Search

The writing-to-learn (WTL) literature is varied in how assignments are structured and implemented in the classroom, making it difficult for instructors to identify how to incorporate writing effectively. Drawing on the WTL literature, the MWrite program was established to work with STEM faculty to design, implement, and assess evidence-based WTL assignments. Herein we present a review of the WTL research generated through the MWrite program, situating our findings in a four-dimensional framework of engagement to identify how the MWrite WTL assignment design and implementation has supported students' learning. Our analysis indicates that the multi-faceted design of MWrite WTL assignments supports students' development of conceptual knowledge and disciplinary thinking. The assignments' rhetorical features (i.e., context, audience, and genre) guide how students write about content, and peer review and revision stages encourage a collaborative, knowledge building process between students and their peers.

Writing is an important skill for communicating knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and an aid to developing students' communication skills, content knowledge, and disciplinary thinking. Despite the importance of writing, its incorporation into the undergraduate STEM curriculum is uneven. Research indicates that understanding faculty beliefs is important when trying to propagate evidence-based instructional practices, yet faculty beliefs about writing pedagogies are not yet broadly characterized for STEM teaching at the undergraduate level. Based on a nationwide cross-disciplinary survey at research-intensive institutions, this work aims to understand the extent to which writing is assigned in undergraduate STEM courses and the factors that influence faculty members' beliefs about, and reported use of, writing-based pedagogies. Faculty attitudes about the effectiveness of writing practices did not differ between faculty who assign and do not assign writing; rather, beliefs about the influence of social factors and contextually imposed instructional constraints informed their decisions to use or not use writing. Our findings indicate that strategies to increase the use of writing need to specifically target the factors that influence faculty decisions to assign or not assign writing. It is not faculty beliefs about effectiveness, but rather faculty beliefs about behavioral control and constraints at the departmental level that need to be targeted.

Organic chemistry courses enroll students from many majors with diverse interests. Although instructors may strive to appeal to these interests by relating course content to real life, it is challenging to intrinsically appeal to students at the personal level, particularly in high enrollment courses like organic chemistry. When students identify personal connections with course content, they may be more interested or motivated to continue learning course content. To help students identify connections, we designed and implemented a writing assignment prompting students to select an organic compound that personally relates to them and write about this personal connection. Herein, we discuss the implementation and evaluation of the assignment. Student feedback survey responses and interviews indicate that the assignment allowed students to identify how organic chemistry is relevant to their lives. We believe the assignment could be effectively implemented at other institutions and in other chemistry courses.

Student affect is an important factor in the learning process and may be especially important in gateway courses such as organic chemistry. Students' recognition of the relevance of the content they are learning and interactions with their peers can support their motivation to learn. Herein, we describe a study focused on how Writing-to-Learn assignments situate organic chemistry content within relevant contexts and incorporate social elements to support positive student interactions with organic chemistry. These assignments incorporate rhetorical elements--an authentic context, role, genre, and audience--to support student interest and demonstrate the relevance of the content. In addition, students engage in the processes of peer review and revision to support their learning. We identified how the authentic contexts and peer interactions incorporated into two Writing-to-Learn assignments supported students' interactions with the assignments and course content by analyzing student interviews and supported by feedback survey responses. Our results indicate that assignments incorporating these elements can support student affect and result in students' perceived learning, but that there should be careful consideration of the relevance of the chosen contexts with respect to the interests of the students enrolled in the course and the complexity of the contexts.

The tradition of qualitative research drives much of chemistry education research activity. When performing qualitative studies, researchers must demonstrate the trustworthiness of their analysis so researchers and practitioners consuming their work can understand if and how the presented research claims and conclusions might be transferable to their unique educational settings. There are a number of steps researchers can take to demonstrate the trustworthiness of their work, one of which is demonstrating and reporting evidence of reliability. The purpose of this methodological review is to investigate the methods researchers use to establish and report reliability for chemistry education research articles including a qualitative research component. Drawing from the literature on qualitative research methodology and content analysis, we describe the approaches for establishing the reliability of qualitative data analysis using various measures of inter-rater reliability and processes including negotiated agreement. We used this background literature to guide our review of research articles containing a qualitative component and published in "Chemistry Education Research and Practice" and the "Journal of Chemical Education" from the years 2010 through 2019 for whether they report evidence of reliability. We followed this by a more in-depth analysis of how articles from the years 2017 through 2019 discuss reliability. Our analysis indicates that, overall, researchers are presenting evidence of reliability in chemistry education research (CER) articles by reporting reliability measures, describing a process of negotiated agreement, or mentioning reliability and the steps taken to demonstrate it. However, there is a reliance on reporting only percent agreement, which is not considered an acceptable measure of reliability when used on its own. In addition, the descriptions of how reliability was established were not always clear, which may make it difficult for readers to evaluate the veracity of research findings. Our findings indicate that, as a field, CER researchers should be more cognizant of the appropriateness of how we establish reliability for qualitative analysis and should more clearly present the processes by which reliability was established in CER manuscripts.

While many STEM faculty believe Writing-to-Learn to be an effective instructional tool, instructional barriers such as the time and effort required to provide substantive feedback to their students limit the use of writing in STEM classrooms. Incorporating peer review and revision into the writing process can help mitigate these barriers while additionally supporting the learning process. This study presents an analysis of a Writing-to-Learn assignment that incorporates peer review and revision into a large introductory statistics course, where this study specifically focused on whether engaging with these processes results in changes in how students write about the content targeted by the assignment. Our results demonstrate that students made content-focused revisions between drafts that increased the amount of content they explained correctly. Additionally, our study provides evidence that students benefit from reading peers' work in a content-focused peer review and revision process. Overall, this study shows that incorporating peer review and revision into writing assignments focused on developing content knowledge provides students with substantive feedback and enhances students' conceptual learning.

Writing is a key disciplinary practice in STEM used to construct scientific knowledge and communicate research findings. With its role in the scientific process, writing is often incorporated into STEM classrooms to train students in scientific writing. The importance of incorporating writing in STEM classrooms is heightened by the role it can play in supporting student learning of disciplinary knowledge and thinking. However, the characteristics of a writing assignment can shape how and what students are learning. Although faculty recognize the value of writing in instruction, they often face barriers that constrain the amount and types of writing they incorporate into their classes. This article describes the design and propagation of Writing-to-Learn assignments in introductory STEM courses at the University of Michigan through the MWrite program. Our aim is to present a framework that could inform similar efforts from the classroom to institutional levels. The Writing-to-Learn assignment design described herein incorporates a context-driven prompt followed by content-focused peer review and revision. We also describe the structures incorporated into the MWrite program to support the large-scale implementation of writing in high-enrollment introductory STEM courses.

Organic chemistry is a required course sequence for many STEM students. However, research indicates that organic chemistry reaction mechanisms are especially challenging for students due to a mixture of underlying conceptual difficulties, the process-oriented thinking inherent to the discipline, and the representations commonly used to depict mechanisms. While student reasoning about many of the reaction types covered in the organic chemistry curriculum has been studied previously, there is minimal research focused specifically on how students think about the mechanisms of addition reactions. Understanding students' conceptions about addition reactions is valuable for both instructors and researchers, as these reactions are among the first for which students must consider different chemical properties to make a decision about alternate reaction pathways. This study provides insight into how students think about these reactions by probing first semester organic chemistry students' thinking using think-aloud interviews as they worked through two addition reactions. To elicit a range of thinking, students worked through the mechanisms using either paper and pencil or an app that dynamically represents the molecules. Generally, students were able to identify the steps of the two addition reactions but did not always successfully apply chemical thinking during the mechanistic steps. Most prominently, both groups of students struggled with the concepts related to carbocation stability, frequently misapplying stabilization via substitution and demonstrating difficulty in identifying the potential for resonance stabilization. Our results suggest that instructors should emphasize the conceptual grounding that directs mechanistic steps, in particular when determining carbocation stability. More generally, our findings suggest that instructors must emphasize the skill of considering and weighing different chemical properties when making decisions about alternative reaction pathways.

An understanding of acid-base reactions is necessary for success in chemistry courses and relevant to careers outside of chemistry, yet research has demonstrated that students often struggle with learning acid-base reaction mechanisms in organic chemistry. One response to this challenge is the development of educational applications to support instruction and learning. The development of these supports also creates an opportunity to probe students' thinking about organic chemistry reaction mechanisms using multiple modalities--i.e., using an app interface or the traditional paper-pencil. This study used think-aloud interviews conducted with undergraduate students in their first semester of organic chemistry to understand how they worked through two acid-base reactions using either paper-pencil or an app. Analysis of the interviews indicates that students from both groups recognize the steps of acid-base reactions, but do not always apply the underlying concepts, such as assessment of pK[subscript a] values or resonance, when determining how a reaction will proceed. The modality seemed to somewhat influence students' thinking, as the app prevented students from making chemically unreasonable mistakes. However, some students relied on the cues it provided, which could potentially be problematic when they are required to respond to assessments that do not provide these cues. Our results suggest that instructors should emphasize the conceptual grounding for the steps that govern acid-base reactions to promote chemical thinking about the relationships between the reaction components and how those influence reaction outcomes, as well as support students to think critically about the chemical information contained within the modalities they are using.

Promoting students' ability to engage in discipline-specific practices is a central goal of chemistry education. Yet if instruction is to meaningfully foster such ability, we must first understand students' reasoning during these practices. By characterizing constraints on chemistry students' reasoning, we can design instruction that targets this constrained reasoning and ultimately promotes more sophisticated ways of thinking. For this study, we investigated reasoning used by 18 organic chemistry students at a large university in the United States as they evaluated the success of chemical syntheses through IR and [superscript 1]H NMR spectral interpretation, a common task of practicing chemists. Students completed a series of interpretation tasks while having their eye movements tracked and then participated in semi-structured, cued retrospective think-aloud (RTA) interviews about their reasoning during spectral interpretation. RTA interviews were analyzed qualitatively to characterize invalid chemical assumptions and heuristic reasoning strategies used by participants, both of which science education literature identifies as fundamental constraints to learning. The most problematic assumptions and heuristics, i.e., those used more frequently by unsuccessful participants, were then identified through statistical analysis. Findings suggest that the most problematic constraints on students' reasoning during spectral interpretation constitute a combination of particular invalid chemical assumptions and heuristic reasoning strategies.

Peer review is useful for providing students with formative feedback, yet it is used less frequently in STEM classrooms and for supporting writing-to-learn (WTL). While research indicates the benefits of incorporating peer review into classrooms, less research is focused on students' perceptions thereof. Such research is important as it speaks to the mechanisms whereby peer review can support learning. This study examines students' self-reported approaches to and perceptions of peer review and revision associated with WTL assignments implemented in an organic chemistry course. Students responded to a survey covering how they approached peer review and revision and the benefits they perceived from participating in each. Findings indicate that the assignment materials guided students' approaches during both peer review and revision. Furthermore, students described various ways both receiving feedback from their peers and reading their peers' drafts were beneficial, but primarily connected their revisions to receiving feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fundamental quantum chemistry concepts--quantization of energy, electronic structure, and light-matter interaction--are essential for understanding chemistry and spectroscopy, an important tool for studying molecules. However, very few studies have investigated how students learn and understand these concepts or how their learning can be supported. Drawing on the capacity of writing to support learning of difficult concepts, we designed an intervention that targeted quantum concepts in the context of the use of spectroscopy for identifying chemical composition of the Orion Nebula. A quasi-experimental design with a pre-post assessment on a control and treatment group was used to identify the gains associated with completing the WTL activity. Results from a three-tiered assessment show that WTL students significantly improved in their explanations of the concept of spectroscopic transitions and their overall confidence in their understanding. Analysis of their writing, follow-up interviews, and feedback served to explain the changes observed on the pre-post assessment.

Student misconceptions are an obstacle in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses and unless remediated may continue causing difficulties in learning as students advance in their studies. Writing-to-learn assignments (WTL) are characterized by their ability to promote in-depth conceptual learning by allowing students to explore their understanding of a topic. This study sought to determine whether and what types of misconceptions are elicited by WTL assignments and how the process of peer review and revision leads to remediation or propagation of misconceptions. We examined four WTL assignments in an introductory biology course in which students first wrote about content by applying it to a realistic scenario, then participated in a peer-review process before revising their work. Misconceptions were identified in all four assignments, with the greatest number pertaining to protein structure and function. Additionally, in certain contexts, students used scientific terminology incorrectly. Analysis of the drafts and peer-review comments generated six profiles by which misconceptions were addressed through the peer-review process. The prevalent mode of remediation arose through directed peer-review comments followed by correction during revision. It was also observed that additional misconceptions were elicited as students revised their writing in response to general peer-review suggestions.

We conducted a study to examine how a writing-to-learn assignment influenced student learning of polymer behavior. In particular, we examined the role of specific content and a rhetorical framework as well as a structured writing process including peer review and revision. The student-generated writing was analyzed via a content-directed rubric. Students' conceptual understanding of stress-strain behavior was gauged via a multitiered assessment. Finally, interviews were conducted to probe students' experiences during the writing process. Results indicate that the writing-to-learn assignment was effective in promoting understanding of stress-strain properties, but that further support is needed to help students connect polymer microscopic properties to macroscopic behavior. Specifically, the content requirements and rhetorical framework guided what students included in their writing. Peer review and revision provided students with further opportunities to engage and learn the material.

Across undergraduate STEM learning contexts in several countries, students' intrapersonal attributes of epistemic beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, intrinsic motivation, and sense of identity have been found to influence learning and to change in response to educational practices. However, research can mask individual and demographic differences in student's attributes that may moderate or mediate the relationship between educational practices and learning outcomes. We employed variable-centered and person-centered methods to examine individual and demographic differences in changes in students' intrapersonal attributes and patterns of interrelationship among attributes with a study sample of students (N = 4,500) in 14 STEM undergraduate courses (8 biology, 4 chemistry, and 2 statistics) at three research universities in the United States. Variable-centered analyses revealed overall increases in students' science self-efficacy beliefs and epistemic beliefs even though these outcomes were not intentionally targeted as learning objectives. However, person-centered analyses indicated that not all students experienced these gains. For example, self-identified Asian/Pacific Islander and Black students were more likely to be members of groups demonstrating a decrease in science self-efficacy, whereas Asian/Pacific Islander students and men were less likely to be members of the subgroup with consistently evaluativist epistemic beliefs and higher GPAs. Using latent profile analysis (LPA), we identified five distinct student profiles that reflected different patterns of interrelationship of epistemic beliefs, science and writing self-efficacy beliefs, and science identity. We discuss the implications of these findings for educational practices, particularly with regard to intentionally fostering diverse students' self-efficacy, sense of identity, and adaptive epistemic beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Undergraduate writing fellows play an important role in administering writing assignments in writing-intensive courses. At the University of Michigan, the MWrite program was designed to support the implementation of writing-to-learn (WTL) assignments in STEM courses. Within MWrite, writing fellows are a primary instructional resource for students and help evaluate students’ writing. As such, it is important to characterize writing fellows’ beliefs about both WTL and writing more generally. In this study we interviewed writing fellows for MWrite courses in biology, chemistry, economics, and statistics about how they conceptualize WTL and writing quality. Our analysis indicates that writing fellows conceptualize WTL as supporting a range of content-focused learning outcomes and as featuring specific rhetorical elements that make WTL assignments successful. Most writing fellows discussed the importance of higher-order characteristics when evaluating the quality of students’ writing, but also placed importance on the lower-order characteristics. Our results indicate that the writing fellows are internalizing the MWrite pedagogy with respect to WTL, but that their conceptions of writing quality appear to be informed by their experiences with writing more broadly. These findings support the use of writing fellows during the implementation of WTL in STEM courses that traditionally present barriers to using writing assignments. More generally, they indicate the potential for writing fellows’ conceptions to support the aims of the writing fellows program of which they are part. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to accelerate the pace of adoption of writing-to-learn (WTL) practices in undergraduate STEM courses have been limited by a lack of theoretical and conceptual frameworks to systematically guide research and empirical evidence about the extent to which intrapersonal attributes and contextual factors, particularly faculty beliefs and disciplinary cultures, influence faculty use of writing assignments in their teaching. To address these gaps, we adopted an ecological systems perspective and conducted a national survey of faculty in STEM departments across 63 research-intensive universities in the United States. Overall, the findings indicated that 70% of faculty assigned writing. However, the assignment of writing differed by faculty demographics, discipline, and beliefs. More specifically, faculty demographics accounted for 5% of the variance in assignment of writing. Faculty discipline accounted for an additional 6% increment in variance, and faculty epistemic beliefs and beliefs about effectiveness of WTL practices and contextual resources and constraints influencing the use of writing in their teaching together accounted for an additional 30% increment in variance. The findings point to faculty beliefs as salient intervention targets and highlight the importance of disciplinary specific approaches to the promotion of the adoption of WTL practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advancements in organic chemistry depend upon chemists' ability to interpret NMR spectra, though research demonstrates that cultivating such proficiency requires years of graduate-level study. The organic chemistry community thus needs insight into how this expertise develops to expedite learning among its newest members. This study investigated undergraduate and doctoral chemistry students' understanding and information processing during the interpretation of 1 H NMR spectra and complementary IR spectra. Eighteen undergraduate and seven doctoral chemistry students evaluated the outcome of a series of syntheses using spectra corresponding to the products. Eye movements were measured to identify differences in cognitive processes between undergraduate and doctoral participants, and interviews were conducted to elucidate the chemical assumptions that guided participants' reasoning. Results suggest five areas of understanding are necessary for interpreting spectra, and progress in understanding corresponds to increasing knowledge of experimental and implicit chemical variables. Undergraduate participants exhibited uninformed bidirectional processing of all information, whereas doctoral participants exhibited informed unidirectional processing of relevant information. These findings imply the community can support novices' development of expertise by cultivating relevant understanding and encouraging use of informed interpretation strategies, including preliminary evaluation of relevant variables, prediction of expected spectral features, and search for complementary data across spectra.