Kellogg, David and Cary Moskovitz. “Primary Science Communication in the First-Year Writing Course.” College Composition and Communication 57.2 (Dec 2005): 307-34.
Only three years into teaching this course, I own review copies of at least fifteen textbooks and anthologies; one could say that I’ve struggled to identify readings that will best achieve my course goals. I have gotten some of the best mileage from non-literary essays (Neal Osherow’s “Making Sense of the Nonsensical: An Analysis of Jonestown” is a favorite), but time and uncertainty have kept me from hunting for individual essays that might suit my purposes. For this reason, several articles on science writing have recently caught my attention. The most immediately applicable is Moskovitz and Kellogg’s case for reading primary science communication in the classroom.
Their article identifies and demonstrates the lack of true science writing (as opposed to science-related texts from general interest sources) in composition anthologies. They go on to respond to reservations instructors might raise to teaching such texts. Some may object to PSC because it is too discipline-specific, preventing students from transferring understanding of it to other texts, but the authors contend that this is a problem with teaching context and transferability, not a problem of PSC; indeed, they see the same problems with all texts, including literary ones. Others may be concerned that PSC is distinctly different from other texts and cannot be smoothly integrated with them, but Moskovitz and Kellogg point out the rhetorical functions found in PSC texts that resemble those in other arguments (claims, evidence, qualification, etc.). A table they provide convincingly demonstrates this point. In discussing the readily recognizable features of argument found in scientific writing, with its reliance on IMRAD organization, as a benefit for students new to analyzing arguments, the authors recognize another potential objection: that science writing encourages formula. They note, however that 1) they propose that students read, not write, PSC, and 2) IMRAD responds to “the rhetorical needs of the scientific community,” unlike the five-paragraph essay (317). The authors make several different responses to objections regarding the difficulty of scientific texts, then conclude this section with a warning that instructors’ own interest in and understanding of the humanities should not blind them to students’ abilities and interests in other areas.
After a discussion of schoolwide implications of introducing PSC in composition courses, the authors address the details of doing so. They offer criteria for selecting texts, which are commonsensical (accessible, understandable, no high-level math), and provide general advice on topics (global warming: no, memory: yes). They suggest examining the bibliographies of general interest science articles to find PSC on topics the public can understand, as well as using such secondary scientific communication in conjunction with PSC. Finally, the authors offer general but useful suggestions on assignments that invite students to work with PSC in practical and thought-provoking ways. The article’s impressive completeness, from the idea of including PSC to effective execution, has convinced me that my students could benefit from my inclusion of one reading and assignment (which might seem too little had the authors not specifically mentioned a single assignment as a valid option). I am intimidated, however, by the prospect of finding an appropriate text for such an activity.
My last blog posting will be about a (IMRAD) study investigating transfer of learning from the general writing classroom to other courses in other disciplines. One of the findings was that transfer appeared more in humanities and social science courses than in hard science courses. I would speculate that the reason in part has to do with the absence of true science articles in composition anthologies that the article you write about here discusses.
ReplyDelete