Part of my recent research has involved looking into the global landscape of science ESP and in particular the increasingly rich and varied approaches to teaching of scientific writing skills at UG level in other institutions around the world. Below is a brief snapshot from part of this research, for the purpose of sharing one of my own takeaways with colleagues: a reminder of the importance of taking a step outside our own contexts, to get fresh inspiration from diverse contexts when it comes to course development. 

Higher education institutions across the world increasingly recognize the need to help build students’ writing skills. However, instruction in scientific writing has traditionally been prioritized at postgraduate level. At undergraduate level, although there has been increasing focus on scientific literacy and recognition of the importance of the skills of scientific writing, formal training in such skills has not been widely offered (Brownell et al., 2013a) until more recently. Many undergraduate curricula still lack attention to reading and writing of scientific literature, such as those in US contexts reported by Lampert and Pearson (2021). Many others lack coherent opportunities across the years to develop writing skills, as reported in Australian contexts (Mercer-Mapstone & Matthews, 2015). And recent efforts to promote writing-to-learn practices at undergraduate level are not broadly implemented in STEM disciplines nor always effective (Moon et al., 2018); hampered by limited translation of the research into practice amongst other issues (Thompson et al., 2021). These concerns are echoed across the literature exploring tertiary institutions worldwide.  

However, some institutions around the world are starting to offer varied undergraduate support which could be built on to help develop students’ scientific writing skills. In North American and European contexts a wide range of learning opportunities beyond the formal curriculum are reported on. These include opportunities to participate in informal science outreach requiring communicating science with the public (Brownell et al., 2013b) and writing retreats supporting undergraduate projects (Sangster, 2021) and the expansion of undergraduate mentorship initiatives and programmes in scientific writing skills. Alongside many US and European student journals are also several student scientific journals from Cuba (Corrales-Reyes & Dorta-Contreras, 2018) and elsewhere, which undergraduates have opportunity to both write for and edit. In addition, a range of different types of formal instruction are reported on globally with a variety of pedagogies. Researcher-designed intervention courses which focus on discussion of seminal papers and peer evaluation of writing are reported in a Chinese student context (Deng et al., 2019). In North American contexts, courses have been designed to mimic the peer review and publishing process (Guilford, 2001), link composition courses to scientific discipline courses (Lampert & Pearson, 2021) and incorporate writing instruction into laboratory courses (Dansereau et al., 2020). Other institutions around the world are expanding programmes in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and discipline-specific language courses, particularly in Asian countries (Petraki & Khat, 2020) and our own HKUST context.  

All of these approaches and various others (more detail on this link) appear to have potential to contribute to some extent to undergraduates’ emerging skills in scientific writing style, and could serve as a spark of inspiration and fresh thinking for our own context. 

References 

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013a). A writing-intensive course improves biology undergraduates’ perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature and communicate science. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(1), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2012 

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013b). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education : JUNE : A publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 12(1), E6–E10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24319399 

Corrales-Reyes, I. E., & Dorta-Contreras, A. J. (2018). Students’ scientific production: A proposal to encourage it. Medwave, 18(01), e7166. https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2018.01.7166 

Dansereau, D., Carmichael, L., & Hotson, B. (2020). Research and teaching: Building first-year science writing skills with an embedded writing instruction program. Journal of College Science Teaching, 049(03). https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst20_049_03_66 

Deng, Y., Kelly, G. J., & Deng, S. (2019). The influences of integrating reading, peer evaluation, and discussion on undergraduate students’ scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 1408–1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1610811 

Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 25(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167 

Lampert, E., & Pearson, J. S. (2021). Use of a linked-course model to scientific writing to first-year undergraduates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 50(4), 58–66. https://www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-marchapril-2021 

Mercer-Mapstone, L. D., & Matthews, K. E. (2015). Student perceptions of communication skills in undergraduate science at an Australian research-intensive university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1084492 

Moon, A., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2018). Writing in the STEM classroom: Faculty conceptions of writing and its role in the undergraduate classroom. Science Education, 102(5), 1007–1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21454 

Petraki, E., & Khat, K. (2020). Challenges and constraints in the design of an ESP course in Cambodia: Implications for higher education institutions. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1798738 

Sangster, H. (2021). The use of “writing retreats” in supporting geography and environmental science undergraduate independent research projects. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2021.2007525 

Thompson, R.J., Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S.A., Shultz, G., Gere, A.R., Schmid, L., Dowd, J.E., Mburi, M., Schiff, L.A., Flash, P., & Reynolds, J.A. (2021). How faculty discipline and beliefs influence instructional uses of writing in STEM undergraduate courses at research-intensive universities. Journal of Writing Research, 12(3), 625–656. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.12.03.04 

As emerging scientists learn to produce the traditional scientific research article genre and other genres of scientific writing, they develop their identity as a science writer. Their scientific thinking is developed through and reflected in the rigorous, concise, direct and consistent use of language to express precise ideas, and the clear distinction made between fact and speculation. In the process, many emerging scientists become more aware of the nuances and complexities of language style. And some are faced with the challenge of reassessing the oversimplified language rules and incomplete advice they may have learned at lower levels of education in order to produce this genre confidently and effectively.

For students and educators keen to develop their knowledge and skills regarding language styles for scientific writing, there is no short supply of published advice. Part of my recent research has involved exploring the literature and published sources advice and guidelines for developing good scientific writing styles. My book chapter summarizes how these sources address various aspects of scientific writing style including at the lexical and discourse level, expression of writer identity, demonstration of reader awareness, issues with oversimplification of language rules, misconceptions in writing style, expressions of authorial voice, changes in uses of hedges and boosters over time in science, expressions of whispers of human judgement, and use of figurative language. Some of this might be of use to fellow colleagues interested in academic writing, technical disciplines or the science remit in general.

I am keen to hear from any colleagues with interest in collaborating on scholarship in this area.

Useful reading:

de Alencar, M. S., & de Alencar, T. T. (2017). Scientific style in English (River Publishers Series in Innovation and Change in Education - Cross-cultural Perspective). River Publishers. 

Gopen, G., & Swan, J. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 78(6), 550-558.  

Greene, A. E. (2013). Writing science in plain English. Amsterdam University Press. 

Kirkman, J. (2005). Good style: Writing for science and technology (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203023655   

Grossman, F. (2019). Scientific objective style and author positioning in academic writing. In F. Komesu & J. Alves Assis (Eds.), Práticas discursivas em letramento acadêmico: Questões em estudo (Vol. 1, pp. 64–76). Editora PUC Minas. 

Gruber, D. R., & Olman, L. C. (2019). The Routledge handbook of language and science (Routledge handbooks in linguistics). Routledge. 

Heard, S. (2014). On whimsy, jokes, and beauty: Can scientific writing be enjoyed? Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 7(1), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2014.7.14.f 

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00035-8 

Kuhi, D. (2017). Hybridity of scientific discourses: An intertextual perspective and implications for ESP pedagogy. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamic and Advances, 5(2), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2018.26150.1048 

Lindsay, D. (2020). Scientific writing = Thinking in words (2nd ed.). CSIRO Publishing. 

Mercer-Mapstone, L. D., & Kuchel, L. (2017). Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573 

Pisano, A., Crawford, A., Huffman, H., Graham, B., & Kelp, N. (2021). Development and validation of a universal science writing rubric that is applicable to diverse genres of science writing. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00189-21  

Pope-Ruark, R. (2011). Know thy audience: Helping students engage a threshold concept using audience-based pedagogy. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050106 

Poole, R., Gnann, A., & Hahn-Powell, G. (2019). Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A diachronic corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100784 

Scott, S. L., & Jones, C. W. (2017). Superlative Scientific Writing. ACS Catalysis, 7(3), 2218–2219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.7b00566 

Shapin, S. (2012). The sciences of subjectivity. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435375   

Xia, G. (2017). A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers’ use of first-person pronouns in academic English writing. Text & Talk, 38(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0032 

Through my recent action research I adopted an exploratory and emic approach to learn about science student perceptions of scientific writing styles and issues in reader-writer relationships.  

The action research involved 167 volunteer UG science students. Their perspectives were collected in three stages through the semester of various UG science courses. In stage 1 a 10-question open comment online survey probed students’ beliefs about writing style and reader awareness in the context of scientific reports and published papers, and encouraged students to critique various sources of publicly available online guidelines for scientific writing style. In stage 2 a 25-question Likert scale online survey was used to attempt to quantify student views on common themes emerging in stage 1. This elicited the extent to which students considered important key concepts in writing style, the reader-writer relationship, and personal epistemology about the science. In stage 3 multiple informal group discussions enabled students to qualify and expand on responses provided in the previous stages.    

The findings have implications for pedagogy, materials and course design. These are detailed in a forthcoming book chapter. 

In particular my findings might be of use to the science team as they look to reviewing the current curriculum. With the recent implementation of the new UG LANG302x courses, our UG curriculum now focusses on science communication with the public, while the PG curriculum remains focussed on scientific communication with scientists. I believe that bridging the gap between these different UG and PG focuses is now an important consideration for CLE in the coming few years – especially to support our research-oriented undergraduate students and for postgraduates without a solid writing background. 

My findings led to the following recommendations for our science curriculum: 

1. The core competency of audience awareness can be more deeply embedded across the curriculum, particularly in the writing components of courses not just the speaking components, given its heavy emphasis throughout the literature of scientific communication to both lay and expert audiences.  
     
2. Materials can be designed to elicit the parallels between the reader experience and writing style more explicitly, and designed to raise awareness of the active role played by the reader in the reader-writer relationship.  
    
3. Materials can be designed to encourage students to interrogate their prior knowledge, in order to extend it, rather than relying on oversimplified rules learned in earlier years of their education. 
    
4. Discourse-level analysis of writing style (not just lexical-based advice) can be foregrounded at earlier levels of undergraduate study.  
    
5. The use and merits of published papers and lab reports as model genres for learning about writing style can be questioned. Selected samples can be more rigorously selected and more purposefully analysed. 
    
6. CLE colleagues can work with departmental faculty across the curriculum to integrate learning-to-write tasks and writing-to-learn tasks coherently and consistently into existing programmes of study, through embedded modelling, feedback and practice, both directly and indirectly. 
    
7. Focussing on communicating with the public can be a relatable way to develop transferrable skills in audience awareness. Reproducing assignments for different audiences – public versus expert – can be a useful route to raising awareness of the key skills.