Search for: All records

Technical communication is essential for a career in physics, but communication skills are often not explicitly taught in physics undergraduate curricula. As a starting point for curricular integration, we investigated where and how writing is currently occurring in the core undergraduate physics courses at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. We examined course materials to identify where writing is explicitly or implicitly referenced, the genres that were assigned, and writing concepts that were represented. Analyzing course materials allowed us to identify a wide range of activities and assignments related to writing. We observed that implicit references to writing are prevalent, writing activities are weighted toward upper-level classes, and the most common genres are related to laboratory activities. Writing concepts that occurred frequently in upper-level laboratory courses correspond to disciplinary values of precision and clarity, while concepts of novelty and evidence were infrequent. This type of assessment can help identify gaps in the curriculum, allowing us to be more deliberate about how we develop students’ communication skills. 

Our work aims to support engineering and science faculty in adapting core concepts and best practices from writing studies and technical communication for their courses. We also study the effectiveness of varied supports, with an aim of improving the diffusion of effective pedagogies. Our Writing Across Engineering and Science (WAES) program includes a semester-long faculty learning community, followed by sustained mentoring, during which faculty and graduate students from our multidisciplinary team work with mentees to develop and implement new pedagogies and course materials. For graduate students, we developed an engineering course focused on engineering and science writing practices and pedagogies. This paper focuses on one key finding from our analysis: discussions about writing practices involving people from different disciplines often involve irregular and sporadic bumpiness through which foundational changes can emerge. We call this phenomenon discursive turbulence. In our experience, signs of discursive turbulence include affective intensity and co- existing contradictory beliefs. We share four examples to illustrate ways in which discursive turbulence appears, drawn from people with varying degrees and types of engagement with our transdisciplinary work: i) project team members, ii) a faculty mentee, iii) faculty who participated in a focus group on disciplinary writing goals, and iv) engineering graduate students who took our class on writing practice and pedagogy. Discursive turbulence now informs our mentoring approach. It can be generative as well as challenging. Importantly, it takes time to resolve, suggesting the utility of sustained mentoring during pedagogical change.