Writing in the Disciplines and Student Pre-professional Identity: An Exploratory Study

This study examines student perceptions about (i) whether writing in undergraduate disciplines contributes to the development of student pre-professional identity (PPI) and (ii) how writing in such disciplines affects PPI relative to other classroom activities. The study was conducted at St. John’s University in New York, which has a very diverse student population, and involved four different undergraduate disciplines—First-Year History, Chemistry (STEM), Legal Studies, and Speech Pathology. Data was derived primarily from student survey responses. Our findings suggest that writing in undergraduate courses can affect student PPI. Further, the extent to which writing contributes to PPI relative to other course activities appears to be related to four things: whether the course was in the student’s major; how professionally authentic the students perceived the writing in the course to be relative to other course activities; the extent to which the instructor works through the disciplinary writing process with the students; and the extent to which the student already has a PPI. Higher education institutions are under growing pressure to prepare students for professional employment and the world of work (Jackson & Wilton, 2017; Trede, Macklin, & Bridges, 2012). Billett (2009) argues that one of the responsibilities of higher education is to help socialize students to the roles and cultures of their intended professions. Higher education can support this important socialization process by adopting pedagogical practices that help students develop a pre-professional identity (Pittman & Foubert, 2016). Pre-professional identity (PPI) is defined as “an understanding of and connection with the skills, qualities, conduct, culture, and ideology of a student’s intended profession” (Jackson, 2016, p. 926). Research finds PPI enhances both professional and academic success (Nadelson, Warner, & Brown, 2015; Jackson, 2016; Jackson, 2017). PPI is associated with persistence in the STEM disciplines (Chang, Eagan, Lin, & Hurtado, 2011; Graham, Frederick, Byars-Winston, Hunter, & Handelsman, 2013), employability (Jackson, 2016; Tomlinson, 2012), job satisfaction (Holland, 1985), and lower job attrition once students are in the workforce (Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008). Research on the development of PPI has focused primarily on students’ transition from graduate programs to entry level positions in the field (e.g., Pittman & Foubert, 2016; also see Trede et al., 2012 for review), but the development of PPI can also begin during the undergraduate years (e.g., Jackson & Wilton, 2017). Undergraduate students, for example, can be encouraged to join pre-professional clubs and communities, participate in mentoring programs with professionals practicing in the field (Pittman & Writing in the Disciplines and Student Pre-professional Identity 35 ATD, VOL16(2) Foubert, 2016), and engage in experiential learning, academic service-learning, internships, and practica (Jackson, 2016). For the most part, activities that focus on PPI development take place outside the classroom. Very little research has been conducted to evaluate how typical classroom experiences, such as writing, might contribute to PPI. Given the importance of PPI, and the ubiquity of writing in higher education, this study explores how, or whether, in-class discipline-specific writing instruction contributes to the development of undergraduate students’ PPI. Like PPI, writing in the disciplines is often viewed as an activity of socialization. As Heidi Estrem put it in Naming What We Know, “Approaching disciplinary writing as an act of identity and affiliation illuminates how writing in new contexts is not only about learning abstract conventions but also about learning how to be within a group with social conventions, norms and expectations” (Adler-Kassner & Wardle, 2015, p. 56). Students also find writing activities to be more meaningful and consequential if such activities help them imagine their future selves (Eodice, Geller, & Lerner, 2016a).