Approaches to Improve Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Writing
Approach #1: Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs)
Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs)
Using faculty learning communities to improve writing in STEM disciplines involves creating collaborative groups of educators who share best practices, strategies, and resources. These communities focus on enhancing pedagogical techniques, integrating writing into STEM curricula, and fostering interdisciplinary dialogue, ultimately leading to improved student writing skills and better communication of complex scientific concepts.
To use an FLCs to improve faculty and student writing in STEM:
Defining Purpose and Goals
1. Identify the need to enhance writing instruction and skills in STEM courses (Grunert O'Brien et al., 2008).
2. Set goals like developing writing assignments, exploring writing pedagogies for STEM, and building faculty community around this issue (Grunert O'Brien et al., 2008).
Forming the FLC
3. Invite 6-15 STEM faculty from multiple disciplines (Cox, 2004).
4. Select 1-2 facilitators to organize meetings (Cox, 2004).
Planning Activities
5. Schedule meetings every 2-4 weeks over a term/year (Cox, 2004).
6. Plan activities like seminars, assignments, peer review of teaching materials (Furco & Moely, 2012).
7. Invite writing experts to share knowledge (Grunert O'Brien et al., 2008).
Implementation
8. Discuss challenges, share strategies for STEM writing instruction (Grunert O'Brien et al., 2008).
9. Peer review and provide feedback on teaching materials (Cox, 2004).
10. Develop writing resources, assignments, or publications (Furco & Moely, 2012).
Assessment
11. Survey faculty and assess student writing samples (Cox, 2004).
12. Reflect on effectiveness and make improvements (Cox, 2004).
13. Share outcomes within the institution (Furco & Moely, 2012).
Approach #2: Transdisciplinary Action Research (TDAR)
Additional TDAR Resources:
Advancing Adaptation of Writing Pedagogies for Undergraduate STEM Education Through TDAR
Promoting Pedagogical Change Around Writing: Observations of Discursive Turbulence
A Collaborative Longitudinal Design for Supporting Writing Pedagogies pf STEM Faculty
Grounded Action Design – Transdisciplinary Co-Creation for Better Transformative Processes
Ten Essentials for Contributing More Directly to Transformational Change
Transdisciplinary Action Research (TDAR)
Using a transdisciplinary research approach (TDAR) to improve writing in STEM disciplines involves faculty collaborating across various fields to develop and implement writing-intensive curricula. This approach leverages the expertise and methodologies from multiple disciplines to create a more holistic and effective writing instruction framework. Faculty members work together to design assignments and projects that integrate writing with STEM content, thereby enhancing students' ability to communicate complex ideas clearly and effectively.
To use an TDAR to improve faculty and student writing in STEM the following steps should be followed:
Defining the Complex Problem
The first step is to clearly define the complex, real-world problem that needs to be addressed through a transdisciplinary lens. In this case, it is improving writing skills and writing-to-learn practices across diverse STEM disciplines (Polk, 2015).
Forming the Transdisciplinary Team
A key characteristic of TDAR is bringing together a team with diverse expertise and perspectives beyond just academic disciplines. This could include STEM faculty, writing experts, students, industry partners utilizing STEM writing, community representatives with a stake in STEM literacy, and other relevant stakeholders (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008).
Collaboratively Framing the Research
The transdisciplinary team collaboratively frames the research questions and determines appropriate methods for investigation. This involves integrating different epistemologies and knowledge systems, such as combining writing pedagogy research with the experiential knowledge of STEM professionals (Lang et al., 2012; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2007).
Cyclical and Iterative Research Process
TDAR follows a cyclical and iterative process of:
1) Implementing interventions like new writing assignments or curricula
2) Assessing impacts through various methods (e.g. student writing samples, surveys)
3) Reflecting on findings within the team
4) Adapting and refining the approaches based on reflections (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008)
Generating Different Forms of Knowledge
Through this iterative process, TDAR aims to generate three forms of knowledge:
1) Systems knowledge about STEM writing skills across disciplines
2) Target knowledge on effective practices for improving STEM writing
3) Transformation knowledge to enact sustainable change in writing instruction (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2007)
Continuous Collaboration and Reflection
Continuous collaboration, reflection and negotiation among the transdisciplinary team is crucial throughout the process to effectively integrate the diverse perspectives, knowledge systems and expertise (Stokols, 2006; Polk, 2015).
Disseminating Outcomes
Finally, the outcomes and findings from the TDAR process are disseminated through diverse channels such as academic publications, reports for stakeholders, public outputs, and other appropriate mediums (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008).
Featured WAC & STEM Articles
The article, "Writing Science: What Makes Scientific Writing Hard and How to Make It Easier," by Kathleen E. Grogan, explores the challenges scientists face in writing and provides strategies to improve writing practices, aiming to enhance productivity, career prospects, and scientific knowledge dissemination.
The paper, "Writing Across Engineering: A Collaborative Approach to Support STEM Faculty’s Integration of Writing Instruction in their Classes," discusses a multi-year collaboration at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign aimed at improving writing instruction in STEM courses. The program, Writing Across Engineering (WAE), integrates writing into technical courses, emphasizes the importance of communication skills, and offers support for faculty through workshops and mentoring.
This study examines how structured peer review, through weekly writing circles, shapes STEM students’ development as thinkers and communicators. Drawing from reflective writing in kinesiology companion courses, the analysis shows that participation in peer review improves students’ collaborative dialogue skills, helps them apply revision strategies across contexts, and builds confidence in their communication and critical thinking abilities. These findings offer practical insight for educators aiming to strengthen writing, critical thinking, and collaboration in STEM learning environments.
This mixed-methods study investigates how writing-to-engage (WTE) assignments shape student experiences in a Multivariate Calculus course at a midwestern university. Survey results from 55 students reveal a preference for technical and transactional writing, a measurable shift away from skepticism toward math and math instruction, and increased confidence in their identities as writers. Students also reported seeing greater relevance between the course and their future careers.
Chapters & Books
Presentations & Videos
References
Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(97), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.129
Furco, A., & Moely, B. E. (2012). Using learning communities to build faculty support for pedagogical innovation: A multi-campus study. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(1), 128-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2012.11777237
Grunert O'Brien, J., Millis, B. J., & Cohen, M. W. (2008). The course portfolio: How instructors can examine their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., ...Zemp, E. (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_26
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., ... Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Munich: Oekom. http://dx.doi.org/10.14512/9783962388638
Polk, M. (2015). Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures, 65, 110-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001
Richlin, L., & Cox, M. D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning through faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(97), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.142
Stokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1-2), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9060-5