Cognitive apprenticeship and the supervision of science and engineering research assistants

Journal of Research Practice

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 2-

  Maher, Michelle A ^a   Gilmore, Joanna A ^b   Feldon, David F ^c   Davis, Telesia E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive apprenticeship; Research supervision; Research training; Researcher assistant; Researcher development

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887272824     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1712851X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Austin, A. E. (2009). Cognitive apprenticeship theory and its implications for doctoral education: A case example from a doctoral program in higher and adult education. International Journal for Academic Development, 14, 173-183.
2. Barker, K. (1998). At the bench: A laboratory navigator. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
3. Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Best practices for enculturation: Collegiality, mentoring, and structure. New Directions for Higher Education, 101, 87-94.
4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
5. Carnegie Foundation. (2013). Carnegie classifications institutional profiles. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings
6. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making things visible. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 15(3), 6-11, 38-46.
7. Copley, N. A., & Salama, R. (2010). Occupational therapy students' perceptions of the multiple mentoring model of clinical supervision. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 11(2), 14-27. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=103600301809612;res=IELHEA
8. Cumming, J. (2009). The doctoral experience in science: Challenging the current orthodoxy. British Educational Research Journal, 35, 877-890.
9. Feldon, D. F., Peugh, J., Timmerman, B. E., Maher, M., Hurst, M., Strickland, D. C., Gilmore, J. A., & Stiegelmeyer, C. (2011). Graduate students' teaching experiences improve their methodological research skills. Science, 333(6055), 1037-1039.
10. Flores, E. M. (2011). Becoming a researcher: A qualitative study of the apprenticeship model in doctoral education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
11. Gibson, W. J., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436-445.
13. Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 101, 55-64.
14. Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., Jones, L., & Walker, G. E. (2009). Advocating apprenticeship and intellectual community: Lessons from the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate. In R. Ehrenberg & C. Kuh (Eds.), Doctoral education and the faculty of the future (pp. 53-64) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15. Keys, C. W. (1995). An interpretive study of students' use of scientific reasoning during a collaborative report writing intervention in ninth grade general science. Science Education, 79, 415-435.
16. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18. Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2008). Framing doctoral education as practice. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 10-25). New York, NY: Routledge.
19. McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2011).Supporting the doctoral process: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators. Amsterdam: Springer.
20. Mowbray, S., & Halse, C. (2010). The purpose of the Ph.D.: Theorizing the skills acquired by students. Higher Education Research and Development, 29, 653-664.
21. Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
22. Parry, S. (2007). Disciplines and the doctorate. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
23. Peters, M. A., & Olssen, M. (2005). Useful knowledge: Redefining research and teaching in the learning economy. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 37-47). Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
24. Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 135-150.
25. Remler, D. K., & Pema, E. (2009). Why do institutions of higher education reward research while selling education? (NBER Working Paper No. 14974). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
26. Timmerman, B. E., Strickland, D. C., Johnson, R. L., & Payne, J.R. (2011). Development of a 'universal' rubric for assessing undergraduates' scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 509-547.
27. Timmerman, B. C., Feldon, D., Maher, M., Strickland, D., & Gilmore, J. (2013). Performance-based assessment of graduate student research skills: Timing, trajectory, and potential thresholds. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 693-710.
28. Walker, G. E., Golde, C., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29. Wisker, G. (2005). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
30. 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.