Undergraduate Collaborative Writing in STEM: How Learning to Write Authentically in the Discipline Can Promote Mastery

Abstract

Writing in the Discipline (WID) is a means of connecting content knowledge with the habits of mind and ways of knowing in the discipline by means of authentic writing practice. While employer surveys have shown written communication to be highly valued with 82% placing this skill in the top five, fewer than 30% believe students have acquired these skills by graduation (AACU 2013) and this can be a significant barrier for advancement. Collaborative case‐based learning provides students the opportunity to participate in contextual, inquiry‐driven learning, authentic to the workplace. This study seeks to inform our understanding of how authentic disciplinary writing practices influence student understanding of content and promote evidence‐based reasoning. Developing a narrative argument exposes gaps in knowledge, prompting students to explore the boundaries of their understandingStudent performance and understanding of cardiovascular, renal and respiratory physiology, as judged by exams improved during a semester‐long course when the team discovery learning process was scaffolded with authentic writing in the discipline and reflection on the collaborative process. This study investigated past writing performance of individuals as a potential predictor of team writing performance. Data used in the analysis included student collaborative patient case reports scored for content understanding and scientific writing quality during the course, and systematic scoring of reasoning and support, organization, and vocabulary and grammar by a team of evaluators outside of the course. Triangulation of these scores with past writing performance data collected from the Indiana University Assessment and Research office, general performance measures in the course, peer evaluations and end of semester surveys supports our hypothesis that the ability to write collaboratively and contextually organize knowledge provides an advantage for both individual and team in an examination setting. Student teams receiving higher writing assessment scores also received higher marks when collaborative reports were scored for content; this correlated with higher individual and team examination scores. We conclude that student teams entering the course with mastery of written communication case report scores fared better in an authentic inquiry‐based, case‐based environment; implementation of authentic, scaffolded disciplinary writing earlier in the curriculum will nurture critical thinking in upper‐level courses, better preparing our students for post‐graduate careers.Select Central Questions What is the relationship between the ability to write, collaborative case report writing (for content) and semester exam (team and individual) performance? How do students from high performing, low performing and most improved case report writing teams perceive and value the writing experience as determined from student reflection? How do metacognitive processes inform collaboration and team writing as determined from peer competency evaluation and reflection?