Improving quantitative writing one sentence at a time.

Scientific writing, particularly quantitative writing, is difficult to master. To help undergraduate students write more clearly about data, we sought to deconstruct writing into discrete, specific elements. We focused on statements typically used to describe data found in the results sections of re...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tracy Ruscetti, Katherine Krueger, Christelle Sabatier
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2018-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6135501?pdf=render
id doaj-a60a1cbda493489dbf17e7f26f79748d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a60a1cbda493489dbf17e7f26f79748d2020-11-25T02:40:10ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032018-01-01139e020310910.1371/journal.pone.0203109Improving quantitative writing one sentence at a time.Tracy RuscettiKatherine KruegerChristelle SabatierScientific writing, particularly quantitative writing, is difficult to master. To help undergraduate students write more clearly about data, we sought to deconstruct writing into discrete, specific elements. We focused on statements typically used to describe data found in the results sections of research articles (quantitative comparative statements, QC). In this paper, we define the essential components of a QC statement and the rules that govern those components. Clearly defined rules allowed us to quantify writing quality of QC statements (4C scoring). Using 4C scoring, we measured student writing gains in a post-test at the end of the term compared to a pre-test (37% improvement). In addition to overall score, 4C scoring provided insight into common writing mistakes by measuring presence/absence of each essential component. Student writing quality in lab reports improved when they practiced writing isolated QC statements. Although we observed a significant increase in writing quality in lab reports describing a simple experiment, we noted a decrease in writing quality when the complexity of the experimental system increased. Our data suggest a negative correlation of writing quality with complexity. We discuss how our data aligns with existing cognitive theories of writing and how science instructors might improve the scientific writing of their students.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6135501?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Tracy Ruscetti
Katherine Krueger
Christelle Sabatier
spellingShingle Tracy Ruscetti
Katherine Krueger
Christelle Sabatier
Improving quantitative writing one sentence at a time.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Tracy Ruscetti
Katherine Krueger
Christelle Sabatier
author_sort Tracy Ruscetti
title Improving quantitative writing one sentence at a time.
title_short Improving quantitative writing one sentence at a time.
title_full Improving quantitative writing one sentence at a time.
title_fullStr Improving quantitative writing one sentence at a time.
title_full_unstemmed Improving quantitative writing one sentence at a time.
title_sort improving quantitative writing one sentence at a time.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2018-01-01
description Scientific writing, particularly quantitative writing, is difficult to master. To help undergraduate students write more clearly about data, we sought to deconstruct writing into discrete, specific elements. We focused on statements typically used to describe data found in the results sections of research articles (quantitative comparative statements, QC). In this paper, we define the essential components of a QC statement and the rules that govern those components. Clearly defined rules allowed us to quantify writing quality of QC statements (4C scoring). Using 4C scoring, we measured student writing gains in a post-test at the end of the term compared to a pre-test (37% improvement). In addition to overall score, 4C scoring provided insight into common writing mistakes by measuring presence/absence of each essential component. Student writing quality in lab reports improved when they practiced writing isolated QC statements. Although we observed a significant increase in writing quality in lab reports describing a simple experiment, we noted a decrease in writing quality when the complexity of the experimental system increased. Our data suggest a negative correlation of writing quality with complexity. We discuss how our data aligns with existing cognitive theories of writing and how science instructors might improve the scientific writing of their students.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6135501?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT tracyruscetti improvingquantitativewritingonesentenceatatime
AT katherinekrueger improvingquantitativewritingonesentenceatatime
AT christellesabatier improvingquantitativewritingonesentenceatatime
_version_ 1724782673371594752