Randomized trial shows improved writing skills in undergraduates via genre-focused projects, indicating effective chemistry education methods.
To better prepare undergraduates for scientific careers, chemistry laboratory courses should provide explicit writing instruction and structured opportunities to write in professional genres beyond the traditional lab report. A modular, genre-focused writing sequence was developed and implemented in an Organic Chemistry II Laboratory course at a small liberal arts honors college across three years (five sections; n = 44). Laboratory reports were replaced with (i) five two-page Decision Memoranda embedded in a Brief–Experiment–Memo framework that assigns students a role, audience, and a data-driven decision for each experiment and (ii) a scaffolded Journal of Organic Chemistry-style Article written section-by-section using data from a multi-week synthesis. Writing instruction on genre conventions, audience, and purpose was integrated into weekly pre-lab meetings alongside experimental work. Student drafts were supported through analytic rubrics, structured peer review of article sections and a full-article draft using the Canvas learning management system, and multiple revision cycles that culminated in a final revised manuscript. Across cohorts, rubric-scored student writing products improved over repeated submissions and revisions, especially in evidence-based claim construction and genre-appropriate organization and tone. End-of-course student surveys further suggest that students perceived gains in persuasive data-based writing, audience awareness, scientific writing confidence, and project-management skills. Most students reported that both Memoranda and Journal Article projects were engaging and helped them improve their writing skills. This article provides an implementation timeline, student-facing prompts, instructor notes, peer review logistics, and assessment rubrics to support adoption or adaptation in other chemistry laboratory contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Black et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: