Jane Bottomley

Credit-bearing module on taught Chemistry Masters

CHEM61000 Research and Communication Skills

Highly collaborative:


course design, management, assessment
High degree of departmental appreciation of and
commitment to the course:

“a cornerstone of the taught Masters Chemistry
programme”

Semester 1


input on research and communication skills put into practice
through “Amazing Molecules” assessed essay and
presentation
Semester 2

fortnightly tutorials to support students as they produce a
pre-lab literature review for their research project
dissertation

‘Embrace’ writing as a means of developing and
communicating their chemistry knowledge, understanding and
ideas in a clear, coherent, conventional way

Develop awareness that the writing process itself is heuristic,
can clarify thinking, expose “woolly” thought (Woodford,
1967: 745) and lead to “further insights and connections over
and above those previously residing in notes or in thoughts”
(Swales, 1990: 221)

Use the writing process to help them develop as writers,
thinkers and scientists (Schultz, 2009; McIntyre, 1997: 200;
Turk and Kirkman, 1989; 18; Woodford, 1967; 743, 745)

Consider the competence and expectations of an
actual reader, and to anticipate the reader’s
experience as they move through the text

Consider the language/discourse choices available
and to be aware of how these choices affect clarity
and coherence, and thus the reader’s experience

Be aware of the constraints on choice, particularly
individual competency, and be prepared to simplify
(organisation, expression) as a strategy
Formatting
choices
Organisational
choices
Grammar/
Expression
choices
“Stat[e] or
eliminat[e]
information”?
(Schultz, 2009: 60)
Clarity
and
Coherence
“Repeat or
vary”?
(McIntyre, 1997:
200)
Cut/Add
words/phrases/
sentences?
Condense or
unpack ideas?

Grammar/Expression choice

“natural, but professional”; “precise and meaningful” (Schultz, 2009:
61, 87)

Conventional (Turk and Kirman, 1989: 15-16)

“language can be a wall as well as a window” (Turk and Kirkman,
1989: 7)

Verbosity does not impress but simplicity can (Smith and Brown study,
Turk and Kirkman, 1989: 18-19)

Effect of syntactic and lexical choices on information flow (Caplan,
2012)
 Eliminating/Condensing/Cutting

“Noise” interferes with the transmission of the
message (Communication Theory, Chandler, 2012):
“The more difficult a message is, the more
disturbing noise is.” (Turk and Kirkman, 1989: 11)

“Be concise without omitting substance.” (Schultz,
2009: 61) ; “pruning superfluous material differs
from pruning to the fewest possible words”
(McIntyre, 1997: 201)
 Helpful
v unhelpful variation

Are variations necessary or “gratuitous” making
language “harder to decode”? Is change “organic”,
whereby the text “changes in some ways by small
enough increments, but stays invariant in others”?
(McIntyre, 1997: 200, 205)

“use the same word or phrase for the same thing,
similar word patterns for similar or comparable
things, and different words, phrases, and word
patterns for different things” (McIntyre, 1997: 200)

Individual writing tutorials


Tutors work individually with students to improve
short drafts
Classroom activity

Task guides students towards noticing and evaluating
the choices made by former students
Meeting with
supervisor
• Outline
• First
draft
Tutorial: feedback
from EAP tutor
• Second
draft
Tutorial:
collaborative
discussion
• “Final”
draft

Mixed results/views re effectiveness and appropriateness of
tutor reformulation:
Can be a positive strategy (Court, 2014; Yang and Zhang 2010)
 Reported to be less effective than other corrective techniques
(Wigglesworth and Storch, 2012)
 Some objections on the grounds that it may appropriate the text, limit
student ownership, identity and voice, and entrench dependency and
existing power relations (Court, 2014: 331)
 Allwright et al. (1988) and Swales (1990) discuss the value of
reformulation in terms of the discussion it promotes rather than the
improvements it makes to a single text: the “opportunity … to extract
from the instructor something of the processes that led to the
changes” (Swales, 1990: 221)



Small amount of reformulation mixed with student’s own
redrafting
Only looking at a short extract of the student’s work – not a
case of ‘rewriting’ entire texts
first
“final”
draft
draft
“final” draft

To encourage students to be active, critical readers of others’, and
ultimately their own, work, developing an awareness of what
makes a text clear, coherent and readable

To encourage students to develop an awareness of the language
and discourse choices available to them within their competence
level

Using work of former students helps situate current students in
academic community and related discourse practices (Northedge,
2003)

Effective way to introduce students to redrafting process – often
perceived as cognitively challenging and time-consuming (Court,
2014: 327)
[B2] simple,
clear.
[F] repeats key
words.
[In E2] “other
antimalerials” clearer
than “others” – not
clear this [was]
meaning.
[In F] every paragraph
repeats of MOFs and
then a different
aspect.
[C1] gets
confusing.
Simple words [in C2]
– “technological
methods” changed
to “techniques”.
[In D1] one
idea per
sentence.
[In E1] many linking
words and more
information but
confusing.
[E2] very focused. Just tells
me what I need to know.
[E1] gives me a lot of
information I don’t need to
know.
[C2] summarises in a few
words exactly.
[C2] more
concise.
[D2] uses less
words.
[E2]
concise.
[C2] got to
the point.
[D2] summarises
better – being concise
with ideas – to the
point – better.
But [D2] too
many linking
words.
[D2] restructuring way he’s
presenting ideas. Can
understand better the
concepts.
[E2] sentence
makes a good
linkage between
“derivatives” in
sentence one and
two.
[In E2] each
sentence refers
back to previous
one.
[E2]
message is
in a line,
[linear].

To encourage students to anticipate
how the reader will interpret and
react to (Schultz, 2009: 60-61;
Swales, 1990: 220) what they write
and thus improve clarity and
coherence

Meaningful

Accessible

Interactive

Can students use this to write better
first drafts or improve first drafts?

Will it inform tutorial discussions?

Allwright, R. Woodley M. and Allwright, J. (1988) Investigating reformulation as a practical strategy for the
teaching of academic writing, Applied Linguistics, 9/3, 237-256

Caplan, N. (2012) Grammar choices for graduate and professional writers, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan
Press

Chandler, D. (2012) The transmission model of communication, http://archive.is/SwwM , [accessed
17/02/2016]

Court, K. (2014) Tutor feedback on draft essays: developing students’ academic writing and subject
knowledge, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38/3, 327-345

Fowler, N. (1965) Fowler’s modern English usage, OUP

Northedge, A. (2003) Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 17-32

McIntyre, Michael (1997) Lucidity and science I: Writing skills and the Pattern Perception Hypothesis,
Interdiscip. Sci. Rev., 22, 199-216

Schultz, D. (2009) Eloquent Science: a practical guide to becoming a better writer, speaker and atmospheric
scientist, American Meteorological Society

Swales, J. (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings, CUP

Turk, C. and Kirkman, J. (1989) Effective writing: improving scientific, technical and business communication,
2nd edition, Routledge

Wigglesworth, G. and Storch, N. (2012) What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback? Journal
of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374

Woodford, Peter (1967) Sounder thinking through clearer writing, Science, 156(3776), 743-745

Yang, L. and Zhang, L (2010) Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing
performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464-484