Abstract
For English as a foreign language (EFL) graduate students in STEM, with the need to publish in an international journal comes the double burden of developing general English language skills and discipline-specific writing skills. To help these students effectively, discipline-specific scientific writing (SW) instruction is necessary but has been scarce in Asian contexts. This study investigates how discipline-specific SW courses were developed for graduate students at a Korean science and engineering university, if the courses were successfully implemented, and what could be done to improve the offering of such courses. The study uses a mixed methods research design, informed by the research paradigm of pragmatism. The dataset used in the present study includes interviews, questionnaire surveys, and performance measurement. Interviews were conducted with six language and five content professors and nine teaching assistants, and 42 students involved in the development and offering of the SW courses. A purposive sampling approach was used in selecting interviewees. In addition, two types of questionnaire surveys were conducted among the students who had taken the courses: 225 participated in the university survey and 312 in the program survey. In addition, a pretest and posttest were given to measure students’ improvement in their SW performances. For data analysis, text analysis and descriptive statistics were used. The results show that the courses were well received by all those involved. Students expressed appreciation for their instructor’s individual attention and feedback on their writing. Moreover, students’ posttest scores showed substantial improvement. On the other hand, the study raises such issues as difficulties in collaboration between the language and content professors and the need to enhance the course’s relevance to students’ major fields. The study concludes by offering suggestions on how to improve the interdisciplinary aspect of SW courses for STEM students and by providing a recommended model of interdisciplinary collaboration among language and content professors and teaching assistants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets created and analyzed in the present research are available upon request from the corresponding author.
References
Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., & Burgin, S. (2012). ‘Tough love and tears’: Learning doctoral writing in the sciences. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.559195
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.
Cargill, M., O’Connor, P., & Li, Y. (2012). Educating Chinese scientists to write for international journals: Addressing the divide between science and technology education and English language teaching. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.05.003
Chanock, K. (2013). Teaching subject literacies through blended learning: Reflections on a collaboration between academic learning staff and teachers in the disciplines. Journal of Academic Language Learning, 7(2), A106–A119. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/256
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
Clabough, E. B., & Clabough, S. W. (2016). Using rubrics as a scientific writing instructional method in early stage undergraduate neuroscience study. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 15(1), A85–A93. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5105970/
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, V. L. C., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390
Deane, M., & O’Neill, P. (2011). Conclusion: Ways forward for WiD. In M. Deane & P. O’Neill (Eds.), Writing in the disciplines: Universities into the 21st century (pp. 265–272). Palgrave Macmillan.
Dudley-Evans, T. (2001). Team-teaching in EAP: Changes and adaptations in the Birmingham approach. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 225–238). Cambridge University Press.
Englander, K. (2006). Revision of scientific manuscripts by non-native English-speaking scientists in response to journal editors’ language critiques. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v3i2.129
Eriksson, A. (2018). Redesigning a discipline-specific writing assignment to improve writing on an EMI Programme of Engineering. Journal of Academic Writing, 8(2), 48–66.
Ferguson, G. (1997). Teacher education and LSP: The role of specialised knowledge. In R. Howard & G. Brown (Eds.), Teacher education for languages for specific purposes (pp. 80–89). Multilingual Matters.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 12–17.
Harding, L., Nadler, R., Rawlins, P., Day, E., Miller, K., & Martin, K. (2020). Revising a scientific writing curriculum: Wayfinding successful collaborations with interdisciplinary expertise. College Composition and Communication, 72(2), 333–368.
Harper, R., & Vered, K. O. (2017). Developing communication as a graduate outcome: Using ‘writing across the curriculum’ as a whole-of-institution approach to curriculum and pedagogy. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(4), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1238882
Harran, M. (2011). Engineering and language discourse collaboration: practice realities. Across the Disciplines, 8(3). Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/clil/harran.pdf
Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003
Hyland, K. (2016a). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005
Hyland, K. (2016b). General and specific EAP. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 17–29). Routledge.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
Jacobs, C. (2007). Mainstreaming academic literacy teaching: Implications for how academic development understands its work in higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(7), 870–881. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajhe.v21i7.25748
Jaidev, R., & Chan, P. (2018). Embedding communication in the disciplines: A tale of two faculties. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1156685
Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6
Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Fostering team teaching: Mapping out a research agenda for English-medium instruction at university level. Language Teaching, 51(3), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000113
Li, Y. (2020). Language–content partnership in higher education: Development and opportunities. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 500–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1685947
Li, Y., Flowerdew, J., & Cargill, M. (2018). Teaching English for research publication purposes to science students in China: A case study of an experienced teacher in the classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.07.006
Li, Y., Ma, X., Zhao, J., & Hu, J. (2020). Graduate-level research writing instruction: Two Chinese EAP teachers’ localized ESP genre-based pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100813
Moore, E., Ploettner, J., & Deal, M. (2015). Exploring professional collaboration at the boundary between content and language teaching from a CHAT approach. Ibérica, 30, 85–104.
Papadopoulos, P. M., Lagkas, T. D., & Demetriadis, S. N. (2017). Technology-enhanced peer review: Benefits and implications of providing multiple reviews. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 69–81. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26196120
Paretti, M. C. (2011). Interdisciplinarity as a Lens for theorizing language/content partnerships. Across the Disciplines, 8(3). Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/clil/paretti.pdf
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, A., Spiliotopoulos, V., & Ilieva, R. (2020). CLIL collaborations in higher education: A critical perspective. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00052-4
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2018). Collaborations between language and content university instructors: Factors and indicators of positive partnerships. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1491946
Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.004
Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2019). Flipping an English writing class with technology-enhanced just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1127–1142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495654
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
The methods used in this study were approved by an institutional review board (IRB) where the study was conducted and adhere to the ethics policies of the institution.
Informed Consent
All respondents of collected surveys and interviews were informed of their rights and participated voluntarily.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, E.G., Baldwin, M., Shin, A. et al. Developing a Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration for STEM Graduate Students. J Sci Educ Technol 32, 227–240 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10025-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10025-w