We take the position that clear writing = clear thinking. But when we consider how and when we learn, what is the relationship between thinking and writing?
A recent opinion piece from Johann Neem on Inside Higher Ed proposes that “thinking” might happen at different points in the learning process for different disciplines.1 Neem—a professor of history—suggests that for the STEM fields, learning and thinking happen before “writing up” one’s findings. In the humanities, on the other hand, thinking happens during the writing process.
Neem’s piece sparked an interdisciplinary conversation that has helped me better understand some of the factors underlying engineering student resistance to writing instruction.
If what Neem posits is true, it means that STEM students likely see writing as the final step in their learning process. This helps explain why writing proposals, status updates and midterm reports can be so painful: the thinking isn’t finished!
But Neem’s thinking-writing hypothesis also means that integrating writing into the learning process—in the form of progress reports, for instance—could afford STEM students the cognitive benefits of learning through writing. Writing is, after all, an enormously powerful cognitive tool. In the words of another writer, writing is thinking, regardless of discipline.
If we stop thinking about “writing up” our work at the conclusion of the learning process, we can invite writing into that process and benefit from the clearer thinking and improved analysis that follows.
Neem’s piece ultimately argues for discipline-specific applications of generative AI—a blog topic for another day…stay tuned!