day 7). This strategy permits each day of the course to focus on one IMRaD section and one supporting topic.

The practice sessions usually consist of browsing and instructor-moderated discussion, matched to the preceding lesson. However, the more challenging lessons, such as those on designing graphic elements, writing Results and paraphrasing, are also accompanied by in-class exercises in which published papers with inadequate scientifi c reporting are used to explore strategies for improvement. Examples of exercises are redoing tables, improving fi gure legends and writing more captivating opening sentences of Results. Each day is matched with a homework assignment in which students individually write a brief research paper, using their own data, section by section. The writing assignments are delivered by e-mail to the instructor for review and editing, focusing on scientifi c content, organization and logic rather than grammar. The manuscripts are returned at the next lesson, and major issues are discussed in short conferences between instructor and student. As the course advances, students revise their corrected drafts and continue to build their articles by adding sections.

From browsing to strategic critical reading and on to effective biomedical writing

A key design element of the browsing sessions is the selection of papers from outside participants’ immediate area of expertise. This choice is motivated by the consideration that, when reading inside one’s own area, personal knowledge may obscure inadequacies in the communication of the science by ‘fi lling in the blanks’ for missing or unclear information. Instead, when deciphering new topics based only on reading, problems of poor scientifi c communication are exposed and the reader is sensitized to the need for clear, rigorous reporting. Thus, in the course, papers are chosen from essentially any area of basic biomedical research covered by the bibliographic database MEDLINE. Students may protest at having to read outside their comfort zone, so this course feature must be explained

82


from the beginning. Inclusion of a few papers of students’ direct interest on the last days of the course helps them appreciate how much their reading skills have changed.

Other criteria for the selection of papers are brevity, necessary for keeping the course on schedule, and a variety of fi gures and tables. Papers read in the fi rst days of the course are methodologically easy, but later complex papers are used. Quality is purposely not a selection criterion but rather papers are chosen irrespective of journal prestige. Moreover, the instructor does not read the papers before class, to avoid any ‘advantage’ during the browsing sessions and to maintain a surprise effect. Thus, it has happened that students were asked to browse retracted articles as well as papers written by authors with confl icts of interest due to ties to industry (whether declared or only suspected). This varied quality keeps discussions lively.

As the course progresses, the browsing sessions are not rigidly tied to the six-step method but evolve into real critical appraisal exercises as the students advance in their knowledge and skills. With greater confi dence about scientifi c reporting conventions, students naturally complement the basic browsing method with strategic reading of parts of text to understand assumptions, fi nd essential background and clarify methods. Although critical reading is not formally taught in the course—nor can a full appraisal be done in 20 minutes—students become increasingly sensitive to issues of quality and credibility. They notice when paragraphs are well structured, sections have a clear fl ow of information, fi gures are convincing, tables are precise. They recognize insuffi cient explanations, contorted arguments, confusing tables, doubtful statistics, unhelpful collocation of citations and weak references. During the discussions that follow the presentations, the instructor encourages students to verbalize their impressions by explaining that the critiques focus on the written text and are not personal attacks on authors. Moreover, the instructor makes sure that exaggerated negative criticism is counterbalanced by fair analysis and that unusual but accepted means of presentation particular to certain fi elds (e.g. biochemists’ placement of methodological details in fi gure legends) are explained.

The experiences with browsing and critical discussion of published research papers have observable benefi ts. Students develop a consumer approach to the literature, whereby they expect articles to be rigorous, clear, concise and quickly understandable, and they learn to distinguish quality texts from poor ones. Thus, they establish a framework of knowledge with which to understand the instructor’s comments on their own writing and to guide their own review of classmates’ writing during

83


in-class peer review. They discover that they can become leaders not only in research but also in writing by developing a personal voice and establishing precise scientifi c terminology; this frees them from copying imperfect phrases and mimicking the poor writing found in some papers. They go through the process of writing a research paper on their own, at home, and therefore get fi rst-hand experience applying the notions taught in class. They experience what it means to be edited and reviewed, by both the instructor and classmates, and learn to use the feedback to advantage. Guided by the instructor’s comments on the scientifi c content and organization of their drafts, they self-edit ineffective passages and revise entire sections. Therefore, they come to appreciate that their success in scientifi c writing depends much more on being in control of content than on improving English.

In the fi rst four editions of ‘Effective Biomedical Reading and Writing’, students performed in-class activities and home writing assignments at different levels. Each year, a few students struggled due to inadequate English profi ciency. Aspects of course design that nonetheless helped them were the distribution of lecture notes and the emphasis on small-group reading, where participants with different levels of comprehension shared knowledge. Other students were unable to attend all lessons, due to laboratory obligations or study travel (frequent in today’s graduate training), and thus were unable to complete their papers. In place of a fi nal examination, during the last edition I opted to lead a discussion on key aspects of scientifi c writing, from data presentation to publication ethics. At the end of the hour, the satisfaction in the students’ faces at being able to speak on these issues, in English and among peers, was my best reward.

A stand-alone reading module The reading activities of ‘Effective Biomedical Reading and Writing’ can form a stand-alone module appropriate for persons who use, but do not produce, scientifi c literature. In particular, employees in the health care industry, such as those organizing post-marketing studies, need to critically appraise the literature about their own products and those of the competitors. Moreover, some practising physicians may be curious to approach the research literature as a complement to their reading of summarized evidence, whereas medical librarians may use the knowledge to better serve their own clients. The short reading module developed out of the initial reading workshops for local doctors and subsequent editions

84


for graduate students and hospital physicians; these experiences have been published (Matarese 2006). Over time the programme has been further refi ned and now addresses the following main topics: biomedical journals; types of articles; IMRaD as a guide to reading; problems of abstract-only reading; browsing; reading the results (numerical data, tables and fi gures); clinical study design; descriptive and inferential statistics; how statistics are reported (and common errors in statistical reporting); critical reading; and challenges that researchers face when writing and the implications this may have for readers.

The reading module requires 12–16 hours, depending on the number of participants and therefore on the time for practice sessions. It is divided into four half-day sessions, held consecutively or spread over weeks. Each half-day comprises lessons and browsing sessions, conducted as in the writing course. The only prerequisite for participation is English reading profi ciency, as lectures and discussion can be in the participants’ fi rst language. Nonetheless, English scientifi c terminology is used (in addition to native language terms) and participants are asked to read aloud extracts of class material in English to bring home important messages.

Even without lessons on scientifi c reporting, participants of the reading-only module exhibit the same increase in confi dence in navigating a research paper, presenting it and critically discussing it as do those who take the complete course. This impact is immediately observable during subsequent browsing sessions. On the fi rst day, despite a lesson on browsing, participants tend to start by reading the abstract, underlining or highlighting its sentences. In later sessions, this behaviour is no longer seen and instead most participants read strategically, fl ipping through the paper from closing notes to Introduction, on to the fi gures and so on, immediately discussing with colleagues. They begin to recognize data presentation inadequacies and weak arguments, and they start to discuss the impact of the quality of the results and the sources of funding on the credibility of the conclusions. The short-term effects of the course might be described as empowering the reader. The transformation is so intense as to suggest that even a reading-only module could directly benefi t researchers’ writing.

The reading–research–writing continuum The full course designed for Italian doctoral students, in which the connection between reading and writing is emphasized, seems to be a

85


strong complement to their laboratory-based learning and research endeavours. By providing these young researchers with reading strategies that can be practised and developed throughout their careers, the course should positively impact on their ability to learn and to plan meaningful research. The browsing sessions demonstrate how the course enables them to distinguish rigorous from inadequate research communication; it is hoped that this scientifi c literacy will help them avoid common reporting errors. Instruction in text development, namely how to construct paragraphs and link them logically in sections which are then joined into a complete paper, is supported in the course by browsing sessions in which these features in published texts are specifi cally assessed; this knowledge should help course participants write reports that will effectively communicate their research. Finally, inclusion of discussions on publication ethics (especially plagiarism, authorship, confl ict of interest), using the papers read in class as real-life examples, should sensitize this new generation of researchers to issues of transparency, accuracy and honesty in scientifi c writing.

‘Effective Biomedical Reading and Writing’ uses several particular teaching strategies. The main didactic methods, namely small-group learning and moderated critical discussion with peers, are in line with current best practices in science education. The quick reading technique, browsing, is empowering because it frees students from the abstract and facilitates the transition to critical reading. The strategy of writing research papers by starting with graphic elements and adding sections in a particular order (Results → Materials and methods → Introduction → Discussion → Abstract) is of crucial importance. This approach is used by individual biomedical researchers and is recommended in Writing scientifi c research articles: strategy and steps (Cargill and O’Connor 2009). A similar ‘writing algorithm’ has been proposed by biologists as a guide for NNES researchers preparing a fi rst draft (O’Connor and Holmquist 2009). However, this results-focused approach is not standard practice: many guides on how to write research papers advocate a linear approach, namely from title and abstract to Discussion, whereas some recommend other disputable schemes such as starting with Methods. These guides ignore the central role of results in communicating and interpreting research.

The importance of learning from the primary research literature, as a key step in preparing future researchers, has been recognized in the biomedical sciences for many years. Recent trends in the USA are to offer advanced undergraduate courses that combine critical analysis of research papers, original research, and scientifi c communication in the form of

86


presentations and report writing (Kozeracki et al. 2006; Colabroy 2011). These courses are based on the idea that ‘the literature-based learning necessary for scientifi c experimentation and writing—in essence, reading to write, is most effectively mastered when embedded within the context of original research’ (Colabroy 2011). Teaching literature analysis and scientifi c writing at the advanced undergraduate level is also advantageous because, once these students have entered graduate or medical school, their attention is focused on other matters more directly pertinent to their future careers (Adams 2011).

While the course described here also espouses the idea that scientifi c literacy is essential for both research and research writing, it differs in a practical sense in that it is designed for doctoral students who are already exposed to academic research but who, as undergraduates, were not taught scientifi c writing skills. Moreover, rather than combining literature-based learning with classroom experimentation, this course detaches reading from research by selecting papers from outside the students’ immediate areas of expertise. This strategy, chosen to better expose issues of poor scientifi c writing, refl ects the fact that the course is about biomedical research writing and does not aim to teach a specifi c sub-discipline of this fi eld. Nevertheless, an important component of the didactic effectiveness of the course resides in the instructor’s understanding of the research topics and methodologies of both the articles discussed in class (so questions can be fi elded) and the texts drafted by students (so reporting errors can be corrected).

In the biomedical sciences, it is not rare for research writing to be taught by subject specialists, as shown by the numerous contributions on the topic in journals such as Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education and CBE Life Sciences Education . Subject specialists as writing teachers have the advantages of discipline-specifi c knowledge and deep familiarity with the particular genre and rhetorical conventions of their fi eld. However, as pointed out by Burgess and Pallant (2013) earlier in this volume, subject specialists may lack the language teaching skills needed to make these courses truly successful. This additional knowledge can be acquired through specifi c training or by teaming up with a language specialist.

One example of how a language specialist can support academic faculty in teaching scientifi c writing is given by Adams (2011). This university writing specialist developed an advanced undergraduate course called ‘Writing in Neuroscience’ in response to an explicit request from the neuroscience faculty. The topics addressed by the course (including genre familiarity, audience analysis, writing process, literature

87


review, style and mechanics) refl ected the linguistic orientation of the instructor. Once the course became an established part of the curriculum, however, the instructor chose to pass the teaching responsibilities to the neuroscience faculty who, as a result of ‘being immersed in the literature of their discipline, are the logical instructors’ as they can ‘address both the content and the composition of the assignments’ (Adams 2011). This transition nevertheless required the language professional to support the faculty in their new, unfamiliar teaching duty. The experiences with this neuroscience writing course led to the suggestion that scientists and composition faculty working together may design writing courses that are more effective than any course either could develop alone.

A similar combination of disciplinary knowledge and linguistic expertise might be found in experienced editors and translators who have an advanced degree in any area of science and who work in their own fi eld. Because these language professionals are knowledgeable about the research questions and methods in their fi eld and are also familiar with the discipline’s publishing paradigms, they may be asked to develop ad hoc scientifi c writing courses for students and young researchers. If they acquire language teaching skills through continuing professional development and expand their knowledge into pertinent areas of linguistics, such as genre analysis and writing process, the courses they develop may be particularly effective. When this expertise is complemented by fi rst-hand knowledge of the challenges that researchers from a particular linguistic–cultural background face when publishing, language professionals with scientifi c qualifi cations can be a valuable adjunct to faculty at non-anglophone universities.

Learning points ■ Scientifi c reading and writing are inseparable and form a continuum

with research.

■ Teaching strategic, critical reading to graduate students benefi ts both their research and their writing.

■ As students progress from simple browsing to critical reading, they develop a framework of knowledge that helps them assess the effectiveness of their own writing and that of peers.

■ For non-native English speaking researchers to succeed in publishing, control of content is more important than perfect English.

88


■ Language professionals with scientifi c qualifi cations who acquire language teaching skills can develop effective research writing courses for students in their own fi eld.

Acknowledgements This chapter is dedicated to all my teachers, from public school to university and into my early research career, for having taught me scientifi c reasoning and the essence and issues of effective scientifi c communication.

References Adams J. ( 2011 ) ‘ Writing in neuroscience’: a course designed for neuroscience

undergraduate students . Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education , 10 ( 1 ): A50 – 7 . Available from: http://www.funjournal.org/images/stories/downloads/2011_Volume_10_Issue_1/adams_10_1_a50_a57.pdf (accessed 27 April 2012 ).

Burgess S. , Pallant A. ( 2013 ) Teaching academic writing in Europe: multilingual and multicultural contexts . In: Matarese V ., editor. Supporting research writing: roles and challenges in multilingual settings . Oxford : Chandos , pp. 19 – 38 .

Calvo J. ( 1978 ) Individualized instruction of biochemistry at Cornell University. A summary of experience after ten semesters . Biochemical Education , 6 ( 4 ): 78 – 9 . Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/0307-4412(78)90005-5/pdf (accessed 27 April 2012 ).

Cargill M. , O’Connor P. ( 2009 ) Writing scientifi c research articles: strategy and steps . Chichester : Wiley-Blackwell .

Colabroy K. ( 2011 ) A writing-intensive, methods-based laboratory course for undergraduates . Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 29 ( 3 ): 196 – 201 .

Deenadayalan Y. , Grimmer-Sommers K. , Prio M. , Kumar S. ( 2008 ) How to run an effective journal club: a systematic review . Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice , 14 : 898 – 911 .

Dewitz P. ( 1997 ) Legal education: a problem of learning from text . Review of Law and Social Change , XXIII : 225 – 47 .

Gaudet A.D. , Ramer L.M. , Nakonechny J. , Cragg J.J. , Ramer M.S. ( 2010 ) Small-group learning in an upper-level university biology class enhances academic performance and student attitudes toward group work . PLoS One , 5 ( 12 ): e15821 . Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015821 (accessed 27 April 2012 ).

Hellekjaer G.O. ( 2009 ) Academic English reading profi ciency at the university level: a Norwegian case study . Reading in a Foreign Language , 21 ( 2 ): 198 – 222 .

89


Kozeracki C.A. , Carey M.F. , Colicelli J. , Levis-Fitzgerald J. ( 2006 ) An intensive primary-literature-based teaching program directly benefi ts undergraduate science majors and facilitates their transition to doctoral programs . CBE Life Sciences Education , 5 : 340 – 7 . Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-02-0144 (accessed 27 April 2012 ).

Matarese V. ( 2006 ) An introductory course on getting to know journals and on ‘browsing’ a research paper: fi rst steps to profi ciency in scientifi c communication . Croatian Medical Journal , 47 : 767 – 75 . Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2080472 (accessed 27 April 2012 ).

O’Connor T.R. , Holmquist G.P. ( 2009 ) Algorithm for writing a scientifi c manuscript . Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 37 ( 6 ): 344 – 8 . Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20329 (accessed 27 April 2012 ).

Osborne J. ( 2010 ) Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse . Science , 328 : 463 – 6 . Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944 (accessed 27 April 2012 ).

Renear A.H. , Palmer C.L. ( 2009 ) Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientifi c publishing . Science , 325 ( 5942 ): 828 – 32 . Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1157784 (accessed 27 April 2012 ).

Schmitt N. , Jiang X. , Grabe W. ( 2011 ) The percentage of words known in text and reading comprehension . The Modern Language Journal , 95 : 26 – 45 . Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x (accessed 27 April 2012 ).

Documents

Supporting Research Writing || Using strategic, critical reading of research papers to teach scientific writing: the reading–research–writing continuum