“I’m Not a Writer”: Shaping the Literacy-Related Attitudes and Beliefs of Students and Teachers in STEM Disciplines

Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 49)


In this chapter I claim that many STEM students have developed negative attitudes and beliefs towards writing in science, often arising from earlier school experiences entailing their lack of self-efficacy as writers. These negative perceptions may be partly due to teacher attitudes but can also be traced to international and national curricular documents that tend to minimise the role of writing in developing and demonstrating science literacy. I argue that changes to STEM student literacy-related attitudes and beliefs need to emerge from within the STEM educational community in terms of how science education is defined.


  1. Aitken, R. (1976). An adaptive approach to English. In J. Codd & G. Hermansson (Eds.), Directions in New Zealand secondary education (pp. 95–107). Auckland, NZ: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A. (2011a). Can we get from there to here? Educational Researcher, 32(8), 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, P. A. (2011b). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amato, S. A. (2004). Improving student teachers’ attitudes to mathematics. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  5. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing- to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlett, L. (2007). To seem and to feel: Situated identities and literacy practices. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 51–69.Google Scholar
  7. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  8. Beaufort, A. (2008). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
  9. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. Peru, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  11. Binns, I. C., & Popp, S. (2013). Learning to teach science by inquiry: Experiences of pre-service teachers. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  12. Blakeslee, A. (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to write scientific papers in situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11(2), 125–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boice, R. (1994). How writers journey to comfort and fluency: A psychological adventure. Westport, CT: Praeger, Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  14. Breslyn, W., & McGinnis, J. R. (2012). A comparison of exemplary biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry. Science Education, 96(1), 48–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Catherwood, V., Rathgen, E., & Aitken, R. (1990). The teaching of English in New Zealand schools. In J. Britton, R. Schafer, & K. Watson (Eds.), Teaching and learning English worldwide (pp. 175–199). Bristol, UK: Multi-Lingual Matters.Google Scholar
  17. Connors, R., & Lunsford, A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research. College Composition and Communication, 39(4), 395–409. Scholar
  18. Daley, B. J. (1999). Novice to expert: An exploration of how professionals learn. Adult Education Quarterly, 49, 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of the stages models. Review of Educational Research, 76, 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dewey, J. (2002). Human nature and conduct. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
  21. Dreyfus, H. L. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24(3), 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude structure, and resistance to change. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (Vol. 4, pp. 413–432). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  23. Emerson, L. (2017). The forgotten tribe: Scientists as writers. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado and the WAC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  24. Emerson, L., Kilpin, K., & Feekery, A. (2014). Starting the conversation: Student transition from secondary to academic literacy. Curriculum Matters, 10, 94–114.Google Scholar
  25. Emerson, L., Kilpin, K., & Feekery, A. (2015). Smoothing the path to transition.
  26. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 79(10), 570–581.Google Scholar
  28. ETINI. (2015). A joint report by the education and training inspectorate and the Department of Education and Skills Inspectorate on Promoting Literacy in Post-Primary Schools. primary-schools.pdf
  29. Feliu-Mojer, M. I. (2015). Effective communication, better science. Scientific American.
  30. Fletcher, S. S., & Luft, J. A. (2011). Early career secondary science teachers: A longitudinal study of beliefs in relation to field experiences. Science Education, 95(6), 1124–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Florence, M. K., & Yore, L. D. (2004). Learning to write like a scientist: A study of the enculturation of novice scientists into expert discourse communities by co-authoring research reports. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 637–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fowler, M. (2005). Refloating a stranded curriculum. In Restructuring the English curriculum into receptive and productive strands. Paper prepared for the New Zealand Ministry of Education, New Zealand Curriculum/Marautanga Project.Google Scholar
  33. Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. A. (1985). Men, women, and publication productivity: Patterns among social work academics. The Sociological Quarterly, 26, 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fulwiler, T., & Young, A. (Eds.). (1990). Programs that work: Models and methods for WAC. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook/Heinemann.Google Scholar
  35. Gee, J. P. (2000). The new literacy studies: From “socially situated” to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180–209). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Gerrard, H. (2017). Skills as trope, skills as target: Universities and the uncertain future. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 1–8. doi: Accessed 14 Jan 2019.
  40. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—a report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  41. Gray, F. E., Emerson, L., & MacKay, B. (2006). ‘They don’t have much in their kitbags’: Equipping science students with communication skills for the workplace. Australian Journal of Communication, 33(1), 105–122.Google Scholar
  42. Gray, F. E., Emerson, L., & MacKay, B. (2005). Meeting the demands of the workplace: science students and written skills. Journal of science education and technology, 14(4), 425–435.Google Scholar
  43. Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasizing open‐mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 225–236.Google Scholar
  45. Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hartley, J., & Branthwaite, A. (1989). The psychologist as wordsmith: A questionnaire study of the writing strategies of productive British psychologists. Higher Education, 18, 423–452. Accessed 14 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hipkins, R. (2014). Unlocking the idea of ‘capabilities’ in science.Google Scholar
  48. Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Symbolic connectionism: Toward third-generation theories of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 301–335). Cambridge, UK: CUP.Google Scholar
  49. Jones, J. E., & Preusz, G. C. (1993). Attitudinal factors associated with individual factor research productivity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1191–1198.Google Scholar
  50. Jones, M. G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production in the writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kilpin, K., Emerson, L., & Feekery, A. (2014). Information literacy and the transition to tertiary. English in Aotearoa, 83, 13–19.Google Scholar
  53. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lerner, N. (2007). Laboratory lessons for writing and science. Written Communication, 24(3), 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lunsford, A. A., & Lunsford, K. J. (2008). “Mistakes are a fact of life”: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 781–806.Google Scholar
  56. Martin, L. J. (August, 2012). Scientists as writers. Scientific American. Retrieved from
  57. Martinez, M. A., Sauleda, N., & Huber, G. L. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of thinking about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 965–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Matthews, D. (2017) Academics fail to change teaching due to fear of looking stupid. Times Higher Education.
  59. McLeod, S. H., & Soven, M. (Eds.). (2000). Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing programs. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from Scholar
  60. McNaughton, S., Wilson, A., Jesson, R., & Lai, M. K. (2012). Research into the Implementation of the Secondary Literacy Project (SLP) in Schools (Report for the Ministry of Education). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  61. Ministry of Education. (1994). English in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  62. Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Introducing five science capabilities. capabilities
  63. Morss, K., & Murray, R. (2001). Researching academic writing within a structured programme: Insights and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  65. New Zealand Productivity Commission. (2016). New models of tertiary education: Issues paper.Google Scholar
  66. New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2017). University entrance review 2016–2017 discussion document. Review-Discussion-Paper-Final-PDF.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2019.
  67. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2002). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Northern Ireland Assembly. (2013). Report on improving literacy and numeracy achievement in schools. London: TSO.Google Scholar
  69. OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006.Google Scholar
  70. Ofsted. (2013). Improving literacy in secondary schools: A shared responsibility. Manchester, UK: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  71. Openshaw, R., & Walshaw, M. (2010). Are our standards slipping? Debates over literacy and numeracy standards in New Zealand since 1945. Wellington, New Zealand: Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  72. Peters-Burton, E. E., Merz, S. A., Ramirez, E. M., & Saroughi, M. (2015). The effect of cognitive apprenticeship-based professional development on teacher self-efficacy of science teaching, motivation, knowledge calibration, and perceptions of inquiry-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(6), 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pinker, S. (2015). The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  74. Poe, M., Lerner, N., & Craig, J. (2010). Learning to communicate in science and engineering. Boston: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 430–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 559–572). Routledge.Google Scholar
  77. Rodgers, R., & Rodgers, N. (1999). The sacred spark of academic research. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 9(3), 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Russell, D. R. (1991). Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870-1990. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.Google Scholar
  79. Science for all Americans. (1990). Effective learning and teaching: Principles of learning teaching science, mathematics and technology. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  80. Shah, J., Shah, A., & Pietrobon, R. (2009). Scientific writing of novice researchers: What difficulties and encouragements do they encounter? Academic Medicine, 84, 511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tertiary Education Commission. (2014). Tertiary education strategy 2014–19. Accessed 14 Jan 2019.
  82. Tobin, K., & Tippens, D. J. (1996). Metaphors as seeds for conceptual change. Science Teacher Education, 80(6), 711–730.Google Scholar
  83. Wong, S. S. (2016). Development of teacher beliefs through online instruction: A one-year study of middle school science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 2(1), 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 109–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 338–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Massey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations