An official website of the United States government
Peer-review and publication are important parts of the scientific enterprise, and research has shown that engaging students in such scholarly practices helps build their sense of belonging and scientific identity. Yet, these disciplinary literacy skills and professional practices are often part of the hidden curriculum of science research, thus excluding students and others from fully understanding ways in which scientific knowledge is constructed, refined, and disseminated even though students are participating in such activities. Secondary students are increasingly involved in scientific research projects that include authentic disciplinary literacy components such as research proposals, posters, videos, and scientific research papers. More and more, students are also engaging in professional practice of publishing their scientific research papers through dedicated secondary science journals. How teachers and other mentors support the development of professional disciplinary literacies in students is critical to understand as part of supporting more student participation in research. To this end, we used a mixed-methods study of interviews and surveys to examine the experience and conceptions of the mentors (teachers and professional scientists) who guided pre-college students through the writing and publication of their scientific research projects. Analyzing our data from a lens of cognitive apprenticeship, we find that mentors encourage independence by primarily employing the method of “exploration”. We also find that mentors have divergent views on the value of publication within science, versus for student scientists specifically. Our findings suggest that mentors could work to explicitly reveal their own thinking within science writing to provide more sequenced support for student scientists.
more »
« less
Learning the ropes: How do mentors support students through the scientific publication process?
In the last two decades, research experiences for pre-college students have gone from the exception of a typical experience of a high school student, to the norm. Often, these research experiences include distinct disciplinary literacy outputs that mimic those of professionals. And while much attention has been paid to supporting students in scientific writing, other disciplinary literacy practices, such as peer-review and publication, are often part of the hidden-curriculum of science research, thus excluding students from fully understanding ways in which scientific knowledge is constructed, refined, and disseminated (Authors, 2022). As more students participate in research experiences and the dissemination of their work, it is important to understand how mentors support the development of disciplinary literacies, including those that are deemed “professional”. To this end, we used a mixed-methods study of interviews and surveys to examine the experience and conceptions of the mentors who guided precollege students through the writing and publication of their scientific research projects. Using the construct of cognitive apprenticeship to evaluate our findings, we find that although mentors highly value peer-review and publication within science, they are not intentional about bringing these practices to the forefront of the research process for their student. Additionally, mentors report a range of involvement level in guiding students through the publication process. Our findings suggest that more work is needed to help reveal professional disciplinary literacy practices to students. mentors could benefit from resources to help them more intentionally involve students in such disciplinary literacy practices.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2010333
- PAR ID:
- 10500360
- Publisher / Repository:
- National Association for Research in Science Teaching
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Denver Colorado
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
In a typical science class, communication exercises may include a variety of outputs including lab reports, posters, reflective writing, or research proposals. However, a growing number of students are engaging in more complex and professional communication endeavors, including scientific publication. The chance to write a research paper and experience the peer-review and publication processes may provide students the opportunity to integrate several practices from the Next Generation Science Standards, as well as share their research in a more public setting. Although we have some limited understanding in terms of the outcomes that students experience when engaging in peer-review and publication of their science research papers, we have no information or data regarding why students want to participate in these processes. As such, the purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations of pre-college students to pursue peer-review and publication of their scientific research papers. Using the theory of science identity to analyze the data, I found that students view publication as a mechanism to grow their scientific skills and be recognized as a scientist. The findings suggest that providing students the opportunity to share their research in more public settings could be a factor in developing their science identity.more » « less
-
Abstract Young researchers are often excluded from the scholarly processes of peer‐review and publication, which are cornerstones of scholarly work. TheJournal of Emerging Investigatorsis an open access journal dedicated to publishing the research of middle and high school students. We surveyed student authors before and after they participated in the peer‐review and publication process of their scientific articles. Following peer‐review and publication, students report gains in their confidence and self‐efficacy in science, and increased feelings of identity and belonging in science. Our findings demonstrate that even the youngest scholars are capable of participating in the publication process, and our data suggest that participation in the process has positive outcomes.more » « less
-
This is the first of a series of studies that explore the relationship between disciplinary background and the weighting of various elements of a manuscript in peer reviewers’ determination of publication recommendations. Research questions include: (1) To what extent are tacit criteria for determining quality or value of EER manuscripts influenced by reviewers’ varied disciplinary backgrounds and levels of expertise? and (2) To what extent does mentored peer review professional development influence reviewers’ EER manuscript evaluations? Data were collected from 27 mentors and mentees in a peer review professional development program. Participants reviewed the same two manuscripts, using a form to identify strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Responses were coded by two researchers (70% IRR). Our findings suggest that disciplinary background influences reviewers’ evaluation of EER manuscripts. We also found evidence that professional development can improve reviewers’ understanding of EER disciplinary conventions. Deeper understanding of the epistemological basis for manuscript reviews may reveal ways to strengthen professional preparation in engineering education as well as other disciplines.more » « less
-
This is the first of a series of studies that explore the relationship between disciplinary background and the weighting of various elements of a manuscript in peer reviewers’ determination of publication recommendations. Research questions include: (1) To what extent are tacit criteria for determining quality or value of EER manuscripts influenced by reviewers’ varied disciplinary backgrounds and levels of expertise? and (2) To what extent does mentored peer review professional development influence reviewers’ EER manuscript evaluations? Data were collected from 27 mentors and mentees in a peer review professional development program. Participants reviewed the same two manuscripts, using a form to identify strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Responses were coded by two researchers (70% IRR). Our findings suggest that disciplinary background influences reviewers’ evaluation of EER manuscripts. We also found evidence that professional development can improve reviewers’ understanding of EER disciplinary conventions. Deeper understanding of the epistemological basis for manuscript reviews may reveal ways to strengthen professional preparation in engineering education as well as other disciplines.more » « less
