Language of Science and Technology - Essay Example

Teaching the Language of Science Name Institution Introduction This paper takes into consideration the use of popular science texts in teaching the language of science to university students. The paper incorporates the comparison of discourse features of both professional and pedagogic science to those of popular science. Professional and pedagogic science texts are usually the target forms for the university students (Braine, 1988). The arguments made here and the conclusions reached are based on a detailed analysis of scientific writing and its relationship with the three genres of science. The answers to questions such as why popular science texts are unsuitable for the teaching of science at the university are clearly provided herein. If texts of popular science are not suitable in teaching of scientific writing, can they serve any purpose in the teaching of science literacy? The features of popular science that make it useful in the teaching of science literacy are discussed therein. Texts of popular science put on view a great deal of differences in terms of register and genre (Braine, 1988). Braine Further asserts that unlike professional and pedagogic science texts, the presentation of scientific findings in popular science is quite provisional. Conversely, popular and pedagogic present scientific knowledge as established facts (Derewianka, 2003). This report considers how science teachers could use popular texts in teaching. The use of the academic genres in higher education levels has been taken into consideration as well for the purposes of objectivity. The use of the popular texts is thus indicated after a thorough examination of the differences between the academic genres and popular science. Consequently, the benefits and limitations of the use of popular science in teaching science literacy are taken into consideration. Models for science writing According to Braine (1998) pedagogic texts are the most common models for written science for the teaching of scientific writing. At the university level the pedagogic texts are the ideal models for the same purpose. Significantly, the learning of science at the university level lays much emphasis on writing of lab reports which is well exemplified in pedagogic texts as well as professional texts. Though the latter could be very useful teaching models, they are not usually preferred since at the undergraduate level students have limited exposure to research articles. Approximately 85% of tasks assigned to undergraduate students of science comprise of writing lab reports (Bazerman, 1988). Due to the similarities between the professional texts and the lab reports one can argue that the professional texts are the appropriate models for undergraduate texts. This prompts the comparison of pedagogic texts and professional texts. Pedagogic and professional texts The register used in professional science is similar to that used in pedagogic science (Hyland, 2010). For instance, the two genres employ high levels of technical language and nomilisation. Nomilisation enables the writers to represent actions, qualities and events as objects. Additionally in both genres the nominal group is extended through the use of clauses. In both professional and pedagogic science the writers create objectivity the removal of people from the account. Objectivity is mainly achieved through the use of nominal groups and passive voice. The differences between the register used in professional and pedagogic science is as a result of the target audience. The target reader in professional science is believed to more powerful than that of pedagogic science (Braine, 1988). In professional science the audience has the power to either accept or reject the scientific findings. On the other hand pedagogic science targets the students are less powerful in comparison to the writer. The propositions in professional texts only become facts if accepted, used and cited by other discourse community members who are the target audience. Both the writer of pedagogic science and the reader of professional science texts get their authority from the same source. They, therefore, are a representation of the research community. Whereas professional science suggests new scientific findings, the pedagogic texts do not. Instead, they just give short account of scientific knowledge that has already been accepted as facts by the professional community (Derewianka, 2003). The structure used in professional science differs greatly from that of pedagogic science. Pedagogic texts contain reports and explanations while the professional texts comprise of introduction-method- results and discussion structure (Lemke, 1990). Approximation of professional and pedagogic science in student writing According to Braine (1998) students at the university level are expected to take part in examinations. In these examinations the examiners presume that the student’s writing should bear a great resemblance to that of pedagogic texts. The students are subjected to examination questions that require explanations, descriptions as well as brief phenomena and process explanations. The similarity between pedagogic texts and the answers to examination questions is that both are short accounts of knowledge that is received and regarded as factual by both the writer and the reader. As already mentioned above, a greater percentage of written tasks assigned to undergraduate students at the university level are the writing of lab reports. These lab reports show some resemblance to the professional texts as they can be considered as proto –research-articles. The objective of lab reports is comparable to that of research articles. Just like the professional texts, the lab reports are projected to position the work done in a literature context, account for the method used and convince the reader about the accuracy of the work. Additionally, they both show how consistent the work is with accepted factual information. Deviations from accepted facts encountered in lab reports are presumed to result from either the use of wrong technique or human error. On the other hand, professional science writers must advance on new knowledge and persuade their audience to treat any deviations from accepted facts as new discovery or knowledge advancement but not as errors. Teaching scientific writing using popular science texts The practice of offering students academic texts as sources of information is quite common (Lemke, 1990). As already implied above the academic models, professional and pedagogic texts are presumed to be the ideal models due to their resemblance with the students’ writing. The question here is whether the use of popular texts in the teaching of scientific writing is appropriate or not? Do the popular texts bear any resemblance to the academic genres? Whereas the pedagogic texts are the model texts for teaching science at the high even of education, popular texts are not. Popular science texts are purely news genres (Braine,1988). However this does not imply that the texts have nothing to offer students at the university level (Bazerman, 1988). Popular, professional and pedagogic texts The comparison of the ideology and the register of popular science to that of professional and pedagogic texts are important in asserting the claim that the popular texts can be useful in the teaching of science literacy. The purpose of popular texts is different from that of the academic genres (Braine, 1988). The popular texts aim at reporting scientific knowledge has not been established as facts yet. On the other hand, the purpose of professional science is to convince the reader to accept scientific findings. Pedagogic texts aim at summarizing scientific knowledge that has been largely accepted as factual. Consequently, the focus on popular science is on the audience and their opinions whereas the other two genres focus on methods and theories. Apart from the differences in the purposes of the texts, they also differ in terms of information sources (Lemke, 1990). Popular texts draw their information from the article participants. Likewise popular science texts are often presented as debates between different disputing voices. The writer in popular texts portrays herself/himself as not evaluating or contributing to the information but just reporting what has already been evaluated by experts. The way popular writers imply objectivity is therefore different from the way objectivity is expressed in the academic genres (Hyland, 2010). In professional texts the writer aims at convincing the audience to admit that the information conveyed reflects objectivity rather than the writer’s opinions. Conversely, the popular writer presents his information using the voice of the experts rather than his/her own (Lemke,1990). Teaching science literacy using popular texts Owing to the difference between the popular texts and the academic texts discussed above, do the popular texts have any value in the teaching of science literacy? As already implied above the student writing reflects both the professional and pedagogic texts (Braine, 1988). The latter are thus the suitable teaching models for students at the university level. Popular texts differ significantly from the academic texts since they emphasize on people who make the findings rather than the findings themselves (Hyland, 2010). Conversely the academic texts focus on the findings. Consequently, science reading at the university should not be made of popular texts. If the student writing reflects the popular texts, it is likely to focus on human participants (Braine, 1988). Additionally, the students are likely to use passive language less frequently than its usage in the academic texts and the student would end up producing informal texts that would otherwise be unacceptable in academic writing. Popular texts are therefore unsuitable teaching models at the university level due to a number of reasons. The texts are likely to encourage the use of informal language. In academic writing informal language is considered inappropriate. Besides being poor teaching models, the popular texts can be useful in the teaching of science literacy even at the university level. First, the popular texts are provisional thus much easier for the students to understand in terms of content. Such kinds of texts are the most suitable for introductory purposes or to serve as first reading (Hyland, 2010). Lemke (1990) criticizes classroom as being overly impersonal. As already implied herein, popular science lays emphasis on an outsized number of human participants. The huge number of participants would therefore play a significant role in making science people oriented and more personal. Secondly, science is represented as permanent, conventional, indisputable facts (Lemke, 1990). The popular texts could be significantly useful changing these traditional attitudes. The popular texts would be of great value if they function as additional to the academic texts (Braine, 1988). The popular texts present the case of scientific issues before they become facts. The texts are valuable in giving the students a thought of ‘science in the making’. In popular texts science is presented as a social activity something that the academic texts lack. Since the popular texts present scientific findings as debate or even controversies, they imply that science scientific findings and research does not routinely result in suggestions being recognized as facts. In popular science the writer may give an account of the challenges encountered as well as the flaws of the claims of knowledge. The dogma of science as being dependable is likely to be combated through exposing the students to popular science texts. Furthermore, the students would benefit more since the popular texts are more likely to expose them to ethical concerns than the academic texts (Derewianka, 2003). Conclusion In conclusion, the popular and pedagogic sciences are the intended forms for the university students. The two forms differ significantly from popular science texts. Despite the notable differences between the popular texts and the academic texts, the argument made here is that the popular texts could still play a significant role in the teaching of science literacy at the university level. This argument can be supported by the fact that in popular science the presentation of scientific findings done at a point before their endorsement into facts by the research community. This way, popular texts give an insight into the social aspect of science. Introducing popular texts to the university would serve as a challenge to the popular belief that science is authoritative. Consequently the texts would demystify science which is generally believed to be difficult. Science is not a preserve of the intelligent few but should be accessible to the majority. References Bazerman, C.1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The genre and Activity of Experimental Science, The University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin. Braine G. 1988. Writing in Science and Technology: An Analysis of Assignments from Undergraduate Courses. English for Specific Purposes. 8 pp 3-15 Derewianka,B. (2003) Trends and issues in Genre –based- Approaches. RELC Journal. 34(2) 133-154 Hyland,K. 2010 Constructing Proximity: Relating to Readers in popular and professional Science. Journal of English for academic purposes 9 116-127 Lemke,K. 1990.Tlking Science: Language, learning and values, Ablex Norwood, NJ. Read More

Pedagogic and professional texts The register used in professional science is similar to that used in pedagogic science (Hyland, 2010). For instance, the two genres employ high levels of technical language and nomilisation. Nomilisation enables the writers to represent actions, qualities and events as objects. Additionally in both genres the nominal group is extended through the use of clauses. In both professional and pedagogic science the writers create objectivity the removal of people from the account.

Objectivity is mainly achieved through the use of nominal groups and passive voice. The differences between the register used in professional and pedagogic science is as a result of the target audience. The target reader in professional science is believed to more powerful than that of pedagogic science (Braine, 1988). In professional science the audience has the power to either accept or reject the scientific findings. On the other hand pedagogic science targets the students are less powerful in comparison to the writer.

The propositions in professional texts only become facts if accepted, used and cited by other discourse community members who are the target audience. Both the writer of pedagogic science and the reader of professional science texts get their authority from the same source. They, therefore, are a representation of the research community. Whereas professional science suggests new scientific findings, the pedagogic texts do not. Instead, they just give short account of scientific knowledge that has already been accepted as facts by the professional community (Derewianka, 2003).

The structure used in professional science differs greatly from that of pedagogic science. Pedagogic texts contain reports and explanations while the professional texts comprise of introduction-method- results and discussion structure (Lemke, 1990). Approximation of professional and pedagogic science in student writing According to Braine (1998) students at the university level are expected to take part in examinations. In these examinations the examiners presume that the student’s writing should bear a great resemblance to that of pedagogic texts.

The students are subjected to examination questions that require explanations, descriptions as well as brief phenomena and process explanations. The similarity between pedagogic texts and the answers to examination questions is that both are short accounts of knowledge that is received and regarded as factual by both the writer and the reader. As already mentioned above, a greater percentage of written tasks assigned to undergraduate students at the university level are the writing of lab reports.

These lab reports show some resemblance to the professional texts as they can be considered as proto –research-articles. The objective of lab reports is comparable to that of research articles. Just like the professional texts, the lab reports are projected to position the work done in a literature context, account for the method used and convince the reader about the accuracy of the work. Additionally, they both show how consistent the work is with accepted factual information. Deviations from accepted facts encountered in lab reports are presumed to result from either the use of wrong technique or human error.

On the other hand, professional science writers must advance on new knowledge and persuade their audience to treat any deviations from accepted facts as new discovery or knowledge advancement but not as errors. Teaching scientific writing using popular science texts The practice of offering students academic texts as sources of information is quite common (Lemke, 1990). As already implied above the academic models, professional and pedagogic texts are presumed to be the ideal models due to their resemblance with the students’ writing.

The question here is whether the use of popular texts in the teaching of scientific writing is appropriate or not? Do the popular texts bear any resemblance to the academic genres?

Read More