##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##


Emilce Moreno Mosquera https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4058-5691

Balkys Quevedo-Hidalgo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9875-2221

Resumen

Este artículo aborda las prácticas de escritura en laboratorios, particularmente los problemas recurrentes en la presentación de informes de laboratorio. Se analizan las percepciones de los estudiantes y profesores sobre estos problemas, y se presentan una serie de recomendaciones de apoyo relacionadas con la escritura en este género. Se observaron clases de laboratorio y se tomó una muestra aleatoria cegada de 20 informes. El análisis de esta muestra se centró en las secciones de resultados, discusión y conclusiones que causan las mayores dificultades para los estudiantes. Profesores y estudiantes también fueron entrevistados. Los datos recopilados sugieren que el escenario de laboratorio puede promover la enseñanza de géneros como la presentación de informes y se presta a la presentación y discusión de información e ideas dentro de una comunidad en una disciplina académica.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

Academic writing; Scientific laboratory practices; Writing Lab reports; Science teaching; Learning.

References
Anderson, G. J. (1973). The assessment of learning environments. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Atlantic Institute of Education.

Barquero, B., Schnotz, W., & Reuter, S. (2000). Adolescents’ and adults’ skills to visually communicate knowledge with graphics. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 23(90), 71–87. doi:10.1174/021037000760087973

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science (Vol 356.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T., & Ackerman, J. (1988). Conventions, Conversations, and the Writer: Case Study of a Student in a Rhetoric Ph.D. Program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(1), 9–44.

Blakeslee, A. M. (1997). Activity, Context, Interaction, and Authority: Learning to Write Scientific Papers In Situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11(2), 125–169. doi:10.1177/1050651997011002001

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of Knowing , and Doing , Writing Disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58(3), 385–418.

Dannels, D. P. (2000). Learning to Be Professional. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 14(1), 5. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=2672541&site=ehost-live

Domin, D. S. (2007). Students’ Perceptions of When Conceptual Development Occurs during Laboratory Instruction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 8 (2), 140–152.

Doran, P. (1995). Bioprocess engineering principles (2d ed.). Elsevier Science & Technology Books.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.3.CO;2-1

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.

Greenbowe, T. J., Poock, J. R., Burke, K. A., & Hand, B. M. (2007). Using the Science Writing Heuristic in the General Chemistry Laboratory To Improve Students’ Academic Performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(8), 1371–1379. doi:10.1021/ed084p1371

Groom, J., Sampson, V., & Golden, V. (2014). Comparing the effectiveness of verification and inquiry laboratories in supporting undergraduate science students in constructing arguments around socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1412-1433.

Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 29–44. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9155-8

Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking Old Ways: Towards A More Critical Approach To Practical Work In School Science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85–142. doi:10.1080/03057269308560022

Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: thirty years of experience with developments, implementation and evaluation. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 5(3), 247–264. doi:10.1039/B4RP90027H

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (1982). The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching : Neglected Aspects of Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. doi:10.1002/sce.10106

Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791–806. doi:10.1002/tea.20072

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ken Hyland. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London, UK: Continuum.

Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

Kalaskas, A. B. (2013). Science lab report writing in postsecondary education: Mediating teaching and learning strategies between students and instructors (Masters’ thesis). George Mason University.

Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9

Kelly, G., Regev, J., & Prothero,W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. En: S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137–157). Dordreht: Springer Academic Publishers.

Kirschner, P. A., & Meester, M. A. M. (1988). The laboratory in higher science education: Problems, premises and objectives. Higher Education, 17(1), 81–98. doi:10.1007/BF00130901

Krontiris-Litowitz, J. (2013). Using Primary Literature to Teach Science Literacy to Introductory Biology Students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 14(1), 66–77. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.538

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science education, 77(3), 319–337.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on Using Laboratory Instruction in Science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 94–128). New York: The Macmillan Publishing Company.

Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. Abell & N. Leaderman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 392–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eralbaum.

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 5(2), 96–107.

Moore, R. (1993). Does writing about science improve learning about science? Journal of College Science Teaching, 22(4), 212–217.

Moreno, E., Cuervo Patiño, C., Puerta Bula, C., & Cuellar Avila, A. (2016). Análisis crítico de literatura científica. Una experiencia de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, 7(2), 74–97. doi:10.1817/VYS.V7I2.292

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. doi:10.1080/095006999290570

Peacock, M. (2011). The structure of the methods section in research articles across eight disciplines. Asian ESP Journal, 7, 97–124

Anderson, G. J. (1973). The assessment of learning environments. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Atlantic Institute of Education.
Barquero, B., Schnotz, W., & Reuter, S. (2000). Adolescents’ and adults’ skills to visually communicate knowledge with graphics. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 23(90), 71–87. doi:10.1174/021037000760087973
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science (Vol 356.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T., & Ackerman, J. (1988). Conventions, Conversations, and the Writer: Case Study of a Student in a Rhetoric Ph.D. Program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(1), 9–44.
Blakeslee, A. M. (1997). Activity, Context, Interaction, and Authority: Learning to Write Scientific Papers In Situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11(2), 125–169. doi:10.1177/1050651997011002001
Carter, M. (2007). Ways of Knowing , and Doing , Writing Disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58(3), 385–418.
Dannels, D. P. (2000). Learning to Be Professional. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 14(1), 5. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=2672541&site=ehost-live
Domin, D. S. (2007). Students’ Perceptions of When Conceptual Development Occurs during Laboratory Instruction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 8 (2), 140–152.
Doran, P. (1995). Bioprocess engineering principles (2d ed.). Elsevier Science & Technology Books.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.3.CO;2-1
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.
Greenbowe, T. J., Poock, J. R., Burke, K. A., & Hand, B. M. (2007). Using the Science Writing Heuristic in the General Chemistry Laboratory To Improve Students’ Academic Performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(8), 1371–1379. doi:10.1021/ed084p1371
Groom, J., Sampson, V., & Golden, V. (2014). Comparing the effectiveness of verification and inquiry laboratories in supporting undergraduate science students in constructing arguments around socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1412-1433.
Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 29–44. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9155-8
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking Old Ways: Towards A More Critical Approach To Practical Work In School Science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85–142. doi:10.1080/03057269308560022
Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: thirty years of experience with developments, implementation and evaluation. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 5(3), 247–264. doi:10.1039/B4RP90027H
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (1982). The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching : Neglected Aspects of Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. doi:10.1002/sce.10106
Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791–806. doi:10.1002/tea.20072
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ken Hyland. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London, UK: Continuum.
Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kalaskas, A. B. (2013). Science lab report writing in postsecondary education: Mediating teaching and learning strategies between students and instructors (Masters’ thesis). George Mason University.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9
Kelly, G., Regev, J., & Prothero,W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. En: S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137–157). Dordreht: Springer Academic Publishers.
Kirschner, P. A., & Meester, M. A. M. (1988). The laboratory in higher science education: Problems, premises and objectives. Higher Education, 17(1), 81–98. doi:10.1007/BF00130901
Krontiris-Litowitz, J. (2013). Using Primary Literature to Teach Science Literacy to Introductory Biology Students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 14(1), 66–77. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.538
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science education, 77(3), 319–337.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on Using Laboratory Instruction in Science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 94–128). New York: The Macmillan Publishing Company.
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. Abell & N. Leaderman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 392–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eralbaum.
Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 5(2), 96–107.
Moore, R. (1993). Does writing about science improve learning about science? Journal of College Science Teaching, 22(4), 212–217.
Moreno, E., Cuervo Patiño, C., Puerta Bula, C., & Cuellar Avila, A. (2016). Análisis crítico de literatura científica. Una experiencia de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, 7(2), 74–97. doi:10.1817/VYS.V7I2.292
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. doi:10.1080/095006999290570
Peacock, M. (2011). The structure of the methods section in research articles across eight disciplines. Asian ESP Journal, 7, 97–124.

Pedroza-Rodríguez, A. M., Quevedo-Hidalgo, B., & Matiz, A. (2007). Manual de laboratorio de Procesos Biotecnológicos. (Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Ed.) (1a edición.). Bogotá.

Read, F. H. (1969). New techniques for the teaching of practical physics New techniques for the teaching of practical physics. Physics Education, 4, 77–81.

Reid, N., & I. Shah. (2007). The Role of Laboratory Work in University Chemistry Chemistry Education Research and Practice 8 (2), 172–185.

Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a Theory of Representing as Social Practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.

Sampson, V., & Walker, J. P. (2012). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a Way to Help Undergraduate Students Write to Learn by Learning to Write in Chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443–1485. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.667581

Saul, E.W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Schellings, G. L. M., & Vanhoutwolters, B. (1995). Main points in an instructional text, as identified by students and by their teachers. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 742–756. doi:Doi 10.2307/748196

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice, 3(1), 165–168.
Tobin, K. . (1990). Research on science laboratory activities; in pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.

Vasilachis de Gialdino, I. (2006). Estrategias de investigación cualitativa. In Gedisa (pp. 1–22). doi:10.15713/ins.mmj.3

Vhurumuku, E. (2011). High School Chemistry Students’ Scientific Epistemologies and Perceptions of the Nature of Laboratory Inquiry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 12: 47–56.

Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Argument-Driven Inquiry: Using the Laboratory To Improve Undergraduates’ Science Writing Skills through Meaningful Science Writing, Peer-Review, and Revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1269–1274. doi:10.1021/ed300656p

Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry: An Introduction to a New Instructional Model for Use in Undergraduate Chemistry Labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(8), 1048–1056. doi:10.1021/ed100622h

Wallace, C. S., Hand, B. B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom (Vol. 23). Springer Science & Business Media.

Winsor, D. (1990). Engineering Writing/Writing Engineering. College Composition and Communication, 41(1), 58–70.

Yager, R. E. (2004). Science is not written, but it can be written about. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice (pp. 95–107). Newark: International Reading Association
Cómo citar
Moreno Mosquera, E., & Quevedo-Hidalgo, B. (2020). Scientific writing within the framework of a microbiology laboratory. Signo Y Pensamiento, 39(76). Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/signoypensamiento/article/view/30368
Sección
Agendas
Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a