Communication in the Sciences: Genre and Gender Differences in Scientific Writing

With the rapid evolution of technology and its impact on society, scientific literacy is increasingly important. This study examines two major genres of scientific writing: academic journal articles and popular science magazine articles. The first aim is to improve the efficacy of writing in the sciences by providing a better understanding of genre conventions and effective linguistic choices. The second aim is to investigate whether there are differences in writing by men and women in these two genres. This question is motivated by observed gender differences in participation in science. Hyland’s 2005 metadiscourse model is used to identify and examine relevant linguistic choices in the sample set. This model considers two types of linguistic markers: interactive (used to guide the reader) and interactional (used to engage the reader). The sample set consists of 60 mono-authored journal articles from physics, biology and chemistry and 60 mono-authored articles from two popular science magazines. The results show greater use of interactive than interactional resources in both genres but more use of interactional resources in popular science writing. Some statistically significant differences in writing by men and women were observed, especially in the popular science sample, including greater use of hedges and engagement markers by women authors and greater use of self-mentions by men authors. These differences occur in academic writing to a lesser extent. Unsurprisingly, academic samples follow academic conventions more closely than the popular science writing, while gender comparison shows that women authors use more qualifying language than men, so their writing is more closely aligned with academic genre conventions. The thesis usefully identifies which linguistic devices are common in effectively written scientific texts, contributing to an explicit understanding of effective science writing. Further, it shows some differences in language use by gender that may trigger unconscious bias

Learning to do science: lessons from a discourse analysis of students’ laboratory reports

Abstract Laboratory learning plays a distinctive role in science education. This study focuses on the laboratory report writing of students to investigate to what extent laboratory experience mimics the process of “doing science”. A quantitative analysis was performed to identify the different Moves in students’ report introductions according to the Swales’ (2004) CARS model which is a tool used to analyse research articles. This model is well suited to analysing student writing since they also follow the IMRD structure when writing laboratory reports. The results revealed that students generally use Moves 1 (topic generalization with increasing specificity) and 3 (presenting the present work) but Move 2 (establishing the niche) is absent in physics and biology laboratory reports and physics project reports. Move 2 is central to doing science. In contrast to the laboratory and project reports, Move 2 was present in science research placement project reports. This paper suggests that it is better, where possible, to incorporate this aspect of doing science into laboratory programs since it gives novices a better understanding of genuine research processes. This study also highlights the importance of interaction between discipline specific academics and academic language units to give students a consistent message

Genre-Based Approach to Science Writing: A Discourse Analysis of Laboratory Reports

AbstractStudents’ skills in effective written communication are an essential and integral part of university education in both native and non-native speaker context. Focus of this study is on science writing in native speaker context. However, there is limited research on undergraduate writing in science. Research shows that such studies directly impact on student performance since they contribute to enhance pedagogies for academic literacy. The need for such studies has been highlighted by reports such as National Association Physics Teachers and National Science Foundation. Writing a laboratory report is an activity that models the writing of a scientific paper. Hence, this study focused on examining laboratory report writing (specifically introduction sections and discussion sections) and aimed to provide insights and implications for teaching and learning of laboratory report writing.A diverse sample of laboratory reports including different year levels and different subjects were chosen from two prestigious universities in Australia. The Swales CARS (Create-A-Research-Space) model (2004), which has been used extensively to analyse Research Articles (RA) in science was used as one analytical tool in this study to identify commonly used “Moves” by the students. Further, Hyland’s (2004), metadiscourse model for academic writing was used to identify common linguistic features used in undergraduate laboratory reports. The study found that novice writers follow most of the practices of expert writing, with only minor differences in laboratory reports between different year levels and different subject areas. The main difference is that laboratory reports lack some of the “Moves” of research articles. Research placement reports were found to be more consistent with the CARS model. The difference between laboratory reports and research placement reports can be attributed to the different learning outcomes of the two activities. This study contributes to the development of pedagogy of academic literacy practice and teaching laboratory report writing by suggesting two new models, based on the CARS model, for teaching report writing. These are presented as flowcharts in simple English, making them accessible to students. Further, this study highlights the importance of effective collaboration between science academics and literacy practitioners. A common understanding between disciplinary academics and EAP practitioners regarding the writing conventions, disciplinary differences and expected learning outcomes would be beneficial for student learning and their performance