Learning to write like a scientist: Coauthoring as an enculturation task

This multiple case study examined the coauthorship process in research laboratories of different university departments. The study focused on two cases comprising five writing teams, one in biochemistry and microbiology and four in earth and ocean sciences. The role of the research supervisor, the role of the student (graduate and postgraduate), the interaction of the supervisor and the student, the activities and processes inherent in the coauthorship process, and the student's beliefs, expertise, scientific writing, and entry into an academic discourse community were documented utilizing multiple sources of data and methods. Several activities and processes were found to be common across all coauthorship teams, including aspects of planning, drafting, and revising. Elements of scientific and writing expertise, facets of enculturation into scientific research and discourse communities, academic civility, and the dynamics of collaborative groups also were apparent. There was healthy tension and mutual respect in the research groups as they attempted to make sense of science, report their results clearly and persuasively, and share the responsibilities of expertise. The novice scientists came to appreciate that the writing, editing, and revising process influenced the quality of the science as well as the writing. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 41: 637–668, 2004

[1]  C. Geisler.  Academic Literacy and the Nature of Expertise: Reading, Writing and Knowing in Academic Philosophy , 1994 .

[2]  Charles Bazerman.  The Production of Technology and the Production of Human Meaning , 1998 .

[3]  Carolyn W. Keys.  Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science , 1999 .

[4]  The Evidential Basis for Knowledge Claims in Mathematics Education Research , 2000 .

[5]  D. Newton,et al.  Enculturation and Understanding: some differences between sixth formers’ and graduates’ conceptions of understanding in History and Science , 1998 .

[6]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[7]  J. Creswell.  Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. , 1998 .

[8]  Tony Becher,et al.  Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines , 2001 .

[9]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  The psychology of written composition , 1987 .

[10]  Kevin Dunbar,et al.  How Scientists Think in the Real World: Implications for Science Education , 2000 .

[11]  K. Dunbar.  HOW SCIENTISTS REALLY REASON: SCIENTIFIC REASONING IN REAL-WORLD LABORATORIES , 1995 .

[12]  L. Yore.  Quality Science and Mathematics Education Research: Considerations of Argument, Evidence, and Generalizability , 2003 .

[13]  Christopher J. Pole,et al.  Joint Supervision and the PhD: safety net or panacea? , 1998 .

[14]  Sunny Hyon,et al.  John Swales as Mentor: The View from the Doctoral Group. , 1998 .

[15]  Natasha Artemeva,et al.  From page to stage: How theories of genre and situated learning help introduce engineering students to discipline‐specific communication , 1999 .

[16]  Dina E. Rudolph.  Constructing an apprenticeship with discourse strategies: Professor-graduate student interactions , 1994, Language in Society.

[17]  Vaughan Prain,et al.  Sequential Writing Tasks’ Influence on Science Learning , 2001 .

[18]  C. Berkenkotter,et al.  Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/culture/power , 1994 .

[19]  Julie Foertsch,et al.  Where Cognitive Psychology Applies , 1995 .

[20]  Peter Elbow,et al.  Reflections on Academic Discourse: How It Relates to Freshmen and Colleagues. , 1991 .

[21]  H. Albrechtsen,et al.  Toward a New Horizon in Information Science: Domain-Analysis , 1995, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[22]  Anne Beaufort.  Learning the Trade , 2000 .

[23]  W. Anderson.  Cross-Curricular Underlife: A Collaborative Report on Ways with Academic Words. , 1990 .

[24]  J. Flowerdew,et al.  On the Notion of Culture in L2 Lectures , 1995 .

[25]  L. Yore.  Enhancing Science Literacy for All Students With Embedded Reading Instruction and Writing-to-Learn Activities. , 2000, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[26]  Stephen P. Norris,et al.  How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy , 2003 .

[27]  D. Perkins,et al.  New Conceptions of Thinking: From Ontology to Education , 1993 .

[28]  B. Daley.  Novice to Expert: An Exploration of How Professionals Learn , 1999 .

[29]  Larry D. Yore,et al.  The reading–science learning–writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises , 1994 .

[30]  Larry D. Yore,et al.  Scientists as Writers , 2002 .

[31]  V L Patel,et al.  Cognition and expertise: acquisition of medical competence. , 2000, Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale.

[32]  Michael Carter,et al.  The Idea of Expertise: An Exploration of Cognitive and Social Dimensions of Writing , 1990 .

[33]  Susan Haack,et al.  Defending Science -- Within Reason : Between Scientism and Cynicism , 2003 .

[34]  David Locke,et al.  Science as Writing , 1992 .

[35]  Paul Prior.  Response, Revision, Disciplinarity , 1994 .

[36]  Larry D. Yore,et al.  Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices , 2004 .

[37]  Teresa M. Harrison,et al.  The Electronic Journal as the Heart of an Online Scholarly Community , 1995 .

[38]  Diane Belcher,et al.  The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors , 1994 .

[39]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[40]  Bruce G. Barnett,et al.  Teaching Doctoral Students to Become Scholarly Writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques , 2000 .

[41]  Paul A Prior,et al.  Tracing Authoritative and Internally Persuasive Discourses: A Case Study of Response, Revision, and Disciplinary Enculturation. , 1995 .