Computer Scientists Can Teach Writing:
An Upper Division Course for Computer Science Majors
i David G. Kay
Department of information and Computer Science
University of California
Irvine, CA 92697-3425
(714) 824-5072
kay@ uci.edu
Key Words: communications skills, writing, advanced
courses,technical writing
Abstract
!I
The author’s institution requires all studentsto take one
course that concentrateson writing at the upper division
(junior or senior) level. The’computer sciencedepartment
offers one such course, taught by ‘computer scientists. It
concentrates on communications ‘issues relevant to
computer scientists and computer professionals, going
beyond traditional “technical writing” to give students
experience in oral presentation, document design, and
writing in forms appropriate for various audiences.This
course takes advantageof analogies between writing and
software development and motivates computer science
studentsto pay more careful attention to their writing.
Background
Faculty often lament that their studentslack good writing
skills. Traditionally, computer science students take
coursesin composition offered by the English department
during their first year and have few later opportunities to
write extensively, particularly on topics in computing. In
recent years the community of rhetoric and composition
educatorshas addressedpoor studentwriting by enhancing
and expanding on traditional “freshman composition” in
various ways, which computer sciencefaculty wishing to
improve students’writing might profitably, explore: [1,2]
!
One common practice, knobn as “writing across the
curriculum,” encouragesinstructors in all disciplines to
include writing assignmentsin theircourses. Specialized
composition coursesalone, while necessaryand valuable,
leave the impression with many studentsthat clear, careful
Permissionto make digitahrd copiesofall 0; part of this materialfor
personalor classroomuseis grantedwithout fee providedthat the copies
arenot madeor distributedfor pmfit or commercialadvantage,the copy-
right notice,the title of the publicationandits dateappear,andnoticeis
given that copyrightis by permissionofthe ACM, Inc. To copy otherwise,
to republish,to poston serversor to redistributeto lists,requiresspecific.
pwmissionand/orfee.
SIGSCE 98 AthntaGA USA
Copyright 19980-89791-994-7/98/2..$5.00
117
writing is something only English teachers care about.
Computer sciencedepartmentshave adoptedthis practice.
[31
At the author’s institution, a long-standing campuswide
requirement complementsand extends “writing acrossthe
curriculum”, mandatingthat every student take one upper-
division course that both requires a significant amount of
writing and addresseswriting-related issues as part of the
course.Across campus,‘thesecoursessharethe philosophy
that at the upper-division level, students benefit from
hearing faculty in’their own discipline describethe variety
and quality of writing expected of practitioners in that
discipline, and from actually doing that kind of writing. To
satisfy the campuswide requirement, a course must be
offered at the upper division (junior or senior) level. It
must require that students submit at least 4000 words of
revised prose-that is, prose that has been evaluated and
returned,to the studentsfor revision and resubmission.The
campus encourages departments to maintain a student-
faculty ratio of no more than 2O:l in these courses,and to
staff them with full-time faculty. Coursesthat satisfy this
requirement may cover writing as an adjunct to other
subject matter or may focus primarily on communications
skills relevant to their discipline.
The’ author’s’ department (of computer science) offers
such a course.Beyond traditional “technical writing,” this
course covers a broad range of communications issues
relevant to computer scientists, including oral work,
writing for electronic media, and presentationgraphics.
Course Goals and Structure
The coursehasfour main goals:
I
lProvide a forum where writing is the main focus, rather
than the usual afterthought of throwing together a project’s
documentationin the last half hour before it’s due.
lConcentrate’on the appropriate tone and level for a
document’s specific audience (e.g., management,novice
users,technical staff)
 l Explore writing documents of different sizes
(analogous to “programming in the large” vs.
“programming in the small”): Infinitesimal, such as Email
subject lines; small, such as Email, memos,or brochures;
and medium, such as proposals, papers, or technical
reports. ’
l Practice writing in a variety of forms common to
computer professionals, such as the following (not all of
which would be required in a single offering of the course):
Proposals or recommendations, technical arguments or
policy statements,research papers, grant proposals, oral
presentations, use of. presentation software, effective
graphics and document design, and writing for electronic
media such as the,Web.
‘, 1 ‘. :’ ,J
Common Objections
4 ,
Faculty in the sciencescommonly raise theseobjections
to teachingcoursesthat focus on writing: I isn’t important for computer science,” “I can use a
” ,, 82,
!‘Leave the English teaching to the experts.” Indeed,
when the author was first asked to teach this course, his
reaction was to recall his own dissatisfactionwith attempts
by non-computer scientists to teach programming. But a
computer scientist can reach advancedcomputer science
students-by taking advantageof their commonknowledge
and experience and by making assignmentsthat require
technical expertise and are characteristic of the
discipline-much more effectively than the typical
composition expert who lacks a computing background.
Successfulacademiccomputerscientistsshould all possess
the requisite writing ability to teach this kind of
course-the ability to recognizeclarity, cogency,and good
organization. Detailed grasp of grammatical terms and
rules is much less important in a coursesuch asthis one.
“I don’t want to correct thousandsof mechanicalerrors.”
You shouldn’t and you needn’t. A course at this level
should focus on organization, content,,andappropriateness
for the intended audience; the instructor must exercise
some forbearance (to avoid. becoming obsessed with
syntax) and some redirection (of studentswith significant
special needs to other, more appropriate resources on
campus) to avoid being drawn down into a black hole of
red pencil. In a later section we addresssome approaches
to handling students’ mechanical mistakes. Instructors
should bear in mind that studentsat this level have passed
lower division writing-they have had experiencewriting
at the college level. Upper-division instructors should hold
them to that standard;it may be lower than our ideal, but it
is typically higher than the level of writing studentsthink
they can get away with when they’re not being graded on
their writing. When instructors make clear that w&ten
work will not be acceptedunless studentstake the time to
meet minimum standards of correctness and polish, the
quality of the work does improve markedly, (Computer
science instructors unfamiliar with the standardsof their
institution’s composition program might consider meeting
118
with thosewho run it. They can provide samplesof passing
work and possibly style sheetsor other guidelines that they
expecttheir studentsto follow.) .
“I have too many non-native speakers.”In the author’s
personal experience, some of the top grades in each
offering of the coursego to non-native speakersof English.
Native language is largely independent of the primary
focus of this course on cogent organization, which can
shine through most minor syntactic flaws that are due to
native language differences (as opposed to mere
carelessness).Below we address English as a Second
Language(ESL) issuesfurther.
“It takesyears of schooling and practice to develop good
writing skills; how can one coursemake my studentsgood
writers?” It can’t, but it can make them better writers, it
can motivate them to pay closer attention and devote more
time to their writing, it can show them modelsof writing in
their own area,and it can dispel myths like these:“Writing
grammar/spell checker,” “I’m not a born writer, so I’ll
never be a good writer” “I’m not a native speaker,so I’ll
never be a good writer.“, Writing is a skill, and skills
require practice to master. Any student will show
improvement if he or she spends on this course half as
much time as would be required for any programming
project courseat the samelevel.
Teaching Strategies
The following strategiesmaketeaching a courselike this
one feasible,effective, and even surprisingly pleasantfor a
computerscientist:
l Require revisions. Writing is an iterative process of
enhancement,revision, and polish. Students should no
more expectto whip off perfect prosein one passthan they
would perfect code. (After all, natural languages such as
English are much more complex and less completely
defined than formal languagessuch as C++ or Scheme,)
Each studentshould submit a draft (not a rough drafts, but
a serious attempt at quality work), the instructor (or in
somecasesother students,asdescribedbelow) should read
the draft, make comments,and return it to the author for
usein preparingthe final version.
0
l Use peer editing, in’whidh studentsread each other’s
drafts, identifying confusing passages and‘ making
suggestionsfor revision. Studentsbecomeinured to critical
commentsby faculty; their peers’ confusion is harder to
disregard.
l In students’ writing, distinguish syntax and mechanical
errors from flaws in the content or organization. Give
separategradesfor each, and keep the commentsin each
category separate(e.g., in different colors or in the left vs.
the right margin).
 ._
l Don’t be a human English compiler, red-penciling
every syntax or mechanical mistake and refusing to
proceedwith evaluation at a deeperlevel. Mark mechanical
errors on the first page, or the first paragraph,or the first
ten problems, and then stop. If you can read the rest of the
paperfor its content and organizationdespitethe remaining
errors, do so; if not, require the student to polish the
writing and resubmit it. As mentioned earlier, upper-
division studentsshould have masteredthe mechanics,and
that level of mastery should be expected and enforced.
Indeed, we do studentsa disservice when we don’t basea
small part of every assignmentgrade in every class on the
quality of the writing, becauseit gives the impression that
we don’t think that quality matters.Most institutions have
learning skills centersor other resourcesto which you can
refer studentswho need in-depth or remedial work on the
mechanics.
l Try to recognizeerrors that are due to a student’snative
language not being English. Research indicates that
second-languagelearning follows an ordered progression
over many years, which cannot be greatly compressed,
becausesomelanguagefeaturestake longer than others to
assimilate. You still must point out the errors and grade
accordingly, but it should be understood that they stem
from a long-term process rather than carelessness or
weakness on the student’s part. This requires that the
instructor learn to recognize errors typical to native
speakersof various languages;ESL instructorsmay be able
to provide this information.
l As a long-term strategy for improving students’
writing, encouragethem to read broadly and frequently: the
newspaperinstead of the television news, a recreational
novel rather than a movie or entertainmenton television.
Representative Assignments
The following assignmentscomprisea typical offering of
this course(in a ten-weekquarter):
l ‘Warm-up”-Edit a few short passagesfor clarity, with
a focus on the most commonpitfalls and solecisms.
l‘“Iiimming the Fat”-Choose a five-page (1500-word)
passage and rewrite it in three pages (900 words),
maintaining the content.
l “Writing Instructions”-Build some object using
Tinkertoys, Lego, or some other system with more than
one type of componentthat can be combined in more than
one way. Write a manual that explains how to build this
object. Bring your draft manual and the disassembled
piecesto classon a specified date,when you will give both
to a classmatewho will try to build your object following
your manual, without any in-person assistancefrom you.
. This assignment follows most closely the technical
writing tradition. Having other students try to follow the
119
-_..> -.-- -
. - ___-. ~ ” __... ,,_, .._ . .. . ‘.. “., - m-2 . . . -
manual demonstratesthe importanceof clear, unambiguous
writing in a tangible way.
* %fl uencing Policy”-Write a letter to a policy maker
l
(either a government official or a newspaper) taking a
position on a technical issue and backing it up with the best
reasoningyou can.
.‘j I
We encouragestudentsto start by. listing their position
and the points that supportit in the form of a syllogism.
‘/
l “Graphics Ac&ity”--TTake a small suppliedset of data
and, using presentation #graphics software, produce a
variety of charts that support different perspectives or
points of view.
1 ‘,
l “Changing the System”-Choose a software system
you’re familiar with and examine it from multiple
perspectives: introducing new users to the system,
proposing changes to the system, and promoting the
changed system to its users. This assignment has four
separateparts:
1..An oral synopsis of the system and the changesyou
intend to propose (audience: our class, who may know
something. about the software and who may have
suggestionsaboutthe proposedchanges).
i ,,,:
2. An introduction, both written and oral, to the current
system (intended audience: novices, unfamiliar with the
software, who’ need to’ learn its purpose and basic
functionality) 41
3. A formal proposal, written and oral, describing and
justifying the changesyou propose(audience:the “‘higher-
ups” who decide what changesshould be supported; they
know aboutthe softwarebut must be convinced of the need
to changeand the feasibility of the changesyou propose)
4. A’brochure or flyer and a short oral presentation
describing and promoting your changes (audience: the
system’s current users, who know what it does now but
needto know what the changesmean) .
This assignmentspansmost of the term, with class days
devotedto the oral componentsand drafts required for the
written parts. Each of the four parts addresses,a different
aspect of the same subject matter, allowing students to
concentrateon the differencesin audienceand presentation
level.
Conclusions
Writing is very much like softwaredevelopment,and the
similarities help computersciencestudentsappreciatewhat
they must do as writers.
l Both involve a logical, carefully organized exposition
of complex ideas. Students understand top-down design
and stepwiserefinement of software;approachingprosethe
sameway should comeeasily. ,

l Practitioners of both must follow a set of language

rules (somewhat richer, more powerful, and ‘less
completely defined for English than for formal languages).

l Both are iterative processes, subject to successive

refinements. Advanced computer science students would
ridicule the idea of writing code by starting at the top of a
blank screenand proceeding linearly until finished, with a
completed, correct program as the result, yet often they
expectto write prosein exactly that one-passfashion.

9 Writing, like computing, is based on a hierarchy of

abstraction levels from the lowest, typography and
document design, through spelling, punctuation, syntax,
usage, style and tone, organization, content and facts, all
the way up to the document’sultimate effectiveness(which ,
depends,,as does software’s easeof use, not only on the
author but on the audience).

This course has been successfuland the students,while

reluctant at the outset,appreciatethe variety of experiences
the course provides and are grateful to have them first in
school rather than on the job. Studentsalso appreciatethat
their instructor is primarily a computer scientist. After
many yearsin school, they becomedesensitizedto English
teachers’ criticism of their writing and they develop
various defensemechanisms(“Yes, but Zcan write network
managementcode in C++“); when someonethey respect
technically tells them that writing is important, it captures
their attention.

The course described here should add to the menu of

writing experiencesavailable to (and perhapsrequired of)
our students. This course is not intended to supplant or
replace any other program designed to improve students’
writing, such as pervasive “writing acrossthe curriculum,”
capstone projects, senior theses, or specific courses in
technical writing, documentation,or oral presentations.[4]
The greaterthe quantity and variety of writing experiences
studentshave, the more their writing will improve.

[.l] Peterson,R. The Writing Teacher’sCompanion:Plan-

ning, Teaching, and Evaluation in the Composition
Classroom.Hougton Mifflin, 1995.
[2] National Council of Teachersof English,
http://www.ncte.org
[3] Fell, H.J., Proulx, V.K., and Casey,J. Writing Across
the ComputerScienceCuniculum. In Proceedings of
the 27th SZGCSETechnical Sympo$um, 1996,p. 204.
[4] McDonald, G., andMcDonald, M. Developing oral
communicationsskills of computerscience
undergraduates.In Proceedings of the 24th SZGCSE
Technical Sympo$um, 1993,p. 279.

120