Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 28, Issue 2-3, 2006, Pages 109-141

  Yore, Larry D ^a   Florence, Marilyn K ^b   Pearson, Terry W ^a   Weaver, Andrew J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 31344460315     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500336601     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
2. Best, L. (1995). A critique of cognitive research on writing from three critical perspectives: Theoretical, methodological, and practical. Resources in Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377516).
3. Chaopricha, S. (1997). Coauthoring as learning and enculturation: A study of writing in biochemistry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
4. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in the real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Dunbar, K. (1999). How scientists build models in vivo science as a window on the scientific mind. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 85–99). New York: Kluwer/Plenum Publishers.
6. Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 49–58.
7. Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of science facts. Written Communications, 3, 175–196.
8. Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers’ self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26, 473–488.
9. Florence, M. K. (2001). A study of the enculturation of novice scientists into expert discourse communities by co-authoring research reports. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Victoria, B.C., Canada.
10. Florence, M. K., & Yore, L. D. (2004). Learning to write like a scientist: A study of the enculturation of novice scientists into expert discourse communities by co-authoring research reports. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 637–668.
11. Good, R. G., Shymansky, J. A., & Yore, L. D. (1999). Censorship in science and science education. In E. H. Brinkley (Ed.), Caught off guard: Teachers rethinking censorship and controversy (pp. 101–121), New York: Allyn and Bacon.
12. Haack, S. (2003) Defending science—within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
13. Hand, B. M., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 105–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
14. Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasizing openmindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 225–236.
15. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production in the writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.
16. Locke, D. M. (1992). Science as writing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17. Loving, C. C. (1998). Nature of science activities using the scientific profile: From the Hawkins– Gould dichotomy to a philosophy checklist. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 137–150). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
18. Matthews, M. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 359–370.
19. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
20. Tynjala, P. (2001). Writing, learning and the development of expertise in higher education. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
21. Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953a). Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.
22. Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953b). Genetical implications of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid. Nature, 171, 964–967.
23. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognition facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. H. vanZee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331–370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
24. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689–725.
25. 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, 338–369.
26. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672–692.
27. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.