About Clark STEM WSI

Welcome to the STEM Writing Support Initiative. This is our online resource site that is meant to serve the writing needs of STEM faculty and students. Here you will find curated STEM writing support resources for students and writing pedagogical resources for STEM faculty.

Write to Dr. Nancy Sasaki, Project Manager of the Clark STEM Writing Support Initiative, at nancy.sasaki@du.edu or Dr. Olivia Tracy, Writing Center Assistant Director, at wrc@du.edu to explore options.

Student Writing Resources and Support

These resources are designed to provide a comprehensive list of writing resources tailored specifically for students in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. It aims to assist STEM students in honing their writing skills and mastering the art of conveying complex technical information clearly and effectively. Each information block on this page offers easy-to-access guidance on how to write specific technical documents. such as the scientific research paper, lab report, thesis, or any other technical document. The resources cover a wide range of topics, from formatting requirements to tips on effectively communicating scientific findings.

STEM Faculty Resources 

  • Reading Resource Materials for STEM Writing

    Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & de Mejía, A. M. T. (2018). Fostering bilingual scientific writing through a systematic and purposeful code-switching pedagogical strategy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.

    Balgopal, M. M., Casper, A. M. A., Wallace, A. M., Laybourn, P. J., & Brisch, E. (2018). Writing matters: Writing-to-learn activities increase undergraduate performance in cell biology. BioScience, 68(6), 445-454.

    Beer, D. F., & McMurrey, D. A. (2019). A Guide to Writing as an Engineer. John Wiley & Sons.

    Brackenbury, T., William Folkins, J., & Ginsberg, S. M. (2014). Examining educational challenges in communication sciences and disorders from the perspectives of signature pedagogy and reflective practice. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 41(Spring), 70-82.

    Berdanier, C. G. (2019). Genre maps as a method to visualize engineering writing and argumentation patterns. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(3), 377-393.

    Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the general public: why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education, 12(1), E6.

    Carpenter, J. H. (2011). A “layered literacies” framework for scientific writing pedagogy. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 17-33.

    Conrad, S. (2018). The use of passives and impersonal style in civil engineering writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(1), 38-76.

    Dannels, D. P. (2001). Time to speak up: A theoretical framework of situated pedagogy and practice for communication across the curriculum. Communication education, 50(2), 144-158.

    DeTora, L. (2021). Competing mentalities: Situating scientific content literacy within technical communication pedagogy. Effective teaching of technical communication: Theory, practice, and application, 271-285

    Ding, D. (2001). Object-centered—How engineering writing embodies objects: A study of four engineering documents. Technical Communication, 48(3), 297-308.

    Herrington, A. J. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(4), 331-361.

    Hutto, D. (2007). Graphics and invention in engineering writing. Technical communication, 54(1), 88-98.

    Jane Burke, P., & Dunn, S. (2006). Communicating science: exploring reflexive pedagogical approaches. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 219-231.

    Kroll, J. (2013). The creative writing laboratory and its pedagogy. Research methods in creative writing, 102-132.

    Kuhn, M. R., & Vaught-Alexander, K. (1994). Context for writing in engineering curriculum. Journal of professional issues in engineering education and practice, 120(4), 392-400.

    MacKenzie, A. H., & Gardner, A. (2006). Beyond the lab report: why we must encourage more writing in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 325-327.

    McKenna, B. (1997). How engineers write: An empirical study of engineering report writing. Applied linguistics, 18(2), 189-211.

    McVey, M., & Pechenik, J. A. (2020). Using poetry in the undergraduate biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 82(6), 416-420.

    Mehltretter Drury, S. A., Bost, A. G., Wysocki, L. M., & Ingram, A. L. (2018). Encouraging science communication through deliberative pedagogy: A study of a gene editing deliberation in a nonmajors biology course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 10-1128.

    Motta-Roth, D., & Scherer, A. S. (2016). Science popularization: Interdiscursivity among science, pedagogy, and journalism. Bakhtiniana: Revista de Estudos do Discurso, 11, 164-189.

    Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?. Public understanding of science, 25(4), 400-414

    Smith, M. K., & Knight, J. K. (2020). Clickers in the biology classroom: Strategies for writing and effectively implementing clicker questions that maximize student learning. Active learning in college science: the case for evidence-based practice, 141-158.

    Sprain, L., & Timpson, W. M. (2012). Pedagogy for sustainability science: Case-based approaches for interdisciplinary instruction. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 6(4), 532-550.

    Taylor, K. L. (1998). Writing in biology: an integration of disciplines. The American Biology Teacher, 60(5), 350-353.

    Thompson, N. S., & Alford, E. M. (1997). Developing a Writing Program in Engineering: Teaching Writing to Teach Engineering Literacies.

    Vázquez, A. V., McLoughlin, K., Sabbagh, M., Runkle, A. C., Simon, J., Coppola, B. P., & Pazicni, S. (2012). Writing-to-teach: A new pedagogical approach to elicit explanative writing from undergraduate chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(8), 1025-1031.

    Walker, K. (2000). Integrating writing instruction into engineering courses: A writing center model. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 369-375.

    Winsor, D. A. (2003). Writing power: Communication in an engineering center. Suny Press.

    Wright, K., Slaboch, P. E., & Jamshidi, R. (2022). Technical writing improvements through engineering lab courses. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 50(1), 120-134.

    Yoritomo, J. Y., Turnipseed, N., Cooper, S. L., Elliott, C. M., Gallagher, J. R., Popovics, J. S., … & Zilles, J. L. (2018, June). Examining engineering writing instruction at a large research university through the lens of writing studies. In 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

  • STEM Writing Pedagogical Resources

    Link to videos in DU MediaSpace

  • How can I encourage my students to visit the Writing Center?

    The Writing Center is part of the Writing Program, which offers extensive resources for faculty teaching writing across the curriculum:

    • STEM trained Writing Consultants
    • Writing accountability groups
    • Pedagogical / teaching resources
  • What kind of support will my students get when they visit?

    The Writing Center staff is primarily made up of peer consultants: graduate and advanced undergraduate consultants from across a range of humanities, social science, and STEM fields. 

    What your students will experience is a non-evaluative and inquiry-based conversation about their work with a peer consultant.

    Peer consultants should not be considered experts, and they don't assess, correct, or check work. Rather, they ask questions, offer perspectives, identify relevant resources, help identify opportunities for revision, and work to support students in editing and revising their own work. 

    We suggest you frame writing center appointments as an opportunity for students to work on their writing with a consultant, rather than as an opportunity to get feedback or guarantee quality. Writing Center consultations are aimed at promoting learning and helping writers to do the work of developing their writing skills and processes.

  • How will I know if a student goes to the Writing Center?

    Our consultants write a short note after each session and email that note to the writer. Your students can simply forward that email to you; alternately, if they provide your name and email address to their consultants, we can send that email directly to you.

    We do count on students to provide your contact information and to give us permission to contact you.   

  • Can I require my students to visit the Writing Center for a particular assignment?

    Most likely yes, as long as you work with us to support those visits. 

    We are happy to work with you to arrange for all your students to visit the Writing Center to work on a particular assignment. To make this visit as effective as possible, we will ask you a few questions about your class, your students, and the assignment in advance. Please note that we cannot promise to accommodate required visits unless we are involved in the planning. (Two weeks' notice required, available in weeks 3-9 only.)

    If our schedule is unable to accommodate individual visits, we can set up paired or small-group visits or set aside some dedicated writing studio hours for your students to work on their projects and ask questions of consultants. 

    If you would like to arrange for your students to work with Writing Center consultants for required/incentivized appointments, please contact us at wrc@du.edu at least two weeks in advance to discuss options. Please send your course name and number, the number of enrolled students, and a copy of the assignment and due date.  

  • What can a writing consultation do and not do?

    Writers who visit us online will participate in an interactive, collaborative discussion about their papers with peer consultants, who will help to set goals, generate strategies, and identify resources; ask questions about assignment prompts and previous feedback; and help students to learn new skills and concepts. 

    Our consultants do not involve reviewing papers in advance or guaranteeing correctness. Consultants do not proofread or edit for students, mark up papers, or check citations. 

    Consultants can talk about and help students to do all of these things, but please note that the Writing Center is a learning site, and individual students retain agency and responsibility for their learning and writing choices.