Download files
Abstract
Abstract
Students’ 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.