The San Diego Biodiversity Project introduces undergraduate students at four different 2- and 4-year schools to a short-term research experience (SRE) that was implemented as a module in the last third of a traditional laboratory course. The study assesses the qualities of this SRE for students using three different methods. Twenty-one participants were interviewed about their experiences in the traditional and research components of their course. In a repeated-measures design, 124 participants took the Persistence in the Sciences (PITS) survey immediately before and after their participation in the SRE. Finally, using a propensity score matching technique, PITS survey results for SRE students were compared with those for students in a course-based research experience (CRE). Student perceptions of the traditional lab and the SRE are different—students appreciate learning basic processes and procedures in the traditional lab, but they express having personal investment in and a sense of participating in science in the SRE. Significant increases were found for the variable of Project Ownership in the SRE condition over the traditional lab, but SRE outcomes were lower than CRE outcomes. Although the SRE may not provide the benefits of a CRE, it is a serious option for expanding access to authentic research.

No abstract

Since the 1970s, legacy Basic Writing systems have survived despite growing resistance grounded in an increasing awareness of their troubling roots and harmful effects. In this article, two 2017 basic writing students and their teacher conduct a mixed-method "postmortem" examination of the now eliminated zero-credit course and writing test placement system at their university. They combine a local desegregation history, an assessment validity inquiry, and a case study of growing resistance to Basic Writing for over a decade, including their own resistance in 2017. Adapting the "root and branch" metaphor from Green v. County Board (1968), the authors analyze reforms from 2007 to 2017 that significantly trimmed the branches of a decades-old, legacy Basic Writing system-but did not root it out completely. Finally, the authors examine their own failed efforts to obtain college credit for the work they did together in 2017 and the complex ways that Basic Writing has harmed each of them.

Upward Bound Math and Science, a federally funded initiative, aims to persuade U.S. high schoolers to become college STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) majors. The program attempts this persuasion by developing students' content and procedural knowledge so that students may succeed in high school and college STEM courses. Primary focus on knowledge acquisition, however, may cause missed opportunities to engage the imaginative dimensions of students' science identities and students' senses of wonder for science. In this reflective essay, I describe a science fiction prototyping assignment that meets the knowledge-based objectives of the Writing Skills course in a five-week Upward Bound summer program at one Eastern U.S. public university and, at the same time, prompts students to perform science identities by writing narrative genres that echo students' wonder-at attitudes toward science. This assignment is informed by science educator and theorist Yannis Hadzigeorgiou's argument that imagination should be at the center of science education, as well as by Etienne Wenger's communities-of-practice framework that describes imagination as one key way of forging belonging in society. By thinking about how future innovations may impact future families through the activity of composing a narrative and an informative genre, students communicate understanding and wonder for science to disciplinary and general audiences, with benefits for their attitudes toward and identities related to science.

The present study develops an applied literariness study by exploring both the features, and the impact, of science fiction prototyping (SFP) on college students’ perceptions of disciplinary, or field-specific, writing. College students (N = 83), who were English (n = 35) or STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) majors (n = 48), composed micro-science fiction prototyping (µSFP), a genre that blends creative and science writing. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC2015) analysis demonstrated that, aside from a more positive average emotional tone, µSFP written fell psycho-linguistically between personal and science writing. English and STEM majors’ µSFP stories were similar in terms of analytical levels, clout, authenticity, emotional tone, and use of words. Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that, while English majors evaluated creative writing as significantly more relevant to their future career goals pre-intervention than did STEM majors (p = .04, r = .23), this difference vanished post-intervention. Additionally, while STEM majors evaluated science writing as significantly more worth their time to study (p = .042, r = .22) and relevant to their major (p = .01, r = .28) pre-intervention than did English majors, these differences disappeared post-intervention. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests indicated that, while English majors’ ownership and evaluation of science and creative writing did not change, STEM majors’ evaluations of creative writing as relevant to their majors and future careers were significantly higher post-intervention (p = .015, r = .35)