Participating in the scientific publication process: exploring how pre-college students perceive publication within the scientific enterprise

Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research - 2021
Sarah C. Fankhauser1, G. A. Reid1, Gwendolyn Mirzoyan2, Clara L. Meaders3, Olivia Ho-Shing4
1Oxford College of Emory University, 801 Emory Street, 30054, Oxford, GA, USA
2Emory University, 201 Dowman Dr, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
3Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, Division of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA
4Harvard University, 52 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Tóm tắt

AbstractScientists spend a substantial amount of their time engaging with the primary literature: reading, constructing, reviewing and revising it. Yet, the role of primary literature is generally absent from the development of scientific inquiry skills in the pre-college science classroom, thus undermining a true understanding of what it means to do science. In this study, we examined middle and high school student perceptions of scientific inquiry and the role of disciplinary literacy practices after engaging in scientific review and publication of their research papers. We interviewed twelve students who published their papers in the Journal of Emerging Investigators, a science journal dedicated to publishing the research of middle and high school students. Students acknowledged the important roles that effective communication, scientific review, and revision played in their research projects. Further, after engaging with professional scientists through the scientific review process, students expressed increased confidence and belonging as a scientist. However, students primarily viewed the writing and publication processes as personal endpoints for their projects rather than an integral part of all stages of scientific inquiry and knowledge construction. If students are to develop an understanding of how reading, writing, and peer-review are critical pieces of doing science, then our work suggests that disciplinary literacy practices should be explicitly discussed and included in all parts of the research process. While not all students will be motivated to publish their research, our work has important implications for integrating disciplinary literacy practices into student scientific inquiry.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Atkinson, M. (1994). Regulation of science by ‘peer review’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 25(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(94)90025-6.

Barrow, L. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science.

Bell, P., Bricker, L., Tzou, C., Lee, T., & Van Horne, K. (2012). Exploring the science framework. Science and Children; Washington, 50(3), 11–16.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10086.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Binns, I. C., & Bell, R. L. (2015). Representation of scientific methodology in secondary science textbooks. Science & Education, 24(7), 913–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9765-7.

Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.

Bornmann, L. (2015). Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(12), 2415–2426. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23334.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032.

Carpi, A., Ronan, D. M., Falconer, H. M., & Lents, N. H. (2017). Cultivating minority scientists: Undergraduate research increases self-efficacy and career ambitions for underrepresented students in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21341.

Charmaz, K. (2003). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. A. Holstein, & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns, (pp. 311–330). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Sage Publications.

Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601159407.

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001.

Costenson, K., & Lawson, A. E. (1986). Why Isn’t inquiry used more in classrooms? The American Biology Teacher, 48(3), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/4448241.

Crawford, B. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (1999). Elements of a community of learners in a middle school science classroom. Science Education, 83(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199911)83:6<701::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-2.

Deane, T., Nomme, K., Jeffery, E., Pollock, C., & Birol, G. (2014). Development of the biological experimental design concept inventory (BEDCI). CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-11-0218.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. heath and company. Kessinger Publishing, 1910.

Dijk, E. M. V. (2014). Understanding the heterogeneous nature of science: A comprehensive notion of PCK for scientific literacy. Science Education, 98(3), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21110.

Eisenhart, M. (2002). The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little? Research in Science Education, 32(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016082229411.

Eltinge, E. M., & Roberts, C. W. (1993). Linguistic content analysis: A method to measure science as inquiry in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300106.

Emerson, L. (2016). The forgotten tribe: Scientists as writers. WAC Clearinghouse and UP of Coloradohttps://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/emerson/. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2016.0759.

Falk, H., & Yarden, A. (2009). “Here the scientists explain what I said.” coordination practices elicited during the enactment of the results and discussion sections of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 349–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9114-9.

Fankhauser, S. C., & Lijek, R. S. (2016). Incorporating primary scientific literature in middle and high school education †. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(1), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1004.

Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., Snyder-White, E. P., Connor, M. C., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2019). Characterizing peer review comments and revision from a writing-to-learn assignment focused on Lewis structures. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00711.

Florence, M. K., & Yore, L. D. (2004). Learning to write like a scientist: Coauthoring as an enculturation task. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 637–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20015.

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843.

Halliday, M. A. K., Martin, J. R., & Martin, J. R. (2003). Writing science : Literacy and discursive power.

Hoskins, S. G., Stevens, L. M., & Nehm, R. H. (2007). Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory. Genetics, 176(3), 1381–1389. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.071183.

Janick-Buckner, D. (1997). Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(1), 29–32.

Johnson, E. A., & Fankhauser, S. C. (2018). Engaging in the publication process improves perceptions of scientific communication, critique, and career skills among graduate students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1429.

Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 691–718. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<691::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-G.

Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q.

Koomen, M. H., Weaver, S., Blair, R. B., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2016). Disciplinary literacy in the science classroom: Using adaptive primary literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 847–894. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21317.

Kozeracki, C. A., Carey, M. F., Colicelli, J., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., & Grossel, M. (2006). An intensive primary-literature-based teaching program directly benefits undergraduate science majors and facilitates their transition to doctoral programs. CBE Life Sciences Education, 5(4), 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-02-0144.

Lăzăroiu, G. (2019). Postmodernist sophistry, shoddy peer review, and academic dishonesty: How subjective science knowledge and patience for nonsense may cause (pseudo-)scholarly hoax. Boghossian et al. affair. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(14), 1408–1412. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1590791.

Lederman, J., Lederman, N., Bartels, S., Jimenez, J., Akubo, M., Aly, S., … Zhou, Q. (2019). An international collaborative investigation of beginning seventh grade students’ understandings of scientific inquiry: Establishing a baseline. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(4), 486–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512.

Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125.

Lederman, N., Lederman, J., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1.

Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Kull, J. A. (1998). Can we be scientists too? Secondary students’ perceptions of scientific research from a project-based classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022564507639.

Muench, S. B. (2000). Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goals. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(4), 255–260.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596

NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press Available online at www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066.

Norris, S. P., Stelnicki, N., & de Vries, G. (2011). Teaching mathematical biology in high school using adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 633–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9215-8.

O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 442–463. https://doi.org/10.2307/747625.

Odell, L., Goswami, D., & Herrington, A. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods, (pp. 221–236). Longman.

Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the Service of the Other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182595.

Penney, K., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Clark, G. (2003). The anatomy of junior high school science textbooks: An analysis of textual characteristics and a comparison to media reports of science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 3(4), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150309556580.

Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9111-z.

Robnett, R. D., Chemers, M. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2015). Longitudinal associations among undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 847–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21221.

Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (2013). Situated cognition. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4(5), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1242.

Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20326.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Schnell, S. (2018). “Reproducible” research in mathematical sciences requires changes in our peer review culture and modernization of our current publication approach. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 80(12), 3095–3105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-018-0500-9.

Schwab, J. (1960). Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review, 68(2), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1086/442536.

Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In The teaching of science, (pp. 3–103). Harvard University Press.

Schwab, J. J., & Brandwein, P. F. (1966). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry. Harvard University Press.

Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2008). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI questionnaire.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a.

Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815.

Stichler, J. F. (2011). Peer review and the development of a science. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD) (Vendome Group LLC), 4(3), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671100400304.

Stone, G., Jensen, K., & Beech, M. (2016). Publishing undergraduate research: Linking teaching and research through a dedicated peer-reviewed open access journal. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.2.147.

Tatalovic, M. (2008). Student science publishing: An exploratory study of undergraduate science research journals and popular science magazines in the US and Europe. Journal of Science Communication, 07(03). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.07030203.

Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. Wiley.

Tobin, K. (2002). The Multiple Faces of Peer Review in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 32(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016017809846.

Trautmann, N. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(5), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9077-y.

Vasconcelos, C., Torres, J., Dourado, L. G. P., & Leite, L. (2012). Questions in science textbooks: Do they prompt students’ inquiry and problem-based learning? Retrieved from http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/.

Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Argument-driven inquiry: Using the laboratory to improve undergraduates’ science writing skills through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1269–1274. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300656p.

Walkington, H. (2012). Developing dialogic learning space: The case of online undergraduate research journals. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36(4), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2012.692072.

Weaver, K. F., Morales, V., Nelson, M., Weaver, P. F., Toledo, A., & Godde, K. (2016). The benefits of peer review and a multisemester capstone writing series on inquiry and analysis skills in an undergraduate thesis. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar51. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0072.

Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730650106.

Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20290.

Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2001.9655776.

Yarden, A., Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2015). Adapted primary literature: The use of authentic scientific texts in secondary schools. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9759-7.

Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008.

Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86(5), 672–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10042.

Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036–1058. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20195.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research

Thông tin tác giả