Cited by 36Science Education and PedagogyDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesAcademic Writing and Publishing

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

Deng, Yang, Kelly, Gregory J., Deng, Shili·2019·International Journal of Science Education

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

Crossref · 10.1080/09500693.2019.1610811

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Bazerman C., 1988, Shaping written knowledge
  2. 10.1002/sce.21067 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200001)37:1<3::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-Z · DOI
  4. 10.1002/sce.21271 · DOI
  5. 10.1039/C8RP00171E · DOI
  6. 10.1002/sce.21010 · DOI
  7. 10.1080/00219266.2013.863795 · DOI
  8. 10.3102/0091732X07309371 · DOI
  9. 10.4324/9780203809068.ch1 · DOI
  10. 10.1002/tea.20015 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/sce.21188 · DOI
  12. 10.3102/0091732X030001001 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/tea.10128 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/sce.10016 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_43 · DOI
  16. Indrisano R., 2005, Learning to write and writing to learn: Theory and research in practice
  17. 10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_5 · DOI
  18. Kelly G. J., 2014, Handbook of research on science education, 321
  19. Kelly G. J., 2016, Handbook of epistemic cognition, 393
  20. 10.1093/applin/24.1.28 · DOI
  21. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<883::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I · DOI
  22. 10.1007/978-3-319-62616-1_5 · DOI
  23. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_20 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q · DOI
  25. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<1044::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J · DOI
  26. 10.1037/a0013097 · DOI
  27. 10.1023/A:1021913217147 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.08.001 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.05.002 · DOI
  30. Lehrer R., 2006, Handbook of child psychology, 4, 153
  31. Lemke J., 1998, Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, 87
  32. 10.1075/impact.3 · DOI
  33. Martin J., 1999, Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes, 123
  34. 10.1016/0959-4752(95)00010-Z · DOI
  35. 10.1002/sce.21190 · DOI
  36. National Research Council (NRC), 2012, A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas
  37. 10.1080/13639080.2012.644909 · DOI
  38. Osborne J., 2014, Handbook of research on science education, 579
  39. 10.1080/07370008.1993.9649030 · DOI
  40. 10.1111/mbe.12153 · DOI
  41. 10.1002/sce.21191 · DOI
  42. 10.1002/sce.10129 · DOI
  43. Yin R. K., 2014, Case study: Research design and methods
  44. 10.1080/09500690305018 · DOI
  45. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<483::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-8 · DOI
  46. Zhang H. Y., 2009, Primary and Secondary Schooling Aboard, 246

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
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