Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices

Written and oral communications and the processes of writing and reading are highly valued within the scientific community; scientists who communicate well are successful in gaining recognition and support from members of their own communities, the research funding agencies, and the wider society. Yet how do scientists achieve this proficiency? Are expert scientists equally expert writers in and of science? Do scientists' perceptions of the nature of science influence their writing strategies and processes, and their beliefs about the role of writing in knowledge construction? This study used a questionnaire and semistructured interviews to document these perceptions, strategies, processes, and beliefs in a nonrandom sample of Canadian university scientists and engineers. The results indicate that the scientists subscribed to a contemporary evaluativist view of science, used common writing strategies, held similar beliefs about scientific writing and nonscientific writing, and agreed that writing generates insights and clarifies ambiguity in science. The engineers held a different view of technology than the common views of science or technology as simply applied science. These findings were slightly different than those found for American scientists from a large land-grant university. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 41: 338–369, 2004

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

[2]  John H. Holland,et al.  Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery , 1987, IEEE Expert.

[3]  Philip N. Johnson-Laird,et al.  The computer and the mind - An introduction to cognitive science [Book Review] , 1989, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[4]  A. Ryan,et al.  Students' Preconceptions about the Epistemology of Science , 1992 .

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

[6]  L. Yore Comment on “hypothetico‐deductive reasoning skills and concept acquisition: Testing a constructivist hypothesis” , 1993 .

[7]  C. Berkenkotter,et al.  Rethinking Genre from a Sociocognitive Perspective , 1993 .

[8]  D. Kuhn Science as argument : Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking , 1993 .

[9]  M. R. Matthews,et al.  Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems , 1993 .

[10]  R. Prawat,et al.  Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning , 1994 .

[11]  Shawn M. Glynn,et al.  Reading and Writing to Learn Science: Achieving Scientific Literacy. , 1994 .

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

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

[14]  J. Shea National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

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

[16]  T. Kuhn The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[17]  F. Finley,et al.  Preservice Teachers' Views of the Nature of Science during a Postbaccalaureate Science Teaching Program , 1997 .

[18]  P. Pintrich,et al.  The Development of Epistemological Theories: Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing and Their Relation to Learning , 1997 .

[19]  M. Bickhard Constructivisms and Relativisms: A Shopper‘s Guide , 1997 .

[20]  Barry J. Zimmerman,et al.  Becoming a Self-Regulated Writer: A Social Cognitive Perspective , 1997 .

[21]  Christopher Norris,et al.  Against Relativism: Philosophy of Science, Deconstruction, and Critical Theory , 1997 .

[22]  Bernard McKenna How Engineers Write: An Empirical Study of Engineering Report Writing , 1997 .

[23]  Cathleen C. Loving,et al.  Defining "Science" in a Multicultural World: Implications for Science Education. , 1998 .

[24]  John R. Staver Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching , 1998 .

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

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

[27]  Daniel Barwick,et al.  Manifesto of a passionate moderate , 1999 .

[28]  Perry D. Klein Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-To-Learn , 1999 .

[29]  Gert Rijlaarsdam,et al.  Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing , 1999 .

[30]  Kevin Dunbar,et al.  How Scientists Build Models In Vivo Science as a Window on the Scientific Mind , 1999 .

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

[32]  Anton E. Lawson,et al.  How Do Humans Acquire Knowledge? And What Does That Imply About the Nature of Knowledge? , 2000 .

[33]  William A. Prothero,et al.  The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography , 2000 .

[34]  William Hare,et al.  Portraying science accurately in classrooms : Emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism , 2000 .

[35]  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.

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

[37]  Anton E. Lawson,et al.  What Does Galileo's Discovery of Jupiter's Moons Tell Us About the Process of Scientific Discovery? , 2002 .

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

[39]  L. Yore,et al.  Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research , 2003 .

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

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