Interventions for Supporting and Assessing Science Writing Communication: Cases of Asian English Language Learners

Abstract

In seeking to support diversity, one challenge lies in adequately supporting and assessing science cognitions in a writing-intensive Biochemistry laboratory course when highly engaged Asian English language learners (Asian ELLs) struggle to communicate and make novice errors in English. Because they may understand advanced science concepts, but are not being adequately assessed for their deeper scientific understanding, we sought and examined interventions. We hypothesized that inquiry strategies, scaffolded learning through peer evaluation, and individualized tools that build writing communication skills would increase confidence. To assess scientific thinking, Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) software measured underlying analytic and cognitive features of writing despite grammatical errors. To determine whether interventions improved student experience or learning outcomes, we investigated a cross-sectional sample of cases within experimental groups (n = 19) using a mixed-methods approach. Overall trends of paired t-tests from Asian ELLs’ pre/post surveys showed gains in six measures of writing confidence, with some statistically significant gains in confidence in writing skill (p=0.025) and in theory (p≤0.05). LIWC scores for Asian ELL and native-English-speaking students were comparable except for increased cognitive scores for Asian ELLs and detectable individual differences. An increase in Asian ELLs’ cognitive scores in spring/summer over fall was observed (p = 0.04), likely as a result of greater cognitive processes with language use, inquiry-related interventions, and peer evaluation. Individual cases further elucidated challenges faced by Asian ELL students. LIWC scores of student writing may be useful in determining underlying understanding. Interventions designed to provide support and strengthen the writing of Asian ELL students may also improve their confidence in writing, even if improvement is gradual.

Applying a Computer-Assisted Tool for Semantic Analysis of Writing: Uses for STEM and ELL

“…This small sample of words in each category from a larger dictionary provides example words and the total number of words in each category. As educators develop their own rubric, such as using terms for Comparisons as previously shown (8), they can include Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) codes useful for analysis of a variety of text styles using total raw Word count and four Summary Language Variables: Analytical Thinking, Clout, Authentic, Emotional Tone . Categories such as Linguistic dimensions include subcategory function words, pronouns, and use of “I.” This category is used in expressive and reflective writing along with the category Psychological processes , which includes subcategories Affective processes and Anxiety , but is not used with scientific writing.…”

“…Together with these prior examples, our work (8) more fully describes schema theory and latent semantic content analysis using automated coding, providing an example of biased grading ameliorated using LIWC to help read beyond the sentence for international Asian ELLs to reduce hand-graded bias even when grammar errors persist. Some LIWC measures provide psychosocial indicators; others we adapted, analyzed, and further applied for scientific writing (examples shown here, Appendix 1).…”

“…A meta-analysis of holistic and analytical rubrics (4) supporting the benefits of intentionally designed rubrics, scaffolded learning practices, and peer evaluation using rubrics prompted our studies of several non-native English-speaking international student cases using both qualitative and quantitative writing analysis (8). Our studies to detect underlying patterns of thinking were founded on previous uses of LIWC: students’ emotion-based and meaning-based coping in the ability to manage stress and wellbeing (9, 10); confidence, personal development, and social belonging (5, 11–12); and increased cognition due to course workload, active learning, and language switching for ELL and international students (9, 11).…”

Intercultural Competency: Steps for Introducing Active Learning Case Studies Internationally in Confucian Heritage Culture

“…Faculty and students showing honor and utmost politeness to the presenter may not question authority and may hesitate to engage in their native tongue to each other; some may remain silent out of respect. While, in a native English-speaking situation, it may be preferred to enforce that all discourse remain in English, novice speakers may experience increased switching between languages, increasing cognitive load (20, 21). Thus, in a situation requiring a translator, additional time is needed and the presenter should account for this in planning.…”

“…Implementation in large classes can be facilitated by meeting with small groups individually. Likewise, when international non-native- English speaking students in the United States or other Western classrooms are thrust into active-learning collaborative groups and expected to engage, the barriers can be overwhelming at first, so smaller peer groups, additional support, and longer time can be beneficial (21), supported by studies of student involvement theory (23). Even with growing competition between students in some CHC settings, other predominant measures to save face or keeping silent to maintain group harmony must be acknowledged.…”