Empowering future scientists: Mentors employ various strategies to engage students in professional science disciplinary literacy practices

  1. Trisha Minocha
  2. Tanya Bhagatwala
  3. Gwendolyn Mirzoyan
  4. Gary S McDowell
  5. Sarah C Fankhauser

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Peer-review and publication are important parts of the scientific enterprise, and research has shown that engaging students in such scholarly practices helps build their sense of belonging and scientific identity. Yet, these disciplinary literacy skills and professional practices are often part of the hidden curriculum of science research, thus excluding students and others from fully understanding ways in which scientific knowledge is constructed, refined, and disseminated even though students are participating in such activities. Secondary students are increasingly involved in scientific research projects that include authentic disciplinary literacy components such as research proposals, posters, videos, and scientific research papers. More and more, students are also engaging in professional practice of publishing their scientific research papers through dedicated secondary science journals. How teachers and other mentors support the development of professional disciplinary literacies in students is critical to understand as part of supporting more student participation in research. To this end, we used a mixed- methods study of interviews and surveys to examine the experience and conceptions of the mentors (teachers and professional scientists) who guided pre-college students through the writing and publication of their scientific research projects. Analyzing our data from a lens of cognitive apprenticeship, we find that mentors encourage independence by primarily employing the method of “exploration”. We also find that mentors have divergent views on the value of publication within science, versus for student scientists specifically. Our findings suggest that mentors could work to explicitly reveal their own thinking within science writing to provide more sequenced support for student scientists.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/13968403.

    Summary

    This review thoroughly examines a preprint that investigates the role of mentors in helping pre-college students develop essential scientific literacy skills, particularly focusing on underrepresented groups in STEM fields. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, the authors conducted interviews and surveys with mentors to explore how they engage students in research, writing, and publishing. The findings reveal that effective mentorship significantly enhances students' scientific identities, self-confidence, and sense of belonging within the scientific community. While the research contributes valuable insights into mentorship's impact on fostering participation in STEM, particularly among diverse populations, it does have limitations. Concerns about selection bias arise due to the study's reliance on a sample of students who have already published work, which may not represent the broader student population. Additionally, the small sample size limits the generalizability of the results. Overall, this review underscores the importance of mentorship in nurturing future scientists but calls for more comprehensive studies to address these limitations and broaden the understanding of effective mentorship practices.

    Major issues

    • Selection Bias:

      • Concern: The study's sample consists solely of students who have published articles, leading to a selection bias that limits the generalizability of the findings.

      • Suggestion: Future research should include a more diverse group of students at various stages of their research journey, not just those who have already published. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of mentorship's impact

    • Clarity of Content Organization:

      • Concern: The manuscript's organization lacks clarity, making it difficult for readers to follow the main arguments.

      • Suggestion: The authors should restructure the content with clear headings and subheadings to improve readability and thematic clarity, allowing readers to navigate the key points more effectively.

    • Methodological Transparency:

      • Concern: While the authors mention a mixed-methods approach, they do not specify the core methods used or how they linked qualitative and quantitative data, raising questions about reproducibility.

      • Suggestion: Provide detailed descriptions of the coding and analysis methods used in both qualitative and quantitative components. This transparency will enhance reproducibility and allow others to appreciate the study's design.

    • Informed Consent:

      • Concern: There is insufficient information regarding whether participants provided informed consent to participate in the study.

      • Suggestion: Clearly outline the informed consent process in the manuscript to ensure ethical rigor and reassure readers about participant rights.

    • Limitations Discussion:

      • Concern: The authors discuss some limitations but fail to address potential biases in mentor selection or generalizability across different educational contexts.

      • Suggestion: Acknowledge these additional limitations explicitly in the discussion section to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the study's constraints.

    Minor issues

    • Sample Size Limitations:

      • Concern: The small number of survey respondents (39 out of 300) raises questions about internal validity.

      • Suggestion: Acknowledge this limitation explicitly in the discussion section and consider conducting future studies with larger sample sizes to strengthen validity.

    • Cultural Context of Survey:

      • Concern: The survey was conducted in the U.S., which may not reflect attitudes and cultures in other regions.

      • Suggestion: Future studies should strive to include participants from diverse geographical and cultural backgrounds to enhance generalizability.

    • Data Availability:

      • Concern: The manuscript does not specify whether the data collected is openly available.

      • Suggestion: Include a statement regarding data availability and consider providing links for access if applicable, promoting transparency in research.

    • Figures and Tables Presentation:

      • Concern: While figures and tables are generally easy to understand, they could benefit from graphical visualizations.

      • Suggestion: Enhance visual representations to make results more accessible and engaging for readers, improving overall comprehension.

    • Nuance in Conclusions Drawn:

      • Concern: Some conclusions may overreach given the limitations of the study.

      • Suggestion: Acknowledge potential variability in findings and provide a more balanced perspective on the implications, ensuring claims are well-supported by data.

    • Ethical Guidelines Compliance:

      • Concern: While ethical guidelines seem to be followed, more explicit details regarding informed consent would strengthen this assertion.

      • Suggestion: Clearly outline how ethical guidelines were adhered to, including specifics on informed consent processes.

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2024.03.15.585231v2 on bioRxiv
  3. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/13292650.

    This review is the result of a virtual, collaborative live review discussion organized and hosted by PREreview and the African Reproducibility Network (AREN) on July 15, 2024. The discussion was joined by 26 people: 2 facilitators, 2 members of the AREN team, and 22 live review participants including one who agreed to be named: Ernest Holy Sebewu, Sarah Sarah, Modester Samwel, Abimbola Oluwole-Banjo, and Mwise Thomas, . The authors of this review have dedicated additional asynchronous time over the course of two weeks to help compose this final report using the notes from the Live Review. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint.

    Summary:

    This study investigates mentors' experiences, perceptions, and motivations as they guide pre-college students through the process of writing and publishing scientific research papers. It examines how mentors aid in developing students' disciplinary literacies, facilitate their growth in research and review processes, and influence their publication outcomes. Additionally, the study assesses the mentor-mentee relationship and evaluates the mentors' expertise and experiences to understand their impact on students' research skills. The research also delves into mentors' views on guiding students toward becoming future researchers and explores the benefits and challenges associated with instilling research skills in young students. The ultimate objective is to develop strategies that enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of scientific practices for pre-college students, particularly those from underrepresented groups.

    The research utilized a mixed-methods design, combining qualitative and quantitative data to enrich the understanding of these issues. Surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted, the latter with a subset of survey respondents, allowing for a detailed exploration of mentors' diverse perspectives.

    Findings indicate varied mentor opinions on the significance of publication; some underscore its importance in science education, while others highlight its benefits for students' scientific development. Regardless, there is a strong belief among mentors that mentorship can empower students and foster their exploratory skills. A significant portion of mentors value scholarly publications and the peer review process, with 62% of mentees concurring that peer review enhances the accuracy of scientific presentations. The study also uncovers that mentors' differing values and methodologies can lead to varied student outcomes. Notably, it suggests that expertise is not a prerequisite for conducting research or mentoring, as mentors' unique approaches and challenges significantly shape students' scientific identities and experiences.

    Reviewers praised the study for its originality and evidence-based approach, particularly highlighting the varied mentor perspectives on the value of publication. While some view publication as essential for scientific and professional growth, others regard it more as a valuable experience for student scientists, rather than a fundamental aspect of scientific research. This disparity underscores the complexity of mentorship and publication within scientific research, positioning the study as a significant contribution to the field.

    List of major concerns and feedback:

    1. Representativeness of the Sample: The sample size for mentors (13 out of 79 surveyed) may not be fully representative, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Expanding the mentor sample size could enhance the robustness of the conclusions.

    2. Diversity and Inclusivity: The research approach is described as Eurocentric, which may not be applicable globally, particularly in non-Western contexts. The participant pool could be broadened to include a more diverse demographic. This would enrich the data and provide a more comprehensive view of the mentorship dynamics across different geographical perspectives.

    3. Methodological Details: The study lacks specific details about sample selection, size, and the analytical methods used. Providing these details would strengthen the reliability of the research and enable replication.

    4. Bias and Incentivization: The study notes potential biases due to incentives provided to participants. Addressing these biases more explicitly and exploring alternative methods to minimize their impact could enhance the integrity of the research.

    5. Lack of Bias Control: The selection of mentors who have already published may introduce a bias in the results. Including mentors at different stages of their mentoring journey could provide a more balanced view.

    List of minor concerns and feedback:

    1. Reliance on Qualitative Data: While the mixed-methods approach is robust, the heavy reliance on qualitative data (interviews and open-ended survey responses) may introduce subjectivity. Triangulating these findings with more quantitative data could validate the results further.

    2. Limitations and Generalizability: The authors could more explicitly acknowledge the limitations related to the generalizability of the findings, particularly concerning the sample size and the inherent biases of the selected demographic.

    Concluding remarks

    This preprint provides valuable insights into the role of mentorship in developing scientific skills among pre-college students. The authors have identified important dynamics in the mentor-mentee relationship and how these can influence students' engagement with scientific research and publication. However, enhancing the methodological rigor, expanding the diversity of the sample, and addressing potential biases could strengthen the study's contributions to the field. The exploration of mentorship's role in encouraging scientific publication among young researchers is commendable and adds to the literature on educational practices.

    We thank the authors of the preprint for posting their work openly for feedback. We also thank all participants of the Live Review call for their time and for engaging in the lively discussion that generated this review.

    Conflict of Interest

    Daniela Saderi and Vanessa Fairhurst who were facilitators of this call know the authors.

    No other competing interests were declared by the reviewers.

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2024.03.15.585231v1 on bioRxiv