It seems that writing assignments aren’t what students expect from their introductory biology course these days. At least that’s what they seem to be telling us in course evaluations. A survey administered to 215 students in an intro bio course for majors this semester showed that 45% of the students don’t like writing. When asked about the importance of writing in learning, however, 98% thought it was important and the other 2% were unsure. They stated that writing was important for the demonstration of conceptual understanding and for communication ability in and of itself, which led me to hypothesize that the problem is in their perception of what scientists do.

I was shocked to discover that only 2% of students listed writing or communication as one of the most important components of science. On the bright side, when asked for what they thought the least important components of science are, only 1 of 215 mentioned writing. It gets more interesting: In a later question on why writing would be important in science, most every student thought that peer review and sharing research findings are vital to scientific advancement. So if students see that writing has important connections to learning and to science, how do we help highlight this connection and get students to buy into the notion that writing belongs in the biology classroom?

The answer seems simple: Teach students what biologists do rather than only what they know. In my Biology 152 lab sections this semester, I have been trying to do just that—aligning the syllabus, assignments, and classroom experience in a way that connects writing with biology in order to develop scientific abilities and the habits of mind to use them.

The Syllabus Sets the Stage
Ordinarily, my syllabus reflects little more than an instructor's perspective on the organization of course content, with the typical readings, due dates, and grading breakdown. This semester, however, I used the syllabus, http://www.zoology.wisc.edu/manske/syllabus.doc, to frame the lab as an opportunity to engage in real biology--including writing. The syllabus makes this aim explicit through connecting learning goals to writing. Students will, for example, work towards becoming "effective communicators and biologically literate citizens." Aligning assessments with learning goals, the syllabus re-emphasizes the relation of writing to biology by linking eight of the eleven grades for the semester to communication skills. From the very outset of the class, there can be no mistake: Doing biology means doing writing.

Authentic Assignments
Biology 152 includes a semester-long independent research project that provides authentic problems for students to investigate. This project, along with others, helps students to see the value of asking the next question instead of simply seeking the correct answer.

For their independent research, students can pursue either literature-based research or mentored research, allowing them to learn content that arouses their curiosity. Mentored research connects a student’s research with a faculty mentor or community organization, such as Troy Gardens or the National Lung Cancer Partnership. This personalized research experience gives students responsibility for a unique contribution to their mentor’s research. In the literature-based assignments, students tackle a question as yet unanswered by current researchers. For example, “What is the biological link between childhood antigen exposure and adult asthma?” Students create their own biological models, instead of following one created by a teacher or other scientists.

With these projects, we want to make sure that students understand the importance of writing for scientific discovery and communication. So we guide them through the writing process in a way that mirrors as closely as possible the way practicing scientists use writing.

First, we ask students to come up with a research question—arguably the most difficult part of the research process. We suggest that students doing the literature-based projects think about what areas of biology they have found interesting, narrow down a topic, do some casual reading, and discover a question that is still unsettled. Mentored research students work with their mentor to identify an area of research to which they can make a contribution within one semester. In other words, we ask students to engage in practices similar to those of real scientists. Then we help them revise their questions through peer workshops and instructor feedback.

Armed with their question and preliminary research, students turn in a proposal and then after further research write an initial, yet incomplete, draft. Asking for an incomplete draft provides students room to engage in the messy process of scientific investigation without prematurely coming up with results or conclusions. It also gives students room to experience how writing can help them along with their scientific discoveries.

This combination of sequenced coaching and authentic research—research that in the case of the mentored students may also result in publication—leads students not only to understand, but to experience, how integral writing is in the process of real scientific work.

Classroom Communication
Biologists work in research teams, engaging in conversations with other biologists. They struggle with challenges, exchange ideas, share a workload, and review each other’s research. Why should the classroom be any different?

One way I have attempted to create the atmosphere of a scientific team in the classroom is by organizing students into diverse research and review teams. These permanent teams have two main goals: to conduct short-term research and to engage in peer review. To conduct research, groups ask a question (often in response to an authentic scenario), collect data, and co-write their final results. Peer review occurs on an almost weekly basis towards the end of the semester. Much as in a real research lab meeting, students take an hour of their lab time to read a portion of a draft and give feedback to each other. For this process to be effective, we ask writers to come in with questions about their own writing to direct group feedback, which allows them to take greater ownership of their work and allows the group members to see each other as resources.

Do these methods work? Anecdotal evidence of their success is already surfacing: Students are actively seeking information to get a head start on writing. An experienced TA noticed that his students are more engaged and critical in peer review, essentially taking their writing more seriously. This approach may not convert all students who don’t like writing, but we can hope that students will think of writing less as busywork and more as an important element of biological training.