Revising a Scientific Writing Curriculum: Wayfinding Successful Collaborations with Interdisciplinary Expertise

References

1. Akın Ferdi. “How Effective Is Critical Reading in the Understanding of Scientific Texts?” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 2015 24442451
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alexander Jonathan. et al. “Affect and Wayfinding in Writing after College.” College English 82 6 July 2020 56390
   [Google Scholar]
3. Alexander Jonathan. et al. “Toward Wayfinding: A Metaphor for Understanding Writing Experiences.” Written Communication 37 1 Jan 2020 10431
   [Google Scholar]
4. Anderson Paul. et al. “How to Create High-Impact Writing Assignments That Enhance Learning and Development and Reinvigorate WAC/WID Programs: What Almost 72,000 Undergraduates Taught Us.” Across the Disciplines 13 4 2016 118
   [Google Scholar]
5. Ballif Michelle. “The Writing Intensive Program at the University of Georgia.” Composition Forum 15 2006
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bastian Heather. “Performing the Groundwork: Building a WEC/WAC Writing Program at The College of St. Scholastica.” Composition Forum 29 2014
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bawarshi Anis S. Mary-Jo Reiff. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy Parlor Press and The WAC Clearinghouse 2010
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bazerman Charles. “A Relationship between Reading and Writing: The Conversational Model.” College English 41 6 1980 656661 10.2307/375913
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bloxham Sue. Liz Campbell. “Generating Dialogue in Assessment Feedback: Exploring the Use of Interactive Cover Sheets.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35 3 2010 291300
   [Google Scholar]
10. Brooks Lindsay. Merrill Swain. “Languaging in Collaborative Writing: Creation of and Response to Expertise.” Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second Language Research in Honor of Gass Susan M. Alison Mackey. Charlene Polio. Routledge 2009 5889
    [Google Scholar]
11. Brownell Sara E. et al. “A Writing-Intensive Course Improves Biology Undergraduates’ Perception and Confidence of Their Abilities to Read Scientific Literature and Communicate .” Advances in Physiology Education 37 1 2013 10.1152/advan.00138.2012
    [Google Scholar]
12. Carter Michael E. “Ways of Knowing, Doing, and Writing in the Disciplines.” Writing Across the Curriculum: A Critical Sourcebook Zawacki Terry Myers. Rogers Paul M. Bedford St. Martin’s 2012 21238
    [Google Scholar]
13. Chapin Lisbeth. “Implementing Writing Intensive Gen Ed Seminars at a Small, Catholic University.” Composition Forum 38 2018
    [Google Scholar]
14. Chi Michelene T. H. Ruth Wylie. “The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes.” Educational Psychologist 49 4 2014 21943
    [Google Scholar]
15. Cho Kwangsu. MacArthur Charles. “Student Revision with Peer and Expert Reviewing.” Learning and Instruction 20 4 2010 32838
    [Google Scholar]
16. Cho Kwangsu. Schunn Christian D. “Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline: A Web-Based Reciprocal Peer Review System.” Computers & Education, 48 3 2007 40926
    [Google Scholar]
17. Cho Young Hoan. Cho Kwangsu. “Peer Reviewers Learn from Giving Comments.” Instructional Science 39 5 2011 62943
    [Google Scholar]
18. Clabough Erin B. D. Clabough Seth W. “Using Rubrics as a Scientific Writing Instructional Method in Early Stage Undergraduate Neuroscience Study.” Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education: JUNE 15 1 15 Apr 2016 A85A93
    [Google Scholar]
19. Coil David. et al. “Teaching the Process of Science: Faculty Perceptions and an Effective Methodology.” CBE - Life Sciences Education 9 4 1 Jan 2010 52435
    [Google Scholar]
20. Colabroy Keri L. “A Writing-Intensive, Methods-Based Laboratory Course for Undergraduates.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 39 3 1 Jan 2011 196203
    [Google Scholar]
21. Cope William. Mary Kalantzis. “‘Multiliteracies’: New Literacies, New Learning.” Pedagogies: An International Journal 4 3 2009 16495
    [Google Scholar]
22. Dively Ronda Leather. Nelms R. Gerald. “Perceived Roadblocks to Transferring Knowledge from First-Year Composition to Writing-Intensive Major Courses: A Pilot Study.” WPA: Writing Program Administration 31 1/2 Fall/Winter 2007 21440
    [Google Scholar]
23. Driscoll Dana Lynn. “Connected, Disconnected, or Uncertain: Student Attitudes about Future Writing Contexts and Perceptions of Transfer from First Year Writing to the Disciplines.” Across the Disciplines 8 Jan 2011 129
    [Google Scholar]
24. Elton Lewis. “Academic Writing and Tacit Knowledge.” Teaching in Higher Education 15 2 Apr 2010 15160
    [Google Scholar]
25. Ford Julie Dyke. “Integrating Communication into Engineering Curricula: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Facilitating Transfer at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.” Composition Forum 26 2012
    [Google Scholar]
26. Gile Daniel. “Critical Reading in (Interpretation) Research.” Getting Started in Interpreting Research: Methodological Reflections, Personal Accounts and Advice for Beginners Daniel Gile Helle V. Dam. Friedel Dubslaff. Bodil Martinsen. Anne Schjold-ager. John Benjamins Publishing 2001 2238
    [Google Scholar]
27. Grady Rebecca K. et al. “Betwixt and Between: The Social Position and Stress Experiences of Graduate Students.” Teaching Sociology 42 1 2014 516
    [Google Scholar]
28. Harding Lindsey. Lane A. Kelly. “The Five Minute Teach: Instructional Design to Support TA Training and Writing Instruction in the Sciences.” Journal of College Science Teaching 47 6 2018 6673
    [Google Scholar]
29. Harding Lindsey. Liz Studer. “MetaFeedback: A Model for Teaching Instructor Response to Student Writing in the Sciences.” Scientific Communication: Practices, Theories, and Pedagogies, Han Yu. Northcut Kathryn M. Routledge 2018 25877
    [Google Scholar]
30. Howard Rebecca Moore. Jamieson Sandra. The Bedford Guide to Teaching Writing in the Disciplines: An Instructor’s Desk Reference. St. Martin’s Press 1995
    [Google Scholar]
31. Inoue Asao B. “2019 CCCC Chair’s Letter.” College Composition and Communication, 71 2 2019 37079
    [Google Scholar]
32. Janta Hania. et al. “Coping with Loneliness: A Netnographic Study of Doctoral Students.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 38 4 1 Jan 2014 55371
    [Google Scholar]
33. Kaufman Julia H. Christian D. Schunn. “Students’ Perceptions about Peer Assessment for Writing: Their Origin and Impact on Revision Work.” Instructional Science, 39 3 2011 387406
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kim Dave. Olson Wendy M. “Using a Transfer-Focused Writing Pedagogy to Improve Undergraduates’ Lab Report Writing in Gateway Engineering Laboratory Courses.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 63 1 Mar 2020 6484 10.1109/TPC.2019.2961009
    [Google Scholar]
35. Kramer Tereza Joy. et al. “WID Course Enhancements in STEM: The Impact of Adding ‘Writing Circles’ and Writing Process Pedagogy.” Across the Disciplines 16 4 2019 2637
    [Google Scholar]
36. Kurland Daniel J. “The Nature of Scientific Discussion: Critical Reading and the Introductory Science Course.” Journal of Reading 27 3 1983 197201
    [Google Scholar]
37. Kutney Joshua P. “Guaranteeing the Failure of First-Year Composition: Four Assumptions about Writing Expertise That Support an Unattainable Standard for Transfer.” International Journal of Learning 15 8 Dec 2008 22327
    [Google Scholar]
38. Langer Judith. “Speaking of Knowing: Conceptions of Understanding in Academic Disciplines.” Writing, Teaching, and Learning in the Disciplines Anne Herrington. Charles Moran. Modern Language Association 1992 6985
    [Google Scholar]
39. Light Richard J. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds Harvard UP 2001
    [Google Scholar]
40. Mays Chris. Maureen McBride. “Learning from Interdisciplinary Interactions: An Argument for Rhetorical Deliberation as a Framework for WID Faculty.” Composition Forum 43 2020
    [Google Scholar]
41. Moskovitz Cary. Kellogg David. “Primary Science Communication in the First-Year Writing Course.” College Composition and Communication 57 2 2005 30734
    [Google Scholar]
42. Nelson Melissa M. Christian D. Schunn. “The Nature of Feedback: How Different Types of Peer Feedback Affect Writing Performance.” Instructional Science 37 4 2009 375401
    [Google Scholar]
43. The New London Group “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66 1 1996 6093
    [Google Scholar]
44. Nowacek Rebecca S. Agents of Integration: Understanding Transfer as a Rhetorical Act Southern Illinois UP 2011
    [Google Scholar]
45. Papadopoulos Pantelis M. et al. “Technology-Enhanced Peer Review: Benefits and Implications of Providing Multiple Reviews.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 20 3 2017 6981
    [Google Scholar]
46. Paretti Marie. “Interdisciplinarity as a Lens for Theorizing Language/Content Partnerships.” Across the Disciplines 8 3 2011 110
    [Google Scholar]
47. Paretti Marie. et al. “Reformist Possibilities? Exploring Writing Program Cross-Campus Partnerships.” WPA Writing Program Administration 33 1–2 2009 74113
    [Google Scholar]
48. Rodrigue Tanya K. “The (In)Visible World of Teaching Assistants in the Disciplines: Preparing TAs to Teach Writing.” Across the Disciplines 9 1 23 Apr 2012 114
    [Google Scholar]
49. Russell David R. Writing in the Academic Disciplines: A Curricular History Southern Illinois UP 2002
    [Google Scholar]
50. Shea Kelly A. et al. “One More Time: Transforming the Curriculum across the Disciplines through Technology-Based Faculty Development and Writing-Intensive Course Redesign.” Across the Disciplines 3 Jan 2006 118
    [Google Scholar]
51. Smit David W. The End of Composition Studies Southern Illinois UP 2004
    [Google Scholar]
52. Swales John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings Cambridge UP 1990
    [Google Scholar]
53. Swales John M. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications Cambridge UP 2004
    [Google Scholar]
54. Timmerman Briana E. Crotwell. et al. “Development of a ‘Universal’ Rubric for Assessing Undergraduates’ Scientific Reasoning Skills Using Scientific Writing.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36 5 2011 50947
    [Google Scholar]