Campus Correspondence Louisiana State University

From: Adrina Garbin, Miracle Lane, Brittany LeBouef, Kelli Miguez

To: Deborah B. Normand

Subject: Portfolio 2 for Biochemistry Group

Date: April 11, 2005

You asked us to report our investigation on the writing attitudes and habits of a selected group at Louisiana State University. In this report we present to you the findings of our research and analysis. We decided to choose a hard science major that is far removed from the humanities to give a contrast for comparison. For this reason we chose biochemistry students and professors. We also chose to question a biochemistry laboratory class (Biol 4385) that is required by the biochemistry curriculum.

Objective

Our objective is to gather information on the perceived importance of writing in a career. The group chose to survey students and professors to examine the institutional value of writing and the effectiveness of the current curriculum. We surveyed nine students and one professor to get the information needed to prepare this report. The two surveys contained similar questions to give us the expectations of the students and the reality of the professor. We were also curious about the writing curriculum at Louisiana State University and if it was perceived as effective in preparing students for their careers.

Our collective goal for the project was to understand the nature of a scientific community and how the community relates to composition. Some aspects of interest included the process of composition, the value of composition, and the effectiveness of composition education in the scientific community. Through obtaining data, analyzing evidence, and connecting theory we hoped to learn how composition should be taught to best facilitate immersion into the knowledge community, or career, of choice.

The first question of our survey for students asked if writing courses are important. The second questions asked the number of composition courses taken as well as if the student would take composition classes electively. Question three asked if the writing classes at Louisiana State University prepared them for writing in the field. Question four asked about the writing that takes place in biochemistry classes. Question five also relates to writing in biochemistry classes and asked about writing assignments given in those classes. Question six asked about the process used when writing. The final question, number seven, asked what kind of writing they anticipated in their future profession. It also asked what percentage of their day was expected to be spent on writing. The survey for professors also contained correlating questions to the student surveys with an additional emphasis on how composition could be incorporated into the biochemistry classes.

For the report each student chose a topic to write on that correlated to the survey questions and responses. Ms. Lane wrote about the value of writing in the field, which related to survey questions number one and seven. Ms. Garbin wrote about how the composition classes at Louisiana State University prepare students for writing in their chosen field. This topic relates to questions number two and three. Ms. LeBouef wrote about the process used by students when writing for their writing assignments in biochemistry classes. These topics relate to questions number four, five, and six. Ms. Miguez wrote about how Louisiana State University could handle the two disciplines and ideas for possible writing assignments in the biochemistry class, which correlates with the professor’s survey questions number five and six.

Interpretive

The Significance of Writing

Our survey responses helped to shed light on the importance of writing for Biochemistry majors. We asked the students whether they believe writing courses are important for their major and if so, why. Approximately ninety percent of the biochemistry students agreed that composition courses are important in their major. Most of the students believed �being able to write is a basic skill you need to possess in any major.� This statement relates to Kenneth A. Bruffee’s statement that states:

Students learn the �skill and partnership’ of re-externalized conversation, writing, not only in a community that fosters the kind of conversation college teachers value most, but also in a community that approximates the one most students must eventually write for in every day life, in business, government, and the professions. (423)

in that writing and knowing the skill is important to the biochemistry field. However, one student disagreed and suggested, �writing classes put an objective score to a teacher’s subjective whim and it is important to exclude them from all majors.� This statement is adverse to what Bruffee believes:

The kind of writing students find most useful to learn in college, therefore is not only the kind of writing most appropriate to work in fields of business, government and the professions. It is also the writing most appropriate to gaining competence in most academic fields that students study in college. (424)

In this instance, we believe the response reflects the student’s disingenuous attitude towards the survey and not the fact that writing is unnecessary. In learning the skill and techniques of writing and then applying that knowledge to biochemistry the student will be better prepared for his/her chosen career path. As one student explained, �writing courses are important because there will always be times when I will have to explain some type of result and research.� Another student noted, �everyone needs to know how to write papers and speeches.” Although students may choose a career other than biochemistry research, learning to write coherently is a tool any professional needs to know. One student agreed that �no matter what you do with your major � grad school or med school � you will need to be able to write and describe research articles or medical analysis.�

We also asked the students what kind of writing they anticipated in their chosen profession and what percentage of their day do they expect to spend on writing. On this question we received a wide range of answers. Writing percentages ranged from five percent to sixty-five percent depending on the student’s chosen profession. On average the students believed they would spend approximately twenty-five percent of their day on writing of some sort. However, when the professor was asked the same question, a different response was given. He/she claimed that sixty percent of the day is spent on writing. One student hoping to be a pharmacist expected to be �only writing signatures,� which should take only twelve percent of her day. Another student expected to be writing approximately sixty-five percent of the day on �concise, clear descriptions of symptoms, procedures, reactions� and a few students envisioned their writing will include applying for grants, reports, and articles for publication. The gap between averages shows that composition courses are essential in the learning process and it explains the perception students have about writing versus the professor’s reality.

In every college major, there are numerous courses mandated and a number elected by the student. In each instance, every one has an attitude towards the necessity and helpfulness of courses taken. A question posed to biochemistry students was concerning English composition courses enrolled in at Louisiana State University . Students were asked whether or not they would enroll in these classes by choice. Only twenty percent of the students responded in a resounding �no.� One of these who completed two writing course went so far as to reply �hell no.� The other student opposed to taking such a class because he/she believed it did not correlate with his/her field. However, theorists such as Lisa Ede and Andrea A. Lunsford would disagree. Their concern lies with the best solution for instructing students in their writing practices. The objective is to inform the audience through adequate explanation. In a model of Ede and Lunsford, they believe the audience is real and the objectives of the writer and reader are known. It is the duty of the writer to strive to produce and mold work around the audience’s �attitudes, beliefs, and expectations� (78). Their basic idea is that writing should be done in such a way that the audience is accommodated and can therefore better comprehend information being processed. For the audience to understand, the writer must be specific and fully define concepts that are not familiar to individuals outside of their field. Biochemistry students in general need to grasp and be equipped with this talent, especially those intending to be involved in biochemistry research. It will be necessary for them to present their compositions to others in their line of work and must do so intelligibly. It is in this capacity of research that proficient writing skills would benefit their work.

�Normal Discourse� and �Interpretive Communities�

An additional inquiry to the biochemistry students involved their assessment of the writing preparation they received at Louisiana State University . Eighty percent of the group deemed their writing classes to be unsuccessful. Once again, a number of them argued that the writing classes they joined were not specific to the material taught and studied in biochemistry classes. One undergraduate student believed the only beneficial class in college was technical writing. Another student that replied positively to a writing class was a graduate student in response to a graduate academic student writing course. This generates the argument that undergraduate writing courses are possibly not preparing students effectively. The difference could lie in that graduate classes have generated work according to what is taught in their majors; they most probably found the aptitude to be valuable. The students surveyed desired a more applicable writing class.

Only twenty percent of the students saw these basic composition classes as beneficial to their education and biochemistry degree. They understood the importance of having steps to writing and the significance of the post-process in which writing can be reflected on and corrections can be made after time is spent in contemplation. Most importantly, the instructor must interact with the students. Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch is a main theorist supportive of the post-process saying that there must be some basic structure of grammar and cohesion necessary to be taught in order to communicate an opinion successfully in addition to mechanics and grammar. It is this ability that can be taught in composition class. However, Breuch admits that the instructor is given much authority in that they must be careful to distinguish between basic skills and not to �reduce the writing act to a system that can be taught� (100). For the students that were not interested in English classes because they believed it was unnecessary, Breuch would conclude that teachers must be �more conscientious in our attempts to meet the needs of the students in their educational journeys� (122). Perhaps, the easiest way for this to be done in accordance to the biochemistry curriculum is to append a class in which writing is directed toward their particular science major and possible writing tasks they must fulfill in their future careers.

Normal discourse is the conversations and interactions that take place among peers of a distinct group. Bruffee calls this group a �community of knowledgeable peers� and defines normal discourse as �a group of people who accept, and whose work is guided by, the same paradigms and the same code of values and assumptions� (423). This definition explains how students majoring in science are able to relate to each other. A student majoring in biochemistry will be involved in several different normal discourse communities; such communities will include professors and colleagues.

The main goal of normal discourse as Bruffee explains �is to provide a context in which students can practice and master the normal discourse exercised in established knowledge communities in the academic world and in business, government, and the professions� (424). This idea relates back to the students’ belief that composition courses should be focused on individual majors.

Bruffee goes on to state that �[m]uch of what we teach today � or should be teaching � in composition courses is the normal discourse of most academic, professional, and business communities� (424). The fact that �� or should be teaching,� is in that statement indicates that normal discourse is not being taught. If normal discourse is not being taught in the classroom, how will students learn the possibilities of its form and function outside the classroom? When dealing with outside or adverse communities, a person must have the ability to persuade or instruct a person that is not a knowledgeable peer. This is what the composition course does for students in all majors. Composition courses give students the tools to write cohesively, coherently and concisely. When students get together and collaborate on experiments they realize the possibilities of gaining new knowledge are limitless. Bruffee believes as we do that �teaching normal discourse in its written form is central to a college curriculum� (424). Putting pen to paper is something everyone will do in their lifetime. Composition courses teach students how to make sense of their thoughts and ideas. Without this knowledge, students are limited in their communication abilities.

Patricia Bizzell offers an example from Erwin Steinburg that is particularly useful for the situation of biochemistry students. Erwin Steinberg compares the organization of an electrical engineer’s report and a freshman composition. Steinberg attributes the superior organization of the engineer not to a cognitive difference but to the engineer’s deep knowledge and experience in the field. The engineer is fully immersed in the discourse community to whom he is writing. Therefore, the engineer understands what needs to be said in the report and how to say it in a way that colleagues will understand. Students consequently would never achieve the level of writing held by someone inside a discourse community through writing in general education composition courses, which are not directed at one specific knowledge community. Bizzell states, �Composition studies should focus upon practice within interpretive communities � exactly how conventions work in the world and how they are transmitted� (409).

Steinberg also cautions against using set models for writing. It is essential that students not learn to only fill in a prearranged template for research writing. He continues by saying that ��the way English teachers used to require students to make formal outlines before they wrote� (403). While the conventions of a field are important to learn, as in normal discourse, it is also crucial students learn to write in their field from their own organic understanding of composition and of their field and not by following a formula. Bruffee cites a ten year research of medical students at the University College, University of London, which stated that the skill of diagnosis ��is better learned in small groups of students arriving at diagnoses collaboratively than it is learned by students working individually� (417). This concept of �collaborative learning� could potentially be of use to biochemistry students. Students are divided into lab groups in the laboratory classes to aid in laboratory work. In addition, these groups could also be used in the writing process for biochemistry reports or projects. Through collaborative learning students can help each other learn the normal discourse of a community, which aids in their attempt to gain introduction to the knowledge community of their choice.

Technology, Writing Assignments, and the Writing Process

Another vantage point to discuss is technology. In an ever-changing environment functioning with technology, there must be adaptation. In the past decade students have been prompted to understand computers and programs necessary for learning. Class assignments, homework, and projects are often accomplished with the use of computers. Labs too can require knowledge of technology. Chris M. Anson described in his article, �our key roles � as those who create opportunities and contexts for students to write and who provide expert, principled response to that writing � must change in the present communications and information revolution� (813). Anson encourages teachers to change with the times and adopt technological advances. Anson advises specific questions so students �will be better prepared to make principled decisions about the effect of new technologies on our students’ learning and the conditions of our teaching� (816). With such a suggestion, the academic program at Louisiana State University could be adapted to include classes that instruct a correspondence between technology and textual skills. In particular, technology is essential in the advancing science community and should be a part of the mandatory classes of science-oriented composition classes. Furthermore, fellow researchers they are training to communicate with must understand their productions. Breuch proposes that students must �work toward communicating their message to an audience� (111). It should not be presented as a process without alternatives and it should also not confine writers and their ideas. In this theory, the biochemistry students would be urged to write towards their study, which is what the responses in the surveyed conveyed. Furthermore, the emphasis is then placed on the teacher to not �reduce the writing act to a system that can be taught� (99). There should be abundant interaction between the teacher and the student. Feedback from the teacher would bring the students the responses and assistance they spoke of in the surveys. This, in addition to the technology would better prepare the biochemistry majors.

When asked if the writing in composition classes have prepared biochemistry students for writing in their major field, four of our responses were yes and five were no. One student stated how it helps when writing lab reports, another said that composition courses teach students how to write in outline form, and yet another stated how composition courses helped, but all of the writing stayed away from scientific format. Some students that believe composition courses do indeed help them with their writing also think the courses seem to not have much emphasis on the scientific aspect of writing.

Another factor we contemplated was whether or not biochemistry teachers who require writing assignments gave criteria for evaluation. This subject ties in with Donald M. Murray’s thought of teaching writing as a process, not a product. When teaching a product, according to Murray , teachers are focusing all critical attention on what students have done. But ��when we teach composition we are not teaching a product, we are teaching a process� (3). Therefore, Murray believes, �The writing process itself can be divided into three stages: prewriting, writing, and rewriting . The amount of time a writer spends in each stage depends on his personality, his work habits, his maturity as a craftsman, and the challenge of what he is trying to say� (4).

If teachers give criteria for writing, they are assigning a process for students to follow with the hope of reaching a means to an end. Half of the students responded on their surveys that teachers do give them criteria to follow. Most of them answered this question by stating that they have to write on the right side of their notebooks. Biochemistry students write in their notebooks on left and right sides for a specific purpose. When we say left and right sides, we mean the front and back of pages. Students use the right side of their notebook, or front of one page, especially for the experiment they are writing about. This is the only side the teacher grades or evaluates. Students use the left side of their notebooks, or back of the other page, for any notes they need to take. This is mainly for the students own benefit. Writing on separate side’s of a notebook is a writing practice especially unique to biochemistry majors and critical to their field of study. When biochemistry students use this technique of writing, they are exemplifying what they learn to the theorist Bruffee. Bruffee believes in taking what is learned and continuously reflecting back on it to better understand what is taught. This technique of notebook �dividing� is scientists’ use of meta-cognition and their form of engaging more deeply with their text. It enables them to go back and think about their thinking to better understand their notes.

The writing assignments that are given in the biochemistry classes are also important because they are another possible area for the two disciplines to overlap. This also gives students an opportunity to write for their knowledge community. As previously stated, many students responded in the survey that they were assigned writing assignments as a lab experiment notebook. However, none of the undergraduate students mentioned a formal written report like those required in the profession. Writing assignments that resemble the writing required in the field would be beneficial to students by preparing them for the field. By also incorporating collaborative learning groups in these types of writing assignments, a better understanding of the normal discourse of the biochemistry field can be attained. The Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education journal recommends:

Coordination and consistency among all lab instructors in a department are of vital importance so students do not learn different communication techniques at each level. Specific skills that students must master in the BMB lab include maintaining a lab notebook (journal), writing up a lab experiment, writing a journal-style article, critical analysis of other writing (other student’s and journal articles), giving an oral presentation on experimental results, and the preparation and presentation of a poster. (Boyer 104)

Furthermore, when asked what process they follow, students mainly said that they brainstorm, write their paper, proofread, and then type. One student, a graduate, went into as much detail as to state the steps he/she followed. These steps included: step one � brainstorming on a chosen topic, step two � construct a thesis statement, step three � expound with prewriting on each major point, step four � collaboration of all points/ideas in a specific format, and step five � revise. As can clearly be seen, this student used a process when writing papers. On the other hand, a junior remarked that he/she just sits and writes. The reason these two students use these techniques may be because of their grade levels.

However, the difference between the two students’ responses can also be tied in with Murray ’s idea of process when he says each stage depends on the writer’s personality. One student’s personality is to explain in great detail with steps, and the other student’s personality is to just type. As Murray would say, ��by placing the opportunity for discovery in your student’s hands,� we are allowing students personality to display in their writing ( Murray ). �When you give him an assignment you tell him what to say and how to say it, and thereby cheat your student of the opportunity to learn the process of discovery we call writing� ( Murray 5). By allowing students free range to write and express their personality with their writings, more students would appreciate English composition courses. They would not take for granted the fact that the assignments would be decided for them. Instead, students would have the satisfaction of knowing that the grade they make is earned because they thought of the assignment and had the opportunity to put their feelings and personality into their paper.

Progression towards a Better Curriculum

Research proved that the current curriculum for composition at Louisiana State University is perceived by students and teachers as not being effective in cultivating the necessary composition skills required in the biochemistry field. Many students stated the courses offered within the curriculum were useless and sometimes even detrimental to their composition skills in the field. One student stated that it would be helpful if courses were offered that concentrated on research composition. Also evident in the research was the discrepancy between the need for composition mastery and the motivation or desire to take the fixed courses in the curriculum for some students.

The evidence signified a potentially critical problem within the curriculum that must be addressed if the university identifies as its goal to prepare students for their chosen field. A job in the field of biochemistry generally involves laboratory based research. However, a biochemist’s work does not end once the experiment is complete. In order for the experiment to be of use to the field as a whole, the experiment must be published. This allows other biochemists around the world to reproduce the experiment and perhaps take it a step further or see the results from a different view and offer an explanation. This is similar to the conversation of mankind that Bruffee speaks of. In this conversation among biochemist, it is essential that the experimental report be written in a way that is both understandable by fellow biochemist’s and can be easily reproduced through following the stated procedure. Therefore, it is important the report is written well. An experiment is only as good as the report. Boyer states that �new scientific knowledge that is not communicated is of no value to anyone� (104). In other words, if a brilliant experiment achieves enlightening results yet the biochemists are incapable of writing a correct report, the other biochemist will be unable to reproduce the experiment from the procedure given and they will deem it unsuccessful, and thus the conclusions of the experiment will be dismissed. Therefore, the true value of the experiment lies in article that explains it. This means that the skill of writing in and for the biochemistry field stands equal to the skills in experimentation and scientific knowledge that is given ample weight in the curriculum. Conversely, composition courses are only required for two semesters as general education classes. These general education courses include an � Introduction to writing in forms of expressive and informative discourse � in English 1001 and an � Introduction to writing persuasive, evaluative, and other forms of argumentative discourse� in English 1002 (LSU general catalog). These courses do not include research geared composition courses. It is essential that the University acknowledge composition as a discipline unto itself that should be practiced continuously throughout the college career.

At the same time, composition must be coupled with the field of practice to allow students the experience of writing in their chosen field. As Bruffee states, �Mastery of a knowledge community’s normal discourse is the basic qualification for acceptance into that community� (424). Therefore, it is important that students learn to write in the field they wish to join. Composition courses in their chosen field would also increase the desirability of the courses for students by giving them a practical application that interests the students.

Many of these concepts and ideas have already been embraced by progressive universities. In many universities the curriculum for biochemistry studies is changing in a way that acknowledges the importance of writing. One such example is at Texas A&M, where the school stated, �An additional change on the horizon is the university-wide implementation of a requirement for writing, through the curriculum. Each student will be required to take two courses within the major in which a substantial portion of the course grade (equivalent to ~1 SCH) will be based on written assignments� (Gunn 288). Clemson University took a different approach to the problem by implementing a new program. This new curriculum not only requires a technical writing course, but also requires the following:

biochemistry majors take two capstone courses, Senior Research, mentioned above, and Senior Seminar� Students use the skills developed in their science courses, public speaking, and technical writing to analyze, write about, and orally present and discuss scientific papers with their peers. These two courses are often the most popular and valuable courses in the curriculum. (Zimmerman 377)

Here a full integration of science and writing is achieved through offering writing classes that emphasize the topic of science as well as science classes that emphasize the importance of writing.

Decisional

After completing both the research and analysis for this project, our group as a whole developed a greater understanding of the theorists studied in class. Garbin, Lane, and LeBouef, being non-science majors, learned that the science majors actually had similar writing practices in that many didn’t have a rigid process of pre-writing, writing, revising. It was also interesting that many students found their writing in composition courses could not be applied to their field, whereas English majors find their writing in composition courses easily apply to their field. Lane learned that working in a collaborative group is about expanding on ideas and knowledge. Collaborative learning enhances the ability to derive more for a topic than using one mind alone. If only consensus exists in a group, the learning is limited to one idea or thought. Therefore dissensus helped our group to focus and arrive at the core of the theorists’ ideas. Miguez, being both a biochemistry major, and an English major, learned that the two fields correlated more so than expected. She learned that the composition practice from English classes will be very helpful in a science-related career. Also apparent was the benefit of being initiated into and engaged in two separate knowledge communities.

Works Cited

Anson, Chris M. �Distant Voices: Teaching and Writing in a Culture of Technology.� Cross Talk in Comp Theory . 2 nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana , IL : National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 797-816.

Bizzell, Patricia. �Cognition, Convention, and Certainty.� Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana , IL : National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 387-411.

Boyer, Rodney. � Concepts and Skills in the Biochemistry/Molecular Biology Lab.� Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31.6 (2003): 375-377.

Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman. �Post-Process �Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise.� Cross Talk in Comp Theory . 2 nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana , IL : National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 97-123.

Bruffee, Kenneth. �Collaborative Learning and the �Conversation of Mankind’� Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana , IL : National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 415-436.

Ede , Lisa and Andrea Lunsford. �Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in composition Theory and Pedagogy.� Cross Talk in Comp Theory . 2 nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana , IL : National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 77-93.

Gunn, J. Martyn . �Implementing the Recommended Curriculum in Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at a Large State University : The Texas A&M Experience.� Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31.5 (2003): 286-288.

LSU General Catalog . 91:1. 2000 .

Murray, Donald M. �Teach Writing as a Process Not Product.� Cross Talk in Comp Theory . 2 nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana , IL : National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 3-6.
Zimmerman, James. �Implementing the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Recommended Curriculum in a Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Degree Program in a Genetics and Biochemistry Department: The Clemson University Experience.� Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31.2 (2003): 102-105.

Class Written For : English 3301 (Composition Pedagogy)