Writing to be published or writing to be read?

Journal of Natural History

Volumn 39, Issue 36, 2005, Pages 3229-3233

  Kinchin, Ian M ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PUBLISHING;

EID: 30544449578     PISSN: 00222933     EISSN: 14645262     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00222930500307350     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Abrams E, Wandersee JH. 1995. How does biological knowledge grow: a study of life scientists' research practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32(6):649-663.
2. Andreadis A. 2003. The double helix: why science needs science fiction. Thought and Action 19(1):9-17.
3. Biggs J. 2003. Teaching for quality learning at university. 2nd ed. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
4. Brill G, Falk H, Yarden A. 2004. The learning processes of two high-school biology students when reading primary literature. International Journal of Science Education 26(4):497-512.
5. Entwistle N, Ramsden P, Morison S. 1982. Approaches to reading academic articles. In: Entwistle N, Ramsden P, editors. Understanding student learning. London: Groom Helm. p 84-110.
6. Janick-Buckner D. 1997. Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature. Journal of College Science Teaching 27:29-32.
7. Janzen HH. 1996. Is the scientific paper obsolete? Canadian Journal of Soil Science 76:447-451.
8. Kinchin IM. 1995. Evolutionary trends in the tardigrades. The Quekett Journal of Microscopy 37(6):493-498.
9. Kinchin IM. 2000. Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education 34(2):61-68.
10. Kinchin IM. 2001. If concept mapping is so helpful to learning biology, why aren't we all doing it? International Journal of Science Education 23(12):1257-1269.
11. Kinchin IM. 2005. Reading scientific papers for understanding: revisiting Watson and Crick (1953). Journal of Biological Education 39(2):73-75.
12. Kozma R. 2003. The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction 13(2):205-216.
13. Marton F, Saljo R. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning. I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46:4-11.
14. Moore R. 2000. Writing about biology: how rhetorical choices can influence the impact of a scientific paper. Bioscene 26(1):23-25.
15. Morgan AK, Drury VB. 2003. Legitimising the subjectivity of human reality through qualitative research method. The Qualitative Report [online] 8(1). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-1/morgan.html.
16. Muench SB. 2000. Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goals. Journal of College Science Teaching 29:255-260.
17. Northedge A. 2003a. Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education 8(1):17-32.
18. Northedge A. 2003b. Enabling participation in academic discourse. Teaching in Higher Education 8(2):169-180.
19. Sheldrake R. 2004. Are we active? Or should the passive be used? School Science Review 86(315):8-10.
20. Taylor PC, Willison JW. 2002. Complementary epistemologies of science teaching: an integral perspective. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Townsville, Queensland, Jul 11-14. Available from: http://pctaylor.smec.curtin.edu.au/ publications/asera2002/complementary.html.