Cover not available
Part of
Language, Literacy, and Learning in STEM Education: Research Methods and Perspectives from Applied Linguistics
Edited by Mary Jane Curry and David I. Hanauer
[Language Studies, Science and Engineering 1] 2014
► pp. 27–42

Chapter 3. A genre analysis of student microbiology laboratory notebooks

| Indiana University of Pennsylvania
This chapter reports on a qualitative analysis of student laboratory notebooks in a professional microbiology laboratory. The study explored the genre characteristics of laboratory notebooks and organized these characteristics according to social functions, models of notebook completion, and types of entry utilized. To conduct this study, a system for analyzing notebook entry type was modified from Ruiz-Primo, Li, and Shavelson (2002). The results suggest that the laboratory notebook is a multifaceted literacy object that functions as a scientific document for recording laboratory activities, a learning tool for acquiring laboratory protocols, and a personal journal for enhancing scientific engagement.
Published online: 12 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lsse.1.03han
References (30)
References
Bruner, J.S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.Google Scholar
Curry, M.J. (2014). Graphics and invention in academic engineers’ writing for publication. In M. J. Curry & D. I. Hanauer (Eds.), Language, literacy, and learning in STEM education: Research methods and perspectives from applied linguistics (pp. 87–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Desai, K.V., Gatson, S.N., Stiles, T.W., Stewart, R.H., Laine, G.A., & Quick, C.M. (2008). Integrating research and education at research-extensive universities with research-intensive communities. Advances in Physiological Education, 32, 136–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Giacomini, M.K., & Cook, D.J. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Are the results of the study valid? Journal of the Americal Medical Association, 284(3), 357–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, A.G. (1990). The rhetoric of science (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, A.G., Harmon, J.E., & Reidy, M.S. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Hanauer, D.I. (1998). The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and reading encyclopedic items. Poetics, 26(2), 63–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). Silence, voice and erasure: Psychological embodiment in graffiti at the site of Prime Minister Rabin’s assassination. Psychotherapy in the Arts, 31(1), 29–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Scientific discourse: Multiliteracy in the classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hanauer, D.I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language: Data from Mexican scientists. Written Communication, 28(4), 403–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Writing science in a second language. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Hanauer, D.I., Frederick, J., Fotinakes, B., & Strobel, S. (2012). Linguistic analysis of project ownership for undergraduate research experiences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11, 378–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanauer, D.I., Hatfull, G.F., & Jacobs-Sera, D. (2009). Active assessment: Assessing scientific inquiry. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hargrove, T.Y., & Nesbit, C. (2003). Science notebooks: Tools for increasing achievement across the curriculum (ERIC Digest ED482720). ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific writing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 297–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunter, A.B., Laursen, S.L., & Seymour, E. (2006). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation. (2000). Foundations: Inquiry, thoughts, views and strategies for the K-5 classroom. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Primo, M.A. (1998). On the use of students’ science journals as an assessment tool: A scoring approach. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, School of Education.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Li, M., & Shavelson, R.J. (2002). Looking into students’ science notebooks: What do teachers do with them? (CSE Technical Report 562). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F., Defives, G., & Hamelinsck, M. (1996). Epistemic modality in 19th and 20th century medical English written discourse: A principal component analysis. Interface. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 95–117.Google Scholar
Sarini, M., Blanzieri, E., Giogini, P., & Moser, C. (2004). From actions to suggestions: Supporting the work of biologists through laboratory notebooks. In F. Darses, R. Dieng, C. Simone, & M. Zackland (Eds.), Cooperative systems design: Scenario-based design of collaborative systems (pp. 131–146). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wood, W.B. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at large research universities: A perspective on the Boyer Commission Report. Cell Biology Education, 2, 112–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Meadows, Margaret K.
2024. Recognize Me?: Evaluation of an Inquiry-Based, Unknown Identification Laboratory Using Student-Synthesized Compounds. Journal of Chemical Education 101:7 ► pp. 2806 ff. DOI logo
Minakova, Valeriya & Suresh Canagarajah
2023. Monolingual ideologies versus spatial repertoires: language beliefs and writing practices of an international STEM scholar. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:6 ► pp. 708 ff. DOI logo
Sharma, Bal Krishna & Suresh Canagarajah
2023. Spatial repertoires in the disciplinary communication of international STEM scholars. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:6 ► pp. 665 ff. DOI logo
Doody, Sara & Natasha Artemeva
2022. “Everything Is in the Lab Book”: Multimodal Writing, Activity, and Genre Analysis of Symbolic Mediation in Medical Physics. Written Communication 39:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Canagarajah, Suresh
2018. English as a spatial resource and the claimed competence of Chinese STEM professionals. World Englishes 37:1 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.