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...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
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 |