{"id":361,"date":"2016-06-02T17:33:37","date_gmt":"2016-06-03T00:33:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/wicnews\/?p=361"},"modified":"2016-06-03T16:39:38","modified_gmt":"2016-06-03T23:39:38","slug":"good-advice-chris-thaiss-writing-stem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dev.blogs.oregonstate.edu\/wicnews\/2016\/06\/02\/good-advice-chris-thaiss-writing-stem\/","title":{"rendered":"Good Advice from Chris Thaiss on Writing in STEM"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

By Kristina Lum, (MA 2016, SWLF)\u00a0WIC\u00a0GTA, and Natalie Saleh,\u00a0<\/em>(MA 2017, SWLF)\u00a0WIC Intern<\/em><\/p>\n

Chris Thaiss, Clark Kerr Presidential Chair and Professor in the University Writing Program at the University of California Davis, visited Oregon State on May 13, 2016 to provide a workshop for STEM faculty and spoke at the last Spring Series WIC Lunch. He shared his techniques of rhetorical approaches to STEM reading and writing at both events, and the following is a summary of some main points from a rich day of faculty development.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Chris Thaiss, a rhetorical approach to STEM reading and writing \u201crelies on tradition in science communication studies of analyzing 1) the argumentative structure of scientific articles and 2) differences in scientific writing for specialist and non-specialist readers.\u201d This approach focuses on analyses of purpose, audience, genre, style and graphics in science writing, allowing for students to better understand how certain elements of science writing communicate meaning in their field.<\/p>\n

Thaiss explained that a rhetorically-aware teaching approach also emphasizes the connection between reading and writing. He says, \u201cI don\u2019t think I could teach writing in this field without teaching reading in this field.\u201d Critical reading skills can introduce students to important rhetorical principles behind scientific writing genres. Thaiss encourages the use of critical reading heuristics to improve students critical reading skills and help them recognize how science writing differs across genres. These heuristics require students to analyze differences in science writing in six different areas: purposes, audiences, types of evidence, order of information, tone and style, and graphic elements.<\/p>\n

When designing rhetorically-aware writing assignments, Thaiss recommends incorporating the same heuristic topics from his critical reading assignments. These heuristics help students better understand how different elements of their writing can be clearer and more effective. For instance, asking \u201cWho are the readers?\u201d and \u201cHow can they use the writing?\u201d can help students address their audience rather than write to a nebulous \u201cgeneral public.\u201d Thaiss also emphasized the importance of scaffolding to help guide students through their writing process.<\/p>\n

Thaiss advocates for a continuous cycle of thoughtful assessment that includes peers and instructors. He explained that a common problem with STEM writing feedback is that it tends to focus on grammar. This problem is particularly prevalent when instructors respond to second language speakers\u2019 writing. As a result, those students do not receive much feedback on the actual content of their writing.<\/p>\n

One examples of Thaiss\u2019 own rhetorically-aware assignments and documents are provided below:<\/p>\n

Comparative Document Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n