The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The influences of integrating reading, peer evaluation, and discussion on undergraduate students’ scientific writing
Abstract
Scientific writing is related to the practice of communicating scientific knowledge. This study treats scientific writing as a social practice, taking as its premise the notion that participating in related activities such as reading, peer evaluation, and discussion would positively affect the competence of students’ scientific writing, by developing their epistemic cognition regarding scientific knowledge communication and legitimation. An empirical study was conducted with twenty-two Chinese undergraduate students to test this premise. These students were majoring in chemistry and undertook a researcher-designed intervention course (Advanced Organic Chemistry Experiment), which embodied the integrated strategy of reading, peer evaluation, and discussion on scientific writing. Based on data pertaining to those students’ performance in terms of the normativity, objectivity, and logicality of scientific writing drawn from a previous study by the current author (Deng, Kelly, & Xiao, 2019. The development of Chinese undergraduate students’ competence of scientific writing in the context of advanced organic chemistry experiment course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20, 270–287), alongside data drawn from students’ written texts in reading reflections and on-line discourse related to peer evaluation and discussion, this study claimed that the tasks of reading, peer evaluation, and discussion were seen gradually to lead to the development of Chinese undergraduate students’ greater competence in scientific writing regarding the synthetic experiments of organic chemistry.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“More precisely, the activity of comparing papers written by different individuals and discussing issues during the peer feedback process prompted students to reflect on their academic writing, with the former activity often functioning spontaneously (Deng et al., 2019).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Deng et al., 2019
Citations
Cites
Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections
Storch, N. (2005) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002 · Cited by 1,052
The Effects of School-Based Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001029 · Cited by 802
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.3102/0091732x16669319 · Cited by 143
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- Bazerman C., 1988, Shaping written knowledge
- 10.1002/sce.21067 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200001)37:1<3::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-Z · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.21271 · DOI
- 10.1039/C8RP00171E · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.21010 · DOI
- 10.1080/00219266.2013.863795 · DOI
- 10.3102/0091732X07309371 · DOI
- 10.4324/9780203809068.ch1 · DOI
- 10.1002/tea.20015 · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.21188 · DOI
- 10.3102/0091732X030001001 · DOI
- 10.1002/tea.10128 · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.10016 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_43 · DOI
- Indrisano R., 2005, Learning to write and writing to learn: Theory and research in practice
- 10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_5 · DOI
- Kelly G. J., 2014, Handbook of research on science education, 321
- Kelly G. J., 2016, Handbook of epistemic cognition, 393
- 10.1093/applin/24.1.28 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<883::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-62616-1_5 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_20 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<1044::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J · DOI
- 10.1037/a0013097 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1021913217147 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.08.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.05.002 · DOI
- Lehrer R., 2006, Handbook of child psychology, 4, 153
- Lemke J., 1998, Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, 87
- 10.1075/impact.3 · DOI
- Martin J., 1999, Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes, 123
- 10.1016/0959-4752(95)00010-Z · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.21190 · DOI
- National Research Council (NRC), 2012, A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas
- 10.1080/13639080.2012.644909 · DOI
- Osborne J., 2014, Handbook of research on science education, 579
- 10.1080/07370008.1993.9649030 · DOI
- 10.1111/mbe.12153 · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.21191 · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.10129 · DOI
- Yin R. K., 2014, Case study: Research design and methods
- 10.1080/09500690305018 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<483::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-8 · DOI
- Zhang H. Y., 2009, Primary and Secondary Schooling Aboard, 246
Cited by
Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges
Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Deng, Y., Kelly, G. J., & Deng, S.
- Affiliations
- Central China Normal University (CN)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Deng, Yang
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-05-09
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1408-1433
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W2944082708
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 6.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Science Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Youth Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (17YJC880016, CCNU19TD006)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- scientific writing, peer assessment, reading, discussion, epistemic cognition, legitimation, writing skills, organic chemistry experiments, undergraduate chemistry students, reading reflection, online discourse
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The influences of integrating reading, peer evaluation, and discussion on undergraduate students’ scientific writing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09500693.2019.1610811
- The paper
- Deng, Y., Kelly, G. J., & Deng, S. (2019). The influences of integrating reading, peer evaluation, and discussion on undergraduate students’ scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1610811