Using blogs to make peer-reviewed research more accessible

Nicholas T. Young, B. Lewis, Emily Kerr, Prasanth H. Nair
{"title":"Using blogs to make peer-reviewed research more accessible","authors":"Nicholas T. Young, B. Lewis, Emily Kerr, Prasanth H. Nair","doi":"10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Young_N","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discipline-based education researchers produce knowledge that aims to help instructors improve student learning and educational outcomes. Yet, the information produced may not even reach the educators it is intended to influence. Prior work has found that instructors often face barriers to implementing practices in peer-reviewed literature. Some of these barriers are related to accessing the knowledge in the first place such as difficulty finding and understanding research and a lack of time to do so. To lower these barriers, we created an online blog, PERbites, that summarizes recent discipline-based education research in short posts that use plain language. Having covered nearly 100 papers to date, we conducted a survey to see if we were addressing the need we had originally set out to address. We posted a 23-item survey on our website and received 24 usable responses. The results suggested that readers do generally agree that we are meeting our original goals. Readers reported that our articles were easier to understand and used more plain language than a typical discipline-based education research (DBER) journal article. At the same time, readers thought that all the important information was still included. Finally, readers said that this approach helped them keep up with DBER studies and read about papers they otherwise would not have. However, most readers did not indicate they changed their teaching and research practice as a result of reading our blog. Our results suggest that alternative methods of sharing research (e.g., non-peer reviewed publications or conference talks) can be an effective method of connecting research with practitioners, and future work should consider how we as a community might build on these efforts to ensure education research can make meaningful changes in the classroom.","PeriodicalId":253382,"journal":{"name":"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Young_N","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Discipline-based education researchers produce knowledge that aims to help instructors improve student learning and educational outcomes. Yet, the information produced may not even reach the educators it is intended to influence. Prior work has found that instructors often face barriers to implementing practices in peer-reviewed literature. Some of these barriers are related to accessing the knowledge in the first place such as difficulty finding and understanding research and a lack of time to do so. To lower these barriers, we created an online blog, PERbites, that summarizes recent discipline-based education research in short posts that use plain language. Having covered nearly 100 papers to date, we conducted a survey to see if we were addressing the need we had originally set out to address. We posted a 23-item survey on our website and received 24 usable responses. The results suggested that readers do generally agree that we are meeting our original goals. Readers reported that our articles were easier to understand and used more plain language than a typical discipline-based education research (DBER) journal article. At the same time, readers thought that all the important information was still included. Finally, readers said that this approach helped them keep up with DBER studies and read about papers they otherwise would not have. However, most readers did not indicate they changed their teaching and research practice as a result of reading our blog. Our results suggest that alternative methods of sharing research (e.g., non-peer reviewed publications or conference talks) can be an effective method of connecting research with practitioners, and future work should consider how we as a community might build on these efforts to ensure education research can make meaningful changes in the classroom.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用博客让同行评议的研究更容易获得
以学科为基础的教育研究人员提供知识,旨在帮助教师改善学生的学习和教育成果。然而,所产生的信息甚至可能无法到达它打算影响的教育者手中。先前的研究发现,教师在实施同行评议文献中的实践时经常面临障碍。其中一些障碍首先与获取知识有关,例如难以找到和理解研究,以及缺乏时间这样做。为了降低这些障碍,我们创建了一个在线博客PERbites,用简单易懂的语言总结了最近基于学科的教育研究。到目前为止,我们已经覆盖了近100篇论文,我们进行了一项调查,看看我们是否解决了我们最初打算解决的需求。我们在网站上发布了一份包含23个项目的调查,收到了24个可用的回复。调查结果表明,读者普遍认为我们达到了最初的目标。读者报告说,我们的文章比典型的基于学科的教育研究(DBER)期刊文章更容易理解和使用更简单的语言。同时,读者认为所有重要的信息仍然包括在内。最后,读者表示,这种方法帮助他们跟上了DBER的研究,并阅读了他们本来不会阅读的论文。然而,大多数读者并没有表示他们因为阅读我们的博客而改变了他们的教学和研究实践。我们的研究结果表明,共享研究的其他方法(例如,非同行评议的出版物或会议演讲)可以成为将研究与实践者联系起来的有效方法,未来的工作应该考虑我们作为一个社区如何在这些努力的基础上,确保教育研究可以在课堂上做出有意义的改变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Synthesizing disabled physics students' pathways to access: a call for more access talk Analyzing Multiple-Choice-Multiple-Response Items Using Item Response Theory Methods for utilizing Item response theory with Coupled, Multiple-Response assessments Impact of mathematical reasoning on students� understanding of quantum optics Leveraging queer epistemic subjectivity to advance justice through physics teaching
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1