TY - JOUR
T1 - Defining a Flexible Notion of “Good” STEM Writing Across Contexts
T2 - Lessons Learned From a Cross-Institutional Conversation
AU - Grady, Sara M.
AU - Morton-Aiken, Jenna
AU - Druschke, Caroline Gottschalk
AU - Lofgren, Ingrid E.
AU - Karraker, Nancy E.
AU - McWilliams, Scott R.
AU - Reynolds, Nedra
AU - Finan, Elaine
AU - Wolter, Patti L.
AU - Leff, Donna R.
AU - Kennedy, Michael
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of funders National Science Foundation (Award #1545275) and the Graduate School and Vice President for Research at University of Rhode Island.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 Grady, Morton-Aiken, Druschke, Lofgren, Karraker, McWilliams, Reynolds, Finan, Wolter, Leff and Kennedy.
PY - 2022/3/7
Y1 - 2022/3/7
N2 - We respond to a surging interest in science communication training for graduate scientists by advocating for a focus on rhetorically informed approaches to STEM writing and its assessment. We argue that STEM communication initiatives would benefit by shifting from a strategic focus on products to a flexible understanding of writing as a practice worthy of attention and study. To do that, we use our experience across two universities and two distinct programmatic contexts to train STEM graduate students in writing and communication. We draw from cross-disciplinary conversations to identify four facets of “good” STEM writing: (1) connecting to the big picture; (2) explaining science; (3) adhering to genre conventions; and (4) choosing context-appropriate language. We then describe our ongoing conversations across contexts to develop and implement flexible rubrics that capture and foster conversations around “good” writing. In doing so, we argue for a notion of writing rubrics as boundary objects, capable of fostering cross-disciplinary, integrative conversations and collaborations that strengthen student writing, shift STEM students toward a rhetorically informed sense of “good” writing, and offer that kinds of assessment data that make for persuasive evidence of the power of writing-centric approaches for STEM administrators and funders.
AB - We respond to a surging interest in science communication training for graduate scientists by advocating for a focus on rhetorically informed approaches to STEM writing and its assessment. We argue that STEM communication initiatives would benefit by shifting from a strategic focus on products to a flexible understanding of writing as a practice worthy of attention and study. To do that, we use our experience across two universities and two distinct programmatic contexts to train STEM graduate students in writing and communication. We draw from cross-disciplinary conversations to identify four facets of “good” STEM writing: (1) connecting to the big picture; (2) explaining science; (3) adhering to genre conventions; and (4) choosing context-appropriate language. We then describe our ongoing conversations across contexts to develop and implement flexible rubrics that capture and foster conversations around “good” writing. In doing so, we argue for a notion of writing rubrics as boundary objects, capable of fostering cross-disciplinary, integrative conversations and collaborations that strengthen student writing, shift STEM students toward a rhetorically informed sense of “good” writing, and offer that kinds of assessment data that make for persuasive evidence of the power of writing-centric approaches for STEM administrators and funders.
KW - STEM
KW - collaborate
KW - rhetoric graduate student training
KW - science communication
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85127434560&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85127434560&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fcomm.2022.767557
DO - 10.3389/fcomm.2022.767557
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85127434560
VL - 7
JO - Frontiers in Communication
JF - Frontiers in Communication
SN - 2297-900X
M1 - 767557
ER -