Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Mobile Technologies: Undergraduate STEM Students’ Perspectives about Webtools for Writing

Article Sidebar

Analysis Phases
Download PDF
Submitted   Oct 2, 2024
Published   Jan 23, 2025
Issue    Vol 5 No 1 (2025)
DOI   10.25082/AMLER.2025.01.007

Views

135

Downloads

17

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Michael William Dunn corresponding author
Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University Vancouver, WA 98686, USA
Wendy Olson
Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University Vancouver, WA 98686, USA
Adenike Otoikhian
Department of Sciences, College of Arts & Sciences, Washington State University Vancouver, WA 98686, USA
Jon Anderson
Department of Sciences, College of Arts & Sciences, Washington State University Vancouver, WA 98686, USA
Weili Yuan
Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University Vancouver, WA 98686, USA
Kyrin Gregory
Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University Vancouver, WA 98686, USA

Abstract

Many students struggle with writing skills. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress-Writing (2017) concluded that only 25% of eighth- and twelfth-grade students could proficiently write a text. The results for students from diverse backgrounds were even lower. This has impacts on students as they move into post-secondary education and are expected to write more specific genres of texts such as lab reports. This study focused on low-er-division university STEM students completing an online survey about their writing skills and how webtools could be a source to help them improve the content and quality of their writing during a 15-week semester. The results of the survey (n = 40) and follow-up interviews of students (n = 10) indicated that they have persistent challenges with writing such as organizing ideas and editing. With access to the writing webtools at mid-semester, students' lab report grades demonstrated improved content and quality scores in weeks 8-15. The authors also discuss limitations and ideas for future research.

Keywords
Writing Webtools, STEM, Mobile Technologies

Article Details

Supporting Agencies
This project was funded by an internal grant from the authors' university and College of Education.
How to Cite
Dunn, M. W., Olson, W., Otoikhian, A., Anderson, J., Yuan, W., & Gregory, K. (2025). Mobile Technologies: Undergraduate STEM Students’ Perspectives about Webtools for Writing. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 5(1), 1314-1327. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2025.01.007
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Aaltonen, M., Mannonen, P., Nieminen, S., & Nieminen, M. (2011). Usability and compatibility of e-book readers in an academic environment: A collaborative study. IFLA Journal, 37(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035210396775
  2. Arduengo, M. (2012). Getting what you want from your scientific writing: tips for writing clearly. Medical Writing, 21(3), 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480612z.00000000041
  3. Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Parlor Press LLC.
  4. Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
  5. Biango-Daniels, M., & Sarvary, M. (2020). A challenge in teaching scientific communication: academic experience does not improve undergraduates’ ability to assess their or their peers’ writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1812512
  6. CCCC Position Statement. (2015). Principle 7: Sound writing instruction emphasizes relationships between writing and technologies. https://cccc.ncte.org
  7. Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
  8. Coolidge, F. L. (2021). Statistics: A Gentle Introduction. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071939000
  9. Cordeiro, C., Limpo, T., Olive, T., & Castro, S. L. (2019). Do executive functions contribute to writing quality in beginning writers? A longitudinal study with second graders. Reading and Writing, 33(4), 813–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09963-6
  10. Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002
  11. Dockrell, J., & Arfé, B. What does the Research Say about Research/Evidence-based Intensive Intervention Programming for Writing? In Writing Instruction and Intervention for Struggling Writers: Multi-Tiered Systems of Support; 2020; Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K., pp. 42–60.
  12. Drew, S. V., Olinghouse, N. G., Faggella-Luby, M., & Welsh, M. E. (2017). Framework for disciplinary writing in science Grades 6–12: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000186
  13. Duncanson, K., Schmidt, D., & Webster, E. (2020). Giving and receiving written feedback on research reports: a narrative review and guidance for supervisors and students. Health Education in Practice: Journal of Research for Professional Learning, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.33966/hepj.3.2.14767
  14. Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846
  15. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem. College Composition & Communication, 31(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198015963
  16. For writing. and writing. and writing. Scrivener | Literature & Latte. (n.d.). https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener/overview
  17. Phillips Galloway, E., Qin, W., Uccelli, P., & Barr, C. D. (2019). The role of cross-disciplinary academic language skills in disciplinary, source-based writing: investigating the role of core academic language skills in science summarization for middle grade writers. Reading and Writing, 33(1), 13–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09942-x
  18. Gilpin, G., & Patchet-Golubev, P. (2014). A Guide to Writing in the Sciences. University of Toronto Press.
  19. Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057–1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310915
  20. Graham, S. (2020). The Sciences of Reading and Writing Must Become More Fully Integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.332
  21. Graham, S., & Alves, R. A. (2021). Research and teaching writing. Reading and Writing, 34(7), 1613–1621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10188-9
  22. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2017). Reading and Writing Connections: How Writing Can Build Better Readers (and Vice Versa). Improving Reading and Reading Engagement in the 21st Century, 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4331-4_15
  23. Graham, S., Bañales, G., Ahumada, S., Muñoz, P., Alvarez, P., & Harris, K. R. (2020). Writing Strategies Interventions. Handbook of Strategies and Strategic Processing, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429423635-9
  24. Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Lomax, R. G. (2020). An Introduction to Statistical Concepts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624358
  25. Hawe, E., Dixon, H., Murray, J., & Chandler, S. (2020). Using rubrics and exemplars to develop students’ evaluative and productive knowledge and skill. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(8), 1033–1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2020.1851358
  26. Hawe, E., Lightfoot, U., & Dixon, H. (2017). First-year students working with exemplars: promoting self-efficacy, self-monitoring and self-regulation. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2017.1349894
  27. Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St.John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral Research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x04266540
  28. Hyatt, J.-P. K., Bienenstock, E. J., & Tilan, J. U. (2017). A student guide to proofreading and writing in science. Advances in Physiology Education, 41(3), 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00004.2017
  29. Klucevsek, K. M., & Brungard, A. B. (2016). Information literacy in science writing: how students find, identify, and use scientific literature. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2573–2595. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1253120
  30. Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Krzypkowska, P., & Kurasinski, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: Analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(3), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.15678/eber.2023.110302
  31. Kroll, T., & Neri, M. (2009). Designs for Mixed Methods Research. Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences, 31–49. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316490.ch3
  32. Lerner, N. (2005). The Teacher-Student Writing Conference and the Desire for Intimacy. College English, 68(2), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce20054818
  33. Lott, K., & Read, S. (2015). Map It Then Write It: Primary Students have Many Options for Graphic Organizers to help Develop Writing Skills inScience. Science and Children, 53(3), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc15_053_03_46
  34. Lundin, I. M., O'Connor, V., & Perdue, S. W. (2023). The Impact of Writing Center Consultations on Student Writing Self-Efficacy. The Writing Center Journal, 41(2), 7-25.
  35. 5 Marr, B. (2023). The 15 Biggest Risks Of Artificial Intelligence. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com
  36. Mcllwraith, T., Finnis, E., & Jones, S. (2023). Artificial Intelligence, Academic Misconduct, and the Borg: Why GPT-3 Text Generation in the Higher Education Classroom is Becoming Scary. Anthropologica, 65(1). https://doi.org/10.18357/anthropologica65120232166
  37. Minor, D. (2021). Enhancing ELA learning strategies with digital tools. National Council for the Teachers of English. https://ncte.org
  38. National Assessment of Education Progress for Writing. (2017). https://nces.ed.gov
  39. Pampel, F. C. (2021). Logistic Regression: A Primer. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878729
  40. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (n.d.). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Analyzing Qualitative Data, 173–194. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_9
  41. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. SAGE Publications.
  42. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. SAGE Publications.
  43. Strobl, C., Ailhaud, E., Benetos, K., Devitt, A., Kruse, O., Proske, A., & Rapp, C. (2019). Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies. Computers & Education, 131, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.005
  44. Tashakkori, A., Johnson, R. B., & Teddlie, C. (2020). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage publications.
  45. Tate, T. P., Steiss, J., Bailey, D., Graham, S., Moon, Y., Ritchie, D., Tseng, W., & Warschauer, M. (2024). Can AI provide useful holistic essay scoring? Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100255
  46. Turunen, I. (2019). Computer-assisted use of reading-through-writing method in relation to technical literacy and reading motivation. International Journal of Technology in Education, 2(1), 42-59.
  47. Van Lam, N. T. (2011). Project-based learning in teaching English as a foreign language. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 27(2), 140-146.
  48. Vogels, E. A., Gelles-Watnick, R., & Massarat, N. (2022). Teens, social media and technology 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1980. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
  50. Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019). Moving to a World Beyond ``p $<$ 0.05''. The American Statistician, 73(supl), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913
  51. Worklifeenui.com. Digital Tools Archives -- WorkLifeUni, 2022.