Cover not available
Article published In:
Scientific Study of Literature
Vol. 10:1 (2020) ► pp.98–134

Science fiction prototyping’s features and impact on college students’ perceptions of writing

An applied literariness study

| University of Wisconsin-Stout
The present study develops an applied literariness study by exploring both the features, and the impact, of science fiction prototyping (SFP) on college students’ perceptions of disciplinary, or field-specific, writing. College students (N = 83), who were English (n = 35) or STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) majors (n = 48), composed micro-science fiction prototyping (µSFP), a genre that blends creative and science writing. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC2015) analysis demonstrated that, aside from a more positive average emotional tone, µSFP written fell psycho-linguistically between personal and science writing. English and STEM majors’ µSFP stories were similar in terms of analytical levels, clout, authenticity, emotional tone, and use of words. Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that, while English majors evaluated creative writing as significantly more relevant to their future career goals pre-intervention than did STEM majors (p = .04, r = .23), this difference vanished post-intervention. Additionally, while STEM majors evaluated science writing as significantly more worth their time to study (p = .042, r = .22) and relevant to their major (p = .01, r = .28) pre-intervention than did English majors, these differences disappeared post-intervention. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests indicated that, while English majors’ ownership and evaluation of science and creative writing did not change, STEM majors’ evaluations of creative writing as relevant to their majors and future careers were significantly higher post-intervention (p = .015, r = .35)
Keywords: applied literariness, writing ownership, meaningful writing, science fiction prototyping, English major, STEM major
Article outline
  • Applied literariness and science fiction
  • Science fiction prototyping
  • Persistence and meaningful writing
  • English and STEM majors
  • Research questions
  • Methods
    • Research design
  • Participants
  • Data collection
  • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Research question 1: Textual and psycholinguistic features of SFP
    • Research question 2: English and STEM majors’ writing ownership
    • Research question 3: English and STEM majors’ writing evaluation
    • Research question 4: Pre- and Post-SFP writing evaluation
      • English majors
      • STEM majors
    • Research question 5: Pre- and Post-SFP writing ownership
      • English majors
      • STEM majors
    • Summary of results
  • Discussion
    • Limitations
  • Conclusion
    • Future research
  • References
Published online: 9 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.20002.nic
References (94)
References
Alshreif, N., & Nicholes, J. (2017). Metacognition and creative writing: Implications for L1 and L2 college writing experiences. The Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, 6(1), 73–88.Google Scholar
American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2017). The future of undergraduate education: The future of America. Retrieved from [URL]
. (2018). The state of the humanities 2018: Graduates in the workforce & beyond. Retrieved from [URL]
Anderson, W. M. (2010). Outside the English Department: Oakland University’s writing program and the writing and rhetoric major. In G. A. Giberson & T. A. Moriarty (Eds.), What we are becoming: Developments in undergraduate writing majors (pp. 67–80). Logan: Utah State University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atherton, E. (2016). Science fiction prototyping at work. Computer, 49(8), 109–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldick, C. (2001). The concise Oxford dictionary of literary terms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Balzhiser, D., & McLeod, S. H. (2010). The undergraduate writing major: What is it? What should it be? College Composition and Communication, 61(3), 415–433.Google Scholar
Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Retrieved from [URL]
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Belmont Report. (1979). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved from [URL]
Bishop, W. (1993). Writing is/and therapy?: Raising questions about writing classrooms and writing program administration. Journal of Advanced Composition, 13(2), 503–516.Google Scholar
Burke, A. (2019). Student retention models in higher education: A literature review. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Retrieved from [URL]
Carpenter, J. M., Green, M. C., & Fitzgerald, K. (2018). Mind-reading motivation: Individual differences in desire to perspective-take influence narrative processing. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(2), 211–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2013). Poetry writing to express love in Thai and in English: A second language (L2) writing perspective. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 141–157.Google Scholar
A changing major: The report of the 2016–17 ADE ad hoc committee on the English major. (2018). Retrieved from [URL]
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2016). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cook, A. (2018). The roots of attrition. In Student retention in higher education: Resources for faculty (pp. 5–17). Retrieved from [URL]
De Lepe, M., Olmstead, W., Russell, C., Cazarez, L., & Austin, L. (2015). Using science fiction prototyping to decrease the decline of interest in STEM topics at the high school level. In D. Preuveneers (Ed.), Workshop proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Environments. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mulder, H. N. M., Hakemulder, F., van den Berghe, R., Klaassen, F., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2017). Effects of exposure to literary narrative fiction: From book smart to street smart? Scientific Study of Literature, 7(1), 129–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Draudt, A., Hadley, J., Hogan, R., Murray, L., Stock, G., & West, J. R. (2015). Six insights about science fiction prototyping. Computer, 48(5), 69–71. Retrieved from [URL]
Emerson, L. (2016). The forgotten tribe: Scientists as writers. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). “I’m not a writer”: Shaping the literacy-related attitudes and beliefs of students and teachers in STEM disciplines. In V. Prain & B. M. Hand (Eds.), Theorizing the future of science education research: Contemporary trends and issues in science education (pp. 169–187). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eodice, M., Geller, A. E., & Lerner, N. (2017). The meaningful writing project: Learning, teaching, and writing in higher education. Logan: Utah State University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The power of personal connection for undergraduate student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 53(4), 320–339.Google Scholar
Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G., … Zavala, M. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(3), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fakayode, S. O., Yakubu, M., Adeyeye, O. M., Pollard, D. A., & Mohammed, A. K. (2014). Promoting undergraduate STEM education at a historically black college and university through research experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(5), 662–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, N. A., Rottinghaus, P. J., Casanova, T. N., Borgen, F. H., & Betz, N. E. (2016). Expanding women’s participation in STEM: Insights from parallel measures of self-efficacy and interests. Journal of Career Assessment. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frick, T., Chadha, R., Watson, C., Wang, Y., & Green, P. (2009). College student perceptions of teaching and learning quality. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 705–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garraway, J. (2016). Future-orientated approaches to curriculum development: Fictive scripting. Higher Education Research & Development. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graf, N., Fry, R., & Funk, C. (2018). 7 facts about the STEM workforce. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from [URL]
Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 291, 911–922. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2016). Imaginative science education: The central role of imagination in science education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Hamilton Project. (2014). College earnings by college major. Retrieved from [URL]
Hanauer, D. I. (2010). Poetry as research: Exploring second language poetry writing: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The scientific study of poetry writing. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 79–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Meaningful literacy: Writing poetry in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 45(1), 105–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018a). Intermediate states of literariness: Poetic lining, sociological positioning, and the activation of literariness. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(1), 14–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Reader characteristics, narrative transportation, persuasion and foregrounding. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(2), 209–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Mourning writing: A poetic autoethnography on the passing of my father. Qualitative Inquiry, 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D. I., & Bauerle, C. (2012). Facilitating innovation in science education through assessment reform. Liberal Education, 98(3), 34–41.Google Scholar
Hanauer, D. I., & Dolan, E. L. (2014). The project ownership survey: Measuring differences in scientific inquiry experiences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 131, 149–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D. I., Frederick, J., Fotinakes, B., & Strobel, S. A. (2012). Linguistic analysis of project ownership for undergraduate research experiences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 111, 378–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., & Hatfull, G. F. (2016). A measure of college student persistence in the sciences (PITS). CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., SEA-PHAGES, Betancur, L., Bobrownicki, A., Cresawn, S. G., … Hatfull, G. F. (2017). An inclusive research education community (iREC): Impact of the SEA-PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. PNAS Early Edition, 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D. I., Hatfull, G. F., & Jacobs-Sera, D. (2009). Active assessment: Assessing scientific inquiry. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D. I., Jacobs-Sera, D., Pedulla, M. L., Cresawn, S. G., Hendrix, R. W., & Hatfull, G. F. (2006). Teaching scientific inquiry. Science, 3141, 1880–1881. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D. I., Nicholes, J., Liao, F. -Y., Beasley, A., & Henter, H. (2018). Short-term research experience (SRE) in the traditional lab: Qualitative and quantitative data on outcomes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 171, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henary, M., Owens, E. A., & Tawney, J. G. (2015). Creative report writing in undergraduate organic chemistry laboratory inspires nonmajors. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 90–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iida, A. (2012). The value of poetry writing: Cross-genre literacy development in a second language. Scientific Study of Literature, 2(1), 60–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. D. (2011). Science fiction prototyping: Designing the future with science fiction. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Killingbeck, K. (2006). Field botany and creative writing: Where the science of writing meets the writing of science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(7), 26–28.Google Scholar
King, B. (2016). Does postsecondary persistence in STEM vary by gender? AERA Open, 2(4), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kymalainen, T., Perala, P., Hakulinen, J., Heimonen, T., James, J., & Pera, J. (2015). Evaluating a future remote control environment with an experience-driven science fiction prototype. 2015 International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE), 81–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. ESA Issue Brief #04–11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., Julian, T., Lehrman, R., & Doms, M. (2011). Education supports racial and ethnic equality in STEM. ESA Issue Brief #05–11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Leverenz, C., Lucas, B., George, A., Hogg, C., & Murray, J. (2015). They could be our students: The writing major at Texas Christian University. In G. A. Giberson, J. Nugent, & L. Ostergaard (Eds.), Writing majors: Eighteen program profiles (pp. 137–149). Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis Ellison, T., Robinson, B., & Qiu, T. (2019). Examining African American girls’ literate intersectional identities through journal entries and discussions about STEM. Written Communication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mestan, K. (2016). Why students drop out of the Bachelor of Arts. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 983–996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michelmore, K., & Sassler, S. (2016). Explaining the gender wage gap in STEM: Does field sex composition matter? RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(4), 194–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Micro-SFPs. (2020). Retrieved from [URL]
Miller, T. P., & Jackson, B. (2007). What are English majors for? College Composition and Communication, 58(4), 682–708.Google Scholar
Necka, E. A., Cacioppo, S., Norman, G. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2016). Measuring the prevalence of problematic respondent behaviors among MTurk, campus, and community participants. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0157732. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholes, J. (2017). Measuring ownership of creative versus academic writing: Implications for interdisciplinary praxis. Writing in Practice, 31. Retrieved from [URL]
(2018). Developing STEM interest and genre knowledge through science fiction prototyping. The STEAM Journal, 3(2), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(in press-a). Engaging English majors with video games: Implications for English-major identity formation. Journal of Teaching Writing.
(in press-b). Lab reports and horror stories: Exploring chemistry majors’ evaluations of scientific and creative writing. Journal for Learning Through the Arts.
Nichols, R., Lynn, J., & Purzycki, B. G. (2014). Toward a science of science fiction: Applying quantitative methods to genre individuation. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(1), 25–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olckers, C. (2013). Psychological ownership: Development of an instrument. SAJIP: South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panero, M. E., Weisberg, D. S., Black, J., Goldstein, T. R., Barnes, J. L., Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (2017). No support for the claim that literary fiction uniquely and immediately improves theory of mind: A reply to Kidd and Castano’s commentary on Panero et al. (2016). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), e5–e8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015: Operator’s Manual. Retrieved from [URL]
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007: Operator’s Manual. Retrieved from [URL]
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Retrieved from [URL]
Reinholz, D. L., Matz, R. L., Cole, R., & Apkarian, N. (2019). STEM is not a monolith: A preliminary analysis of variations in STEM disciplinary cultures and implications for change. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 18(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharpe Wessling, K., Huber, J., & Netzer, O. (2017). MTurk character misrepresentation: Assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 211–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. M., Roster, C. A., Golden, L. L., & Albaum, G. S. (2016). A multi-group analysis of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel to MTurk samples. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3139–3148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strikwerda, C. J. (2019). Faculty members are the key to solving the retention callenge. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from [URL]
Summerby-Murray, R. (2010). Writing for immediacy: Narrative writing as a teaching technique in undergraduate cultural geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(2), 231–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suvin, D. (1978). On what is and is not an SF narration: With a list of 101 Victorian books that should be excluded from SF bibliographies. Science Fiction Studies, 5(1), 45–57.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tessema, M. T., Ready, K., & Yu, W. -C. (2012). Factors affecting college students’ satisfaction with major curriculum: Evidence from nine years of data. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(2), 34–44.Google Scholar
Tinto, V. (2015). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, R., & Felisberti, F. M. (2018). Relationships between fiction media, genre, and empathic abilities. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(2), 261–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Undergraduate retention and graduation rates. (2019). Retrieved from [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.