JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 46, NO. 4, PP.

442459 (2009)

Research Education of New Scientists: Implications for Science Teacher Education

Allan Feldman, Kent Divoll, Allyson Rogan-Klyve

School of Education, University of Massachusetts, 813 N Pleasant Street, Amherst,

Massachusetts 010003

Received 23 November 2007; Accepted 22 September 2008

Abstract: This study examined an interdisciplinary scientific research project to understand how graduate and
undergraduate honors students learn to do science. It was found that the education of the students occurs as part of an
apprenticeship. The apprenticeship takes place in research groups. In general, research groups are structured in two ways:
loosely organized and tightly organized, and have characteristics of both communities of practice and epistemic
communities. Students have different roles in the research groups: novice researcher, proficient technician, or knowledge
producer. Their role depends on their knowledge and skills, and their degree programs. It is possible for students to
develop expertise along a continuum from novice researcher to knowledge producer. The members of the research group,
including the professor and other students, facilitate the development of the students along the continuum of roles.
Implications for the education of science teachers are discussed. 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46:
442459, 2009
Keywords: research experiences; science teacher education; graduate education

Introduction
There is an international call for students to understand the nature of science as inquiry, as can be seen in
the framework developed for the PISA international assessment. The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework
(OECD, 2003) calls for students to have the opportunity to experience and understand how scientific
understanding is built up, and ideally, the nature of scientific enquiry and scientific knowledge (p. 137).
The PISA Framework relates scientific inquiry to three process skills: (1) the describing, explaining and
predicting of scientific phenomena; (2) the understanding of scientific investigation; and (3) the interpretation
of scientific evidence and conclusions (OECD, 2003). Similarly, in the United States, the National Science
Education Standards (NSES) (National Research Council, 1996) state that students should understand the
nature of science as inquiry.
Anderson, in his review of research on inquiry (Anderson, 2002), found three ways in which the NSES
refers to inquiry. First, there is inquiry teaching in which teachers engage student in activities centered on
authentic questions generated from student experiences (National Research Council, 1996, p. 31). The NSES
also requires that students combine processes and scientific knowledge as they use scientific reasoning and
critical thinking to develop their understanding of science (p. 105), which is what Anderson refers to as inquiry
learning. Finally, the NSES uses the term scientific inquiry to refer to the diverse ways in which scientists study
the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence from their work (29). In addition, as we
noted above, the NSES calls for students to understand the nature of science as inquiry.
To Crawford (2007) these different ways of thinking about inquiry make up what she calls the NSES
vision that students in K-12 science classrooms develop abilities to do scientific inquiry, gain
understandings about scientific inquiry, and that teachers facilitate students in acquiring deep understanding
of science concepts through inquiry approaches (2007, 614). Crawford details this in the following list of
student outcomes:

Correspondence to: A. Feldman; E-mail: afeldman@educ.umass.edu

DOI 10.1002/tea.20285
Published online 9 March 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

 RESEARCH EDUCATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS 443

appreciating the diverse ways in which scientists conduct their work; understanding the power of
observations; knowledge of and ability to ask testable questions, make hypotheses; use various forms
of data to search for patterns, confirm or reject hypotheses; construct and defend a model or argument;
consider alternate explanations, and gain an understanding of the tentativeness of science, including
the human aspects of science, such as subjectivity and societal influences. (Crawford, 2007, 614)

Her list of outcomes, as well as her list of aspects of scientific inquiry (p. 618), is similar to those
developed by other science education researchers (e.g., Brown, Abell, Demir, & Schmidt, 2006; Center for
Inquiry-Based Learning, 2007; Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007; Westerlund, Garcia, & Koke, 2002).
Clearly, if science teachers are to help their students learn the nature of science as inquiry, know how to
engage in scientific inquiry, and learn science through inquiry, then they must have the knowledge and skills
to make this happen. Crawford puts it this way:

To enact teaching science as inquiry requires that teachers develop approaches that situate learning in
authentic problems, model actions of scientists to guide and facilitate students in making sense of data,
and support students in developing their personal understandings of science concepts. (Crawford,
2007, 614)

The NSES is more straightforward about this: for teachers to be able to teach in this way, they should
be familiar enough with a science discipline to take part in research activities in that discipline (p. 60).
Unfortunately, few teachers have this knowledge (Roth, McGinn, & Bowen, 1998) or have had the
opportunity to participate in scientific research activities (Russell, 2005). Accordingly, their students learn
science as pre-packaged and delivered knowledge (Brickhouse, 1990; Flick, Lederman, & Enochs, 1996;
Lederman, 1992; Minstrell & Van Zee, 2000).
Science teacher educators have been promoting the aspects of teaching science as inquiry for at least
50 years beginning with the various curriculum reforms efforts such as those funded by the National Science
Foundation and the Nuffield Foundation. Although many teachers have participated in professional
development activities promoting inquiry, there have been only modest gains in the adoption of these
practices in schools (Lotter et al., 2007; Stake & Easley, 1979; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). More recently there
has been a move to do what the NSES recommends: providing pre- and inservice teachers with the
opportunity to engage in research activities along with scientists. However, while these efforts have resulted
in teachers learning more science and learning science research practices, there has been little carryover to
their classrooms (Brown & Melear, 2007; Lotter et al., 2007; Lunsford, Melear, Roth, Perkins, & Hickok,
2007; Westerlund et al., 2002). Most of this research has attributed the lack of carryover to teachers core
beliefs about teaching and the complexities involved in implementing science teaching as inquiry into real
classrooms. This is supported by the findings of Brown et al. (2006) that beliefs about teaching and inquiry
constrain the implementation of inquiry teaching practices in the classes of research scientists.
We believe that there is at least another factor at play. Much of what the PISA Framework and the NSES
standards say about inquiry teaching in schools suggests that teachers need to be able to teach their students
how to do science, which, in turn, suggests that the teachers need to know how to do science. By doing science,
we mean engaging in the activities that are usually referred to as scientific research in ways that are similar to
those of experts, that is, scientists (e.g., see the list of skills developed by Kardash (2000)). As it turns out,
while there have been numerous studies done on how scientists do science (Dunbar, 1999; Knorr Cetina,
1999; Latour, 1988; Nersessian, 2005; Pickering, 1995; Stucky & Bond-Robinson, 2004), little research has
been done on how scientists learn to do science. Therefore, professional development activities that attempt to
teach teachers how to do science have little knowledge of how scientists learn to do science to draw upon.
Given this, we ask, How are scientists taught to do science? and What implication does this have for the
research education of teachers?
In this article, we present some answers to these questions based on interviews with science and
engineering faculty in a Research I university. In doing so we sought to uncover the beliefs that science and
engineering professors have about the research education of their undergraduate and graduate students. This
is of importance to science teacher education because if we want to know how to teach teachers how to engage
in scientific research, we ought to know how scientists are taught to be researchers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
444 FELDMAN, DIVOLL, AND ROGAN-KLYVE

Graduate study in science in the United States has two main components. The first consists of the
accumulation of subject matter knowledge and the development of a deep conceptual understanding that
occurs through coursework. This component occurs in the formal structure of an academic program in which
the students are enrolled in courses. While the level of the content of the course, the number of students in the
course, and the relationship between students and instructor are very different from undergraduate courses,
the methods of instruction and the assessment of student learning continue to have a strong resemblance to
what the students typically experience as undergraduates. The second component is participation in research
activities that leads to extensive knowledge of a subset of the subject domain, the learning of research skills,
and the ability to frame and answer researchable questions. Except for those undergraduates who may have
had the opportunity to do research, for example as part of an honors project, the research project is a new
opportunity for graduate students. This study focuses on the second componenthow graduate students and
undergraduate honors students are taught to do science while engaged in empirical research.

Literature Review
In our review of the literature we examine three areas of research: (a) research on research experiences
for students and teachers, (b) apprenticeships, and (c) communities of practice.

Research Experiences for Students

Most of the literature that examines students authentic research experiences focuses on precollege
students (Barab & Hay, 2001; Bleicher, 1996; Charney et al., 2007; Etkina, Matilsky, & Lawrence, 2003;
Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996), preservice and inservice teachers (Brown, Bolton,
Chadwell, & Melear, 2002; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004; Varelas, House, & Wenzel, 2005) and
undergraduates (Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007; Kardash, 2000; Lopatto, 2004; Rauckhorst, Czaja, &
Baxter Magolda, 2001). While we refer to this literature when appropriate, it is important to note that
the research experiences of graduate students are very different than those of precollege students,
undergraduates, and teachers.
One difference is the amount of time actually engaged in research activities. In most of the studies that
we cited above the research experiences last from several weeks to 2 months during one summer. Others have
academic year components, but the participants are engaged in research activities for 35 hours/week. Even
the longer experiences for teachers, such as the 15-week, 9-hour/week experience for preservice teachers
studied by Brown and Melear (2007), or the 8-week summer experience studied by Westerlund et al. (2002)
are far short of the 20 hours/week or more over the course of 25 years experienced by the graduate students
in our study.
A second difference is that participants in most of the research experiences for precollege students,
undergraduates, and teachers have little time or opportunity to learn background information about the
research experience that they are joining. As a result, they are drop-in experiences in which they can only
contribute to the research in the most mundane ways. One exception is the situation described by Westerlund
et al. (2002) in which teachers began their experiences by doing reading in the research area and preparing
literature reviews.
A third difference, which is related to the first two, is the relationship between the participant and the
faculty member. Faculty members see many benefits for themselves and for students in undergraduate
research programs, including the possibility of the recruitment of students (Hunter et al., 2007; Kardash,
2000). Faculty have a different type of relationship with their graduate students that has at its core a mutual
responsibility that arises in the longer term graduate experiences in part because of the graduate students
commitment to completing their degrees and the faculty members need for well-trained assistants for their
research. Finally, it is important to note that for the graduate students that we studied their research was their
paid workit provided them with income to live on and with tuition and fees benefits.
While there is extensive research on research experiences for precollege students, undergraduates, and
teachers, there is little research that has focused on the graduate education of scientists and engineers.
Exceptions include Bucher and Stellings (1977) study of biochemistry graduate students and the recent
studies by Bond-Robinson and Stucky (2005) and Stucky and Bond-Robinson (2004), as well as the work by
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 RESEARCH EDUCATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS 445

Fernandez-Esquinas (2003) and LaPidus (1997). Richmond (1998) gives a compelling description of how
scientists are educated through apprenticeship experiences in her editorial in Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, however she does not cite any research to support it.

Apprenticeships
In order to understand how people learn to be scientists while engaged in research activities, we
developed a theoretical framework that draws upon studies of apprenticeships and communities of practice.
We use the concept of apprenticeship as legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice that
results in situated learning of the skills and knowledge needed to be a working scientist (Lave & Wenger,
1991). Apprenticeship models of learning can be found in a wide variety of contexts and to a certain extent
have characteristics unique to the context in which they occur. However, apprenticeships also share some key
commonalities. An important characteristic of apprenticeships is the indistinguishable nature of learning
and the practice of work (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This is quite different from how students are taught in
formal instructional settings in which they learn skills in isolation from their use in practice. Additional key
elements of an apprenticeship can be understood in terms of the role the teacher and learner play in the
learning process in an apprenticeship. For an apprentice, learning is demonstrated by performing tasks in a
way that is analogous to the expert. For the instructor in an apprenticeship model, successful teaching is the
ability to partition tasks into appropriate sizes that are useful for the developmental trajectory of the
apprentice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Collins and Brown and their colleagues (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Collins, Brown, & Newman,
1989) distinguish cognitive apprenticeships from traditional apprenticeships like that of the tailors studied
by Lave and Wenger (1991). While cognitive apprenticeships engage students in activities and social
interactions similar to those in traditional apprenticeships, the former have as their goal to both enculturate
students into authentic practices and to develop deep conceptual understanding in the domain (Brown et al.,
1989). In addition to this emphasis on decontexutalizing knowledge, Collins et al. (1989) give two other
ways in which cognitive apprenticeships differ from traditional apprenticeship. One is that traditional
apprenticeships are set in the workplace while cognitive apprenticeships occur in settings that have as their
primary purpose education. This leads to another difference: traditional apprenticeships are constrained by
the demands of the workplace, which are, of course, tied to the market. Cognitive apprenticeships, on the
other hand, must satisfy the learning demands, including state and national standards.
These distinctions between cognitive and traditional apprenticeships can help us to understand how
research experiences for precollege students, undergraduates, and teachers differ from the experiences that
graduate students have doing research. Cognitive apprenticeships are designed to help students learn about
science, how it is done, and to gain deep conceptual understanding. The goal of traditional apprenticeships is
to develop expert practitioners in the field. While the latter requires legitimate peripheral participation in the
actual doing of science, the former requires participation in activities that have characteristics that make them
appear to be authentic. These characteristics are what are found in the lists developed by Crawford (2007) and
others. This suggests that there is a difference between participation in activities that have the characteristics
of authentic science and activities that are legitimate participation in science.
The effect of these different ways of participating in research is evident in the work of Baxter
Magolda (1992). In her longitudinal study of undergraduates (Baxter Magolda, 1992) she developed an
epistemological reflection model of the procession of complex thinking that has been used to understand what
students learn in scientific apprenticeships (Hunter et al., 2007; Rauckhorst et al., 2001). Baxter Magolda
postulates four categories of ways of knowing. Category 1 is Absolute Knowing in which students see
knowledge as certain and that their role is to obtain it from experts. In Transitional Knowing (Category 2)
students see knowledge as less absolute and begin to use processes that allow them to search for the truth.
Students begin to think for themselves, begin to give credence to their own beliefs, and question the
absoluteness of experts knowledge when they are in Category 3, Independent Knowing. Category 4 is
Contextual Knowing, in which students believe that theories are constructed in a context based on
judgment of evidence; their role is to exchange and compare perspectives, think through problems, and
integrate and test theories (Rauckhorst et al., 2001, p. 5).
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
446 FELDMAN, DIVOLL, AND ROGAN-KLYVE

Both Hunter et al. (2007) and Rauckhorst et al. (2001) used Baxter Magoldas categories to understand
the ways that undergraduates develop intellectually while engaged in research apprenticeships. Rauckhorst
and his colleagues found that few of the undergraduates that they studied were in Category 1 at the beginning
of the summer experience, and that there was a much larger movement from Categories 23 as compared to a
control group of students. However, none of the students reached Category 4 by the end of the summer
experience. While Hunter and her colleagues did not use Baxter Magoldas model to measure students
development, they did find that few of the students or faculty in their study mentioned increases in higher
order thinking skills, particularly the development of a complex epistemological understanding of science or
the ability to define a research question and develop experimental design (Hunter et al., 2007, p. 66).
Kardash (2000) had similar findings. Faculty and undergraduate students agreed that the students had
increased their ability to observe and collect data, understand the importance of controls, interpret data, orally
communicate their results, to think independently, all of which could be interpreted as being in Categories 2
and 3 of Baxter Magoldas model. However, there were much smaller gains in skills such as identifying a
specific question for investigation, formulating a hypothesis, and designing a test of the hypothesis
(Kardash, 2000, pp. 196197). The lowest gains were for the skills needed to make use of research
literature, relating ones research results of the big picture, and writing a research paper (Kardash, 2000, 197),
all of which would most likely be found in someone in Category 4. What these studies suggest is that while
short-term research experiences for undergraduates are highly successful in helping them to develop to
Category 3, they are less likely to promote in students the ability to engage in the higher-order intellectual
skills used by expert scientists.

Communities of Practice
Apprenticeships occur in practice situations that have the characteristics of communities of practice.1
A community of practice defines itself along three dimensions: mutual engagement; a joint enterprise; and a
shared repertoire. A community of practice involves more than the technical knowledge or skill associated
with undertaking some task (Wenger, 1998)its members are involved in a set of interpersonal and
professional relationships (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), which results in the community developing
around things that matter to its members (Wenger, 1998). Members of communities of practice gain a sense of
joint enterprise and identity because they are organized around a particular area of knowledge and activity.
Because they are communities of practice, their members need to generate and appropriate a shared
repertoire of ideas, commitments and memories; and various resources such as tools, documents, routines,
vocabulary and symbols that in some way carry the knowledge of the community. In other words, it involves
practice: ways of doing and approaching things that are shared to some significant extent among members.
The practice situation in which the graduate or undergraduate honors student participates is typically a
research group. A research group consists of at least one professor, a group of students and possibly one or
more post-doctoral fellows who engage in a joint research project or different, but related ones. Members of
the research group meet regularly and report on and critique one anothers research (Clark, 1997). Research
groups can be as small as one professor working with one or two students, or as large as those in high-energy
physics, which can number in the hundreds (Knorr Cetina, 1999).
Research groups are often associated with laboratories. A laboratory can be thought of as a place in
which the natural world is manipulated and transformed through experimental work (Knorr Cetina, 1999).
While the manipulation and transformation usually occurs to physical objects, it can also occur through the
quantification of data and its subsequent numerical or statistical manipulation. However, research groups are
not necessarily associated with laboratories. For example, some geologists collect all their data in the field and
do their data analysis in offices or computer centers. Of course, there are also research groups such as those in
theoretical physics that neither collect nor analyze data.
The research group can be thought of as a community of practice in which new members acquire the
skills and knowledge needed to maintain the laboratory and to do experimental work, such as the standard
methods published for each field (e.g., Clesceri, Greenberg, & Eaton, 1999). Even if there is no laboratory, the
research group can be a community in which new practices are developed and shared with a larger community
of practicing scientists (Creplet, Dupouet, & Vaast, 2003).
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 RESEARCH EDUCATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS 447

However, being a scientist is more than being a skilled practitioner in the laboratory. Scientists also have
as their goal to create and warrant new knowledge. As a result, the research group not only has characteristics
of a community of practice, it also has those of an epistemic community (Knorr Cetina, 1999). Epistemic
communities are those in which participants have the knowledge and skills needed to create and warrant new
knowledge. Like a community of practice, an epistemic community is a group of people with a shared
repertoire, mutually engaged in a shared activity. However, while the community of practice has as its
primary goal the improvement of practice, the epistemic community has as its primary goal the creation
and warranting of knowledge. Because epistemic communities have as their goal the creation of knowledge
for the use by people who are not necessarily members of the local research group, there is the need to
convince the others that the members of the group are correct; that is, the knowledge must be warranted in
some way. As a result, epistemic communities must rely on some type of implicit or explicit procedural
authority that plays a role in how the knowledge is warranted. Therefore, graduate education in the sciences
has as its goal to teach new researchers how to warrant their knowledge by responding to the procedural
authority that explicitly resides in guidelines for research and publication, and more implicitly in the
review process for journal articles, conference papers and funding proposals (Creplet et al., 2003; Knorr
Cetina, 1999).
In summary, our review of the literature suggests that the research education of new scientists consists of
novices engaged in legitimate peripheral participation as members of research groups engaged in scientific
research, and that this is different from participation in authentic science experiences for the purpose of
learning science. It is possible to understand research groups as communities of practice, but because
scientific research is a knowledge production endeavor, the research groups must also have the characteristics
of epistemic communities. In this study we examine the beliefs of university scientists and engineers who are
research group leaders and who work with novice scientists and research engineers, who are their students.
We seek to understand how their beliefs relate to this framework of research education as apprenticeship in
research groups, and their beliefs about how their students research experience develops, and their role in
facilitating that growth of expertise.
Methods
The setting for this study is an interdisciplinary collaboration among geologists, microbiologists,
environmental engineers, and science educators to study the natural remediation of acid mine drainage
(AMD) at an abandoned pyrite mine. The project has five principal investigators, all of whom are professors
in a large, public Research I university. Four of the professors are scientists or engineers. Each oversees a
research group that can include undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students, as well as practicing middle
or high school science teachers. The fifth professor does research in science education and is one of
the authors of this paper. He, too, has a research group, which includes the two graduate students who are
co-authors of this article. Our study uses a phenomenological design.

Phenomenology is a. . . theoretical point of view that advocates the study of direct experience taken at
face value; and one which sees behavior as determined by the phenomena of experience rather than by
external, objective, and physically described reality. (Cohen & Manion, 1994, p. 29)

Following on the work of Schutz (1967), we focus on the experienced world that our participantsthe science
and engineering professorstake for granted. We also seek to understand the ways in which the professors
use what Schutz calls ideal types to make sense of their experience. For example, in the context of this
study, a category of ideal type used by the participants was level of student, that is, undergraduate, masters
degree, or doctoral. Because we are concerned with their experience and how they make meaning of it, rather
than how they behave, our primary form of data collection for this study was interviews with the professors
(Seidman, 2006). The structure of phenomenological interviews is relatively simplethey use broad, open-
ended questions that build upon and explore the participants responses to the questions. The goal is for the
participant to reconstruct his or her experience and to relate it to the interviewer. The interviewer asks
questions that follow-up on the participants responses to help fill them out, and to check the interviewers
understanding of the participant (Seidman, 2006).
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
448 FELDMAN, DIVOLL, AND ROGAN-KLYVE

Using Seidmans guidelines for phenomenological interviewing we developed an interview protocol

that provided consistency across the interviews and the opportunity to engage in in-depth conversations about
the professors views of graduate education. Each of the interviews lasted for 6090 minutes and was audio
taped and transcribed. We were also participant observers in the research project. As such we kept field notes
and recorded selected meetings. This data was primarily used to design the interview protocol, tailor it to the
situations of the different professors, and to triangulate the interview data.
Pre-conceived categories for coding were derived from the research literature on graduate education and
apprenticeships, while emergent categories were derived inductively from the data, following the methods of
the development of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). That is, we began with open coding, which we
did individually, to identify themes and patterns. We then used axial coding to group and label the themes and
patterns into categories. At this point we conferred with one another to compare and contrast the categories
that had emerged from the data. We then returned to the data and collapsed the categories into the five
dimensions of our findings. We used the qualitative analysis software HyperResearch to help us with our
analysis. We also used Inspiration software to graphically represent the relationships among the research
group members.

Findings
We organized our results along five dimensions: (1) the configuration of the research groups;
(2) conceptualizations of students roles; (3) conceptualizations of the growth of expertise; (4) the
apprenticeship; and (5) type of community.

Configuration of Research Groups

The configuration of the research groups, their relationship to the laboratory, and the relationships of the
individuals in the groups varied among the professors according to their research areas. The differences
among the type of group that the professors foster can be broken down into two categories: (a) a tightly
organized research group or (b) a loosely organized research group. Two of the professors, Karl, a
microbiologist, and Sarah, an environmental engineer, established tightly organized research groups by
maintaining traditional laboratories in which all their graduate and undergraduate students associated with all
of their funded projects work together. They each connected lab experiences to the members outside lives by
holding community building events such as cookouts, dinner parties, baby showers, and birthday parties, to
name a few. Both Karl and Sarah work in the same type of physical setting, have organized their students into
research groups that meet on a weekly basis, require their students to give regular presentations on their work
to the group, and hold group discussions. In his interview, Karl stated:

I introduce them [new research group members] to everybody who is working in the lab. They know
all the projects that are going on. They are socially integrated by. . . we have a birthday list. The person
who has a birthday gets a cake from the person who just had a birthday, so you do not have to bring
your own cake. We have outings: we have a summer picnic, we have a winter trip, and we have a
Christmas party. The newest lab member brings the turkey for the entire Christmas party; it is at my
house. In the lab, people are encouraged to talk to everybody and when a new person comes I talk to
the senior grad students to talk to the new person, to stimulate that, to get that culture going with the
new person also. (Interview 6/23/05)

In addition to holding social events, Sarah fosters her tightly organized research group in the way that she
tries to team students up together . . . one student with a more experienced student so that theyll learn some
basic skills in the lab (Interview 7/5/05). For example, she always has new students meet with Elaine,
because she has the best organized lab notebooks. Sarah regularly meets with her graduate and undergraduate
students in teams with students working on common projects (Interview 7/5/05).
The other two professors have loosely organized research groups. Robert, a geologist, works with
students on an individual basis rather than as a group. His students do field work, bring samples back to the
laboratory where they are analyzed on communal instruments to quantify the data, and then they work
individually on their analysis. In his case, while there is a lab, the lab is not used as a place where the group
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 RESEARCH EDUCATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS 449

congregates to do work. Douglas, who is a hydrologist, also works individually with students. However, since
most of the work that they do is computer modeling, they infrequently make use of a traditional laboratory and
therefore do not often come together as a group. Both Robert and Douglas meet with their students by
appointment. Because of the way in which their groups are structured, Robert and Douglas build relationships
with their students on an individual basis. For example, Douglas told us the following about how he works
with students:

Well, normally, its you have to go out on a certain date and drill these holes or take these
measurements or whatever. So its actually more relationship building, in other words, conversations
about sports or whatever takes us to the work at hand. (Interview 7/6/05)

One of the important differences between the two types of research groups is the center for action.
In the tightly organized research groups in our study, the laboratory served as a center of action. Although the
professors were important in developing the groups and facilitating interactions among the students including
social activities, it was the studentstudent interactions that took place on a continuing basis because they
shared a common workspace that resulted in the tight organization. In the loosely organized research groups,
the professors were the centers of action. There were few student-student interactions because of the small
amount of that students spent together and the fact that students connections to the group were through the
professor.
The differences between the tightly connected and loosely connected research groups are illustrated in
the web of connections shown in Figure 1.The four science and engineering professors form a square in the
center of the figure. They are identified by the letter that begins their names. The lines emanating from the
professors go to their advisees. The lines connecting the students (numbered ovals) signify connections that
we observed and which were described to us by the students. The figure clearly shows that there are many
more connections among students in the two tightly connected research groups (Sarah and Karl) than in the
loosely connected groups (Robert and Douglas).

Figure 1. Web of connections among participants in research groups.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

450 FELDMAN, DIVOLL, AND ROGAN-KLYVE

Figure 1 also indicates the sizes of the four research groups. As can be seen, Sarahs group has
eight students while Roberts has 10 students, and Karls and Douglas have six and four students
respectively. Clearly the size of the research group is not in itself a determining factor in whether it is tightly
or loosely organized. We also do not believe that the type of organization is due to physical proximity of
the members. That is, we do not think that if Roberts or Douglas groups were to have communal space like
Sarahs and Karls that they would have the features of tightly-organized groups. Rather, we believe that
the structure of the disciplines (Schwab, 1978)geology, microbiology, hydrology, and environmental
engineeringaffect the nature of work in the research groups and therefore play a major role. And of course,
the research and advising styles of the professors could also have an effect on the way in which the group is
organized.

Conceptualizations of Students Roles

While the there were physical differences among the settings of the research groups, and differences in
the way the professors and the students interacted with one another, we found large similarities in how the
professors conceptualized their students roles in the research groups. Although they used different language
to label the roles of their students, the interview data suggested that the professors had a shared vision of
their students roles. They spoke about their students as Novice Researchers, Proficient Technicians, and
Knowledge Producers, and in fact at times used these terms to describe the students roles. Novice
Researchers have little or no experience with scientific research, such as many if not most beginning graduate
and undergraduate honors students. As novice researchers they are generally seen as temporary members
who can, for example, develop the skills to help maintain the laboratory and collect data, but are not
expected to contribute much if anything to the analysis of data or the creation of new knowledge. In the
interviews, the professors talked about the inability of students at this level to formulate research questions,
their lack of laboratory or research skills, and the difficulty the students have in drawing defensible
conclusions from data.
Proficient Technicians have developed the skills needed to collect and analyze data, and to report results
to other researchers. In the interviews the professors noted that they did not expect students taking this role to
be adept at developing research questions. As Sarah told us,

When they [masters degree students] come to work with me I pretty much hand them a project. Its a
proposal that has been written and thats funded and that has particular objectives and tasks that need
to be accomplished. (Interview 7/05/05)

The professors do expect them to have the research skills that allow them to do what is necessary for the
research project. The students can also apply the methods that they have learned to new situations. From our
analyses of the interviews, it became clear that the professors had the expectation that at the end of their
studies, masters students would be at least Proficient Technicians. That is, they would have attained the
knowledge and skills necessary to become skilled practitioners in their field.
All of the professors supervise doctoral students. Karl noted that a PhD indicates that a researcher
has intellectual proficiency as well as technical proficiency. To Sarah this means being able to make
a significant contribution to the science and to the engineering (Interview 7/05/05). Douglas and Robert
shared this expectation that doctoral students should be able to formulate their own research questions, to
develop new research methods, and to add to the literature. In short, all the professors expected their doctoral
students to become Knowledge Producers.

Conceptualizations of the Growth of Expertise

The science and engineering professors perceived the typology that we described above as
developmental: with appropriate experience and guidance individuals can move along a continuum from
Novice Researcher to Proficient Technician to Knowledge Producer. An important aspect of the professors
awareness of the developmental nature of participation in the research group is that they keep a watch out for
likely prospects whom they nurture along this developmental path.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 RESEARCH EDUCATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS 451

The first move along this continuum is from Novice Researcher to Proficient Technician. Although each
of the four professors saw the first transformation differently, they all recognized the transformation. Karl saw
this transition as a growth in confidence and the ability to do more independent thinking:

The confidence level. . . Up front theyre not confident. Theyre very conservative and sometimes
reactionary where they try to throw everything away and sometimes dont trust their own data,
question everything. (Interview 6/23/05)

Sarah described the shift from Novice Researcher to Proficient Technician in her masters students
ability to design their own experiments. Douglas suggested that this transition could take place for some
undergraduate students:

Paul is a good example of an undergraduate who became almost like a Masters student in the sense of
problem solving, and we developed a relationship in which I trusted him, where I could say, heres the
problem go survey the site, you figure out the details, you solve the little problems, heres the big issue
that needs to be resolved and he went and did it. (Interview 7/6/05)

The second move along this continuum is from Proficient Technician to Knowledge Producer. Typically,
only the doctoral candidates made the transformation. As was the case with the first transition, each of
the professors recognized the second transformation, but in different terms. Three of the professors
(Douglas, Sarah, and Robert) presented this transformation in terms of product. Douglas expected his
doctoral students, to demonstrate an ability to add something to the literature, thats sort of the test.
If its added to the literature, its got to be new and have some element of uniqueness (Interview 7/6/05).
Sarah described this transformation in one of her students, I could see in the journal articles that
shes written that there was much more discussion, that theres much more analysis of her data (Interview
7/05/05). Although Robert suggested that a Knowledge Producer should publish, he elevated this notion:

For the PhD project, I expect that it will have global implications in their subject. That whatever the
finished product is can be put into a context that can be referred to in another part of the world, another
part of the country, lots of references to parallel problems, parallel sites, heres what Ive found and
this is what it means in terms of the context of geology or geochemistry. (Interview 6/20/05)

Sarah and Karl also spoke about the intellectual relationship that they expected to have with their
students as they became Knowledge Producers. For example, Sarah told us that Sanghe used to ask me
questions all the time and now I ask her for advice (Interview 5/5/05) and Ajay has a much better grasp of
the literature than I do (Interview 5/5/05). Karl expects his students to engage him like a colleague, In the
end, they should criticize me; they should correct me in what Im saying because they then become the experts
in their niche in their field (Interview 6/23/05). All four professors acknowledged that they have lofty
expectations of Knowledge Producers and that in most cases it is only achieved at the end of a doctoral
program.

The Apprenticeship
It is important to note that none of the doctoral programs with which the professors are associated
microbiology, environmental engineering, or geoscienceshave courses that explicitly teach students how
to conduct research in that field. As a result, while students did take courses like statistics or laboratory
methods, the remainder of their education as researchers was informal and on the job. Given the informal
nature of this education, it is not surprising that none of the professors had given it much thought before we
interviewed them. However, as they responded to our questions, it became clear that they all went about it the
same way, that is, by using an apprenticeship model, which was how their mentors trained them. The methods
that they use are similar to what you would expect in any apprenticeshipin the early stages the students were
heavily supervised and given specific tasks to accomplish, including review and critique of the literature. As
students progressed in the programs, the professors became less directive and turned more to questioning
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
452 FELDMAN, DIVOLL, AND ROGAN-KLYVE

students. In the final stages of dissertation research, the professors expected to engage in collegial
conversations with the students about the students research. Throughout the process the professors tailored
their methods to the backgrounds and needs of individual students.
All four of the professors believed that students in the early stages of an apprenticeship need close
support and direction. For example, Karl told us how doctoral candidates need close support early in their
programs:

In the first year [doctoral students] need to have their hand held, even if they come with a masters from
someplace else, from a different lab. It should be at least the first half-year but preferably the first full
year that they should be intensively advised and mentored. (Interview 6/23/05)

Because Sarah, Robert, and Douglas work with undergraduate honors students and masters students in
addition to doctoral students, they also talked about the close support that those students need as they begin
their research education.
As the students gain expertise as researchers, the professors become less directive and more focused on
the students taking on a more active role. For example, Douglas described his work with masters students and
beginning doctoral candidates in this way:

I think that both masters and PhD students shouldnt just take up what I might teach them in terms of
skills but to develop on their own skills to search the literature about how to do something, and to come
up with a new idea on how to perform some analysis. (Interview 7/06/05)

Toward the end of the apprenticeship period the professors expected their students to become able
to develop and guide their own research. Sarah spoke about how she expected to see her students show
independence as they begin to work on their dissertations:

When [doctoral students] see the project in relation to their dissertation they will take the next step of
actually going on to develop their knowledge by starting to collect literature and to organize it and
make sense out of it. (Interview 7/05/05)

Douglas told us as students advanced in their research education he, would expect them to be able to do
analysis and interpretation or learn how to do it or figure out how to do it or devise a new way to do it
(Interview 7/06/05). Robert suggested that students at this level have collegial conversations that are about
the bigger picture and about the meaning of the results that youve gotten (Interview 6/20/05). Karl
described his expectations of advanced students in this way:

They should be independent. If new grad students come in to the lab they shouldnt wait for me to tell
them to help them, they should approach them and say, Here, look this is how its done, they should
want to help others. If there is a meeting in Boston or at Yale or another university they should suggest
to me that they would like to go there and present. When we go to a meeting together they should stay
with me and Ill introduce them to other people because they know by that time how important
networking is to all these things. (Interview 6/23/05)

Our interview data shows that while the professors had not explicitly thought about how they educated
their students to be researchers, they were in fact behaving in ways that Lave and Wenger (1991) would call
successful apprenticeship teaching. They also engaged in many of the practices of cognitive apprenticeships
(Collins et al., 1989). We return to this is in our discussion section below.
Communities of Practice and Epistemic Communities
The research groups that we studied were more than a community of practice because of their objective
to create and warrant new knowledge. While all group members participated legitimately in the research
group, some did so only in the community of practice, while others participated in that community and the
epistemic community. We illustrate this in Figure 2.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 RESEARCH EDUCATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS 453

Figure 2. Members of communities of practice and epistemic communities.

There were many examples described by the four professors of their students participation in a
community of practice. This included the collection of samples, the analysis of samples using ion
chromatography, and the analysis of data using statistical and graphical methods. There was also the
acknowledgement among the professors that they, as scientists and engineers, are involved in epistemic
communities and that they expected their doctoral students to become part of those communities by learning
how to produce and warrant new knowledge; by showing how it relates to the field; and demonstrating that it
has implications that go beyond the research at hand. To some of the professors, this was indicated by a
transition in which the doctoral student becomes the producer of knowledge, as can be seen in this comment
from Douglas:

I would expect (doctoral students) to demonstrate an ability to add something to the literature, thats
sort of the test. And if its added to the literature its got to be new and have some element of
uniqueness. (Interview 7/6/05)

Karl described his departments expectations for doctoral students participation in the epistemic
community in this way:

In our program we have the requirement that you have to have at least one research paper in a good
journal in press before you finish. Most people get two or three, some get eight, it varies. But you have
to have a complete and convincing analysis of all your data to have it published and have it go through
professional reviewers so by the time that PhD students are finished they have the ability to analyze the
data and take anything out of their data that they can. When they write the first paper its a lot of work
for me because it goes back and forth sometimes 30 times editing and reediting sometimes 30 times.
But when they write the next paper or the third paper its a joy and I would like to keep them because
theyre so good then and theyve started producing. (Interview 6/23/05)

Robert also alluded to the knowledge generation capabilities of doctoral students when he told us of his
disappointment of not having a doctoral student to work closely with, because he found that with his masters
students, the knowledge always flowed from him to them and never vice versa (Interview 6/20/05).

Discussion
As we noted in our review of the literature, most studies of students engaged in scientific research focus
on undergraduates and high school students. Our typology of student roles in research groups suggests that the
undergraduates and high school students enter their research experiences as novice researchers. During their
relatively short-term participation in research groups, the novice researchers gain skills such as the ability to
collect and work with data, and to communicate their results (Hunter et al., 2007; Kardash, 2000; Lopatto,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
454 FELDMAN, DIVOLL, AND ROGAN-KLYVE

2004; Rauckhorst et al., 2001). These are also the skills that teachers developed in similar, short-term
authentic experiences (e.g., Brown & Melear, 2007; Lotter et al., 2007; Lunsford et al., 2007; Westerlund
et al., 2002). These are some of the skills that the four professors in our study expected to be developed as their
students go through the transformation from novice researcher to proficient technician.
The professors in our study expect more from their masters level students who spend at least 1 or 2 years
in their research groups. They expect that when their students complete their masters degrees they have the
expertise to work as professionals in the field. What this means is that while they may not have the knowledge
and skills to be knowledge producers, they can, for example, work in industry as engineers or scientists
applying the methods that they learned to collect and analyze appropriate data, and to prepare reports for their
employers or clients. While the undergraduates and teachers can develop the same types of skills in their
research experiences, they lack the ability to work as professionals in the field. This difference may be one of
degreethe masters degree students just are better at doing the same things as the undergraduates and
teachers, or the difference may be attributed to a category of behaviors and skills that Hunter et al. (2007) label
becoming a scientist. These include:

 demonstrating attitudes and behaviors needed to practice science;

 understanding the nature of research work;
 understanding how scientists practice their profession; and
 beginning to see themselves as scientists (2007, p. 49).

The professors in our study also referred to these types of behaviors and beliefs and saw them as
important indicators of the shift from novice researcher to proficient technician.
The studies of undergraduates that we reviewed indicated that the students had not developed the skills
that would place them in Category 4 of Baxter Magoldas cognitive reflection model (Rauckhorst et al.,
2001). Our study suggests that the skills and beliefs of Category 4 are developed as students transform from
Proficient Technicians to Knowledge Producers. This transformation can also be seen as the students learn to
participate in the epistemic community. Participation in the epistemic community requires the ability to
produce and warrant new knowledge, and to demonstrate that it has implications that go beyond the research
at hand. To do this requires the set of cognitive skills that are Baxter Magolda Category 4, such as being
able to exchange and compare perspectives, think through problems, and integrate and test theories
(Rauckhorst et al., 2001, p. 5). What this suggests is that the development of skills that corresponds to a
movement from Categories 23 can occur through participation in the community of practice, but that the
move from Categories 34 may require students to participate in an epistemic community as well.
Our data suggest that the research education of scientists occurs primarily as an apprenticeship. The
graduate students learn to do research by performing tasks in ways that are analogous to how their professors
perform them. That is, they are legitimate participants in the research process. In addition, the professors
structure the ways that the students participate by assigning them tasks appropriate to their development
as researchers (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Clearly it also has the characteristics of a cognitive apprenticeship.
The professors model and coach their students, and provide the scaffolding they need to collect and analyze
data, and to prepare reports. In research groups and in one-on-one meetings with the professors the students
are expected to articulate their knowledge, reasoning, and problem solving. As part of the research group they
have the opportunity to reflect on and compare their problem solving processes with their peers, more
advanced students, the professors, and, with the research literature. And of course, in order to fulfill the
requirements for their degree programs, they need to learn to problem solve on their own. Needless to say, all
of this is situated in authentic scientific research.
It is important to note that none of the professors had ever heard of cognitive apprenticeships, and as we
noted above, none had given much thought to the way they teach their students how to do research. One way to
explain the similarity between the professors methods and those of the cognitive apprenticeship is to
recognize that the research education of new scientists is some sort of natural cognitive apprenticeship. That
is, because an important part of the work of scientists goes beyond the practice of craft skills, the education of
new scientists requires an apprenticeship model that develops higher order cognitive skills, which is the goal
of the cognitive apprenticeship.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 RESEARCH EDUCATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS 455

Another way to explain the similarity is to assume that all apprenticeships, or at least all that produce
master practitioners, use the methods described by Brown et al. (1989). Trades people like tailors,
electricians, carpenters and so on, as well as professionals who learn in apprenticeship settings (doctors,
lawyers, nurses, etc.) also need to learn how to problem solve, in addition to the skills needed to reproduce
what others have done before them. This suggests that the only significant difference between traditional
and cognitive apprenticeships is that the latter is the application of apprenticeship teaching methods in a
non-authentic setting, that is, schools.
Implications
In this study we examined the ways that four professors prepare their students to become researchers.
We grouped our findings into five areas: the configuration of their research groups; conceptualizations
of students expertise; conceptualizations of the growth of expertise; apprenticeship teaching; and type of
community. Returning to the introduction to this article, we believe that these findings have implications for
the type of teacher learning activities that are called for by the National Science Education Standards.
First, if science teachers engage in scientific inquiry along with scientists, the type of research group that
they join can affect their learning. As we saw in the tightly organized research groups, students have several
mentors beside their professor. The research groups were made up of students who were at different levels of
expertise and doing different types of tasks. Novice researchers are in regular contact with Proficient
Technicians, and Proficient Technicians were mentored by the growing expertise of the advanced doctoral
students as they became Knowledge Producers. This was not at all the case for the students in the loosely
organized research groups. They infrequently had contact with more advanced students and, therefore, for the
most part they relied solely on their professors as their mentors.
Teachers who work in these groups would most likely have experiences similar to that of graduate
students. In the tightly organized groups they would interact with research group members on a daily basis,
and be mentored by Proficient Technicians and Knowledge Producers, and in turn, mentor other members of
the group. Teachers in the loosely organized groups would not have close mentorship and therefore depend
more on supervision from the professors. Given the time constraints on professors, they would most likely
interact infrequently with the teachers. Therefore, teachers in the loosely organized groups would have less
support than those in the tightly organized research groups.
A second implication comes from the typology of roles that people play in research groups. When
science educators and policy makers say that they want teachers to have knowledge of doing science so that
they can teach their students how to do science, are they expecting them to have the expertise of a Novice
Researcher, Proficient Technician, or Knowledge Producer? That is, if the typology is developmental, what
level is the best fit for a K12 teacher and what level do they need to be at to adequately teach their students how
to do scientific research?
The level of expertise of the teacher may also determine the level that their students would be able to
reach. While it seems clear from the apprenticeship model that a Knowledge Producer can have apprentices
who are Novice Researchers, Proficient Technicians, and new Knowledge Producers, a Proficient Technician
would only be able to train Novice Researchers and new Proficient Technicians, and Novice Researchers may
not have the expertise to even produce others at their own level. There also appears to be a relationship
between the roles that one has in a research group and ones intellectual development. As we discussed earlier,
we see a connection between the transformation from novice researcher to proficient technician and the move
from Categories 23 in Baxter Magoldas model, and a similar relationship between the transformation from
Proficient Technician to Knowledge Producer and the move from Categories 34. Does this mean that
teachers ought to be knowledge producers if they are to help their students gain the skills associated with
Category 4?
A third implication relates to the time and resources needed to educate Knowledge Producers. Scientists
and engineers are taught to be researchers through apprenticeship programs that can last for five or more
years. It would therefore require a tremendous investment in time, money, and other resources to train all
science teachers to be producers of scientific knowledge. It seems unlikely that society would be willing to
make such an investment. In addition, at some level it seems wasteful to invest so much to prepare teachers to
do work that is outside their practice. If teachers are to be Knowledge Producers it seems more reasonable for
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
456 FELDMAN, DIVOLL, AND ROGAN-KLYVE

them to become members of epistemic communities that generate knowledge about teaching and learning
rather than scientific knowledge.
We also believe that our research has important implications for the education of new researchers in the
sciences. One is that, as we noted above, the scientists and engineers who we interviewed had given little
thought to how they educate new researchers. Instead they go about doing what is familiar to them, which is
based on the experiences they had as new researchers. This suggests that even in the informal learning
situations of apprenticeships, teachers teach the way that they were taught. On the surface this appears to
work: new researchers who can contribute to the knowledge base of the field are produced. However, we have
little data about those who do not come through the process as Knowledge Producers. They not only
include the students who do not pass their comprehensive examinations, but also those who for one reason or
another choose to stop at the masters degree level or choose to leave doctoral programs without completing
their dissertations. Therefore, we believe that it is important to continue this research line to gather data about
students experiences as well as the perceptions of their professors.
Another implication is that in those fields where there are tightly organized research groups, students are
teaching other students how to be researchers. It may even be the case that advanced students do the majority
of instruction in research methods. While interviews indicate that Karl provides his students with some
guidance on how to do this, there is the possibility that in most situations the more advanced students have
little or no guidance on how to be mentors. If we are going to continue to use apprenticeships as the primary
model for teaching people to be researchers, it may behoove us to provide the mentors, both faculty and
advanced students, with instruction in how to be successful mentors. One way to do this would be to use
cognitive apprenticeship to develop a model of apprenticeship learning in the sciences and to train graduate
students and professors in its implementation.

Conclusion
What does it mean that science teachers ought to know how to do science? Does it mean that they should
be Novice Researchers who have been exposed to a community of practice, but have developed little of the
skills needed to develop and carry out a research project? Or does it mean that a teacher should be a Proficient
Technician, who is a skilled member of the community of practice, but does not participate in the creation or
warranting of new knowledge? Or does it mean that for a teacher to adequately teach children how to do
science, he or she must be a Knowledge Producer? The answers to these questions would determine the time,
money and other resources needed to sufficiently educate science teachers so that they can serve as research
mentors to their students. As our research suggests, there is much more to becoming a scientist than can
be accomplished in the professional development models currently used, including the National Science
Foundations Research Experiences for Teachers, if the traditional apprenticeship model is used. This
suggests that either we must change the goal that we have that K12 students ought to learn how to do science
so that it does not require teachers who are at the level of Knowledge Producers or we need to find new and
more efficient ways to help teachers learn how to do science.

Notes
1
We believe that it is important to distinguish between the practice situation and the community of practice. The
practice situation consists of the workplace and people of the apprenticeship. The community of practice is a theoretical
construct that is used to understand the practice situation.

References
Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 13(1), 112.
Barab, S.A., & Hay, K.E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science
apprenticeship camp. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(1), 70102.
Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1992). Knowing and Reasoning in College: Gender-related patterns in students
intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 RESEARCH EDUCATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS 457

Bleicher, R.E. (1996). High school students learning science in university research laboratories. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 11151133.
Bond-Robinson, J., & Stucky, A.P. (2005). Grounding scientific inquiry and knowledge in situated
cognition. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, Italy.
Brickhouse, N.W. (1990). Teachers beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to
classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 5362.
Brown, S.L., & Melear, C.T. (2007). Preservice teachers research experiences in scientists
laboratories. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 573597.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18, 3242.
Brown, S.L., Bolton, K., Chadwell, N., & Melear, C.T. (2002). Preservice Secondary Science Teacher
Apprenticeship Experience with Scientists. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the
Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.
Brown, P.L., Abell, S., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F.J. (2006). College science teachers views of classroom
inquiry. Science Education, 90(5), 784802.
Bucher, R., & Stelling, J.G. (1977). Becoming professional (Vol. 46). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Center for Inquiry-Based Learning, (2007). What is inquiry based learning? Retrieved July 23, 2008,
from http:/ /ciblearning.org/about.inquiry.php.
Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Sofer, W., Neigborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive
apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International Journal of Science
Education, 29(2), 195213.
Clark, B.R. (1997). The modern integration of research activities with teaching and learning. The
Journal of Higher Education, 68(3), 241255.
Clesceri L.S., Greenberg A.E., & Eaton A.D. (Eds.). (1999). Standard methods for examination of water
& wastewater. (20th ed.) NY: American Public Health Association.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. (4th ed.) New York: Routledge.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of
reading, writing and mathematics. In: L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in
honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crawford, B.A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal
of research in science teaching, 44(4), 613642.
Creplet, F., Dupouet, O., & Vaast, E. (2003). Episteme or practice? Differentiated communitarian
structures in a biology laboratory. In: M. Huysman, E. Wenger, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Communities and
technologies: Proceedings of the first International Conference on Communities and Technologies. (pp. 4363).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dunbar, K. (1999). The scientist In vivo: How scientists think and reason in the laboratory. In: Magnani
L., Nersessian N., & Thagard P., (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. (pp. 8999). New
York: Plenum Press.
Etkina, E., Matilsky, T., & Lawrence, M. (2003). Pushing to the edge: Rutgers astrophysics institute
motivates talented high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 958985.
Fernandez-Esquinas, M. (2003) From Apprenticeship to Training: An empirical Enquiry into the
Preparation of Scientists in Spanish Academic Science (No. IESA Working Papers Series 0305). Cordoba,
Spain: Institute for Social Studies of Andalusia - Higher Council for Scientific Research.
Flick, L.B., Lederman, N.G., & Enochs, L.G. (1996) Relationship between teacher and student
perspectives on inquiry-oriented teaching practice and the nature of science. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S.L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate
research in students cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1),
3674.
Kardash, C. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate
interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 191201.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
458 FELDMAN, DIVOLL, AND ROGAN-KLYVE

Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
LaPidus, J.B. (1997). Doctoral education: Preparing for the future. Washington, DC: Council of
Graduate Schools.
Latour, B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students and teachers conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the
research. Journal of research in science teaching, 29(4), 331359.
Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings. Cell Biology
Education, 3, 270277.
Lotter, C., Harwood, W.S., & Bonner, J.J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on
teachers use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 13181347.
Lunsford, E., Melear, C.T., Roth, W.-M., Perkins, M., & Hickok, L.G. (2007). Proliferation of
inscriptions and transformations among preservice science teachers engaged in authentic science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 538564.
Minstrell J. & Van Zee E.H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science.
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Association Press.
Nersessian, N.J. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive,
social, and cultural dimensions. In: M. Gorman, R. Tweney, D. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific
and technological thinking. (pp. 1756). New York: Erlbaum Press.
OECD, (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem
solving knowledge and skills. Retrieved November 2007, from www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/
33694881.pdf.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Rauckhorst, W.H., Czaja, J.A., & Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Measuring the impact of the
undergraduate research experience on student intellectual development. Paper presented at the Project
Kaleidoscope Summer Institute, Snowbird, UT.
Richmond, G. (1998). Scientific apprenticeship and the role of public schools: General education of a
better kind. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 583587.
Richmond, G., & Kurth, L.A. (1999). Moving from outside to inside: High school students use of
apprenticeships as vehicles for entering the culture and practice of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36(6), 677697.
Ritchie, S.M., & Rigano, D.L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 799815.
Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M.K., & Bowen, G.M. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach
scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 9(1), 2598.
Russell, S.H. (2005). Evaluation of NSF support for undergraduate research opportunities: Survey of
STEM graduates. Draft final report. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lenhert, Trans.). Chicago:
Northwestern University Press.
Schwab, J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In: Westbury I. & Wilkof N. (Eds.),
Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays [of Joseph J. Schwab]. (pp. 229272). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B.A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an
authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry.
Science Education, 88(4), 610645.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
 RESEARCH EDUCATION OF NEW SCIENTISTS 459

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the
social sciences. (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Stake, R.E., & Easley, J. (1979). Case studies in science education. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University
of Illinois Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Stucky, A.P., & Bond-Robinson, J. (2004). Empirical studies of scientists at work: Analysis of Authentic
Inquiry experiences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in
Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Supovitz, J.A., & Turner, H.M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching
practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963980.
Varelas, M., House, R., & Wenzel, S. (2005). Beginning teachers immersed into science: Scientist and
science teacher identities. Science Education, 89(3), 492516.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Westerlund, J.F., Garcia, D.M., & Koke, J.R. (2002). Summer scientific research for teachers: The
experience and its effect. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(1), 6383.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching