Evaluating participants' experience of extended interaction with cutting-edge physics research through the PRiSE “research in schools” programme

Archer, Martin O.; DeWitt, Jennifer; Thorley, Charlotte; Keenan, Olivia

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-147-2021

Articles | Volume 4, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-147-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-147-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 4, issue 2

Research article

|

08 Apr 2021

Research article |

| 08 Apr 2021

Evaluating participants' experience of extended interaction with cutting-edge physics research through the PRiSE “research in schools” programme

Martin O. Archer, Jennifer DeWitt, Charlotte Thorley, and Olivia Keenan

Download

Final revised paper (published on 08 Apr 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 31 Jul 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comment about a formation plan for teachers for PRiSE', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Aug 2020
- AC1: 'Teacher development strategy in PRiSE', Martin Archer, 07 Sep 2020
  - RC2: 'referee 1', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Sep 2020
    - AC2: 'Thank you', Martin Archer, 02 Dec 2020
RC3: 'General comments regarding the PRISE article', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Nov 2020
- AC3: 'Reply to RC3', Martin Archer, 02 Dec 2020
RC4: 'Reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #3, 18 Nov 2020
- AC4: 'Reply to RC4', Martin Archer, 02 Dec 2020
RC5: 'Review: “Transforming school students’ aspirations into destinations through extended interaction with cutting-edge research: “Physics Research in School Environments””', Anonymous Referee #4, 19 Nov 2020
- AC5: 'Reply to RC5', Martin Archer, 15 Dec 2020
AC6: 'Comment on gc-2020-35', Martin Archer, 06 Jan 2021
- EC1: 'Reply to AC6', John K. Hillier, 08 Jan 2021

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (15 Dec 2020) by John K. Hillier

AR by Martin Archer on behalf of the Authors (28 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Feb 2021) by John K. Hillier

RR by John K. Hillier (23 Feb 2021)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (23 Feb 2021) by John K. Hillier

Some technical corrections that you might consider. Suggestions rather than requirements.

Minor points/comments (duplicated from my review)

L4 - Please satisfy yourself that 'provision framework' is a thing. Sounds a little odd, but I can't immediately suggest a change.
L8 - comma before 'with'?
L47 - Nice that international experience is recognised.
L50 - 'This review ....' ?
L52 - This chimes with my experience of supervising high-school students on extended projects.
L55-65 - Good to place PRiSE in the context of other related schemes so that it's benefits can be clearly identified.
L67 - rather than '.... typically one ....' <5 perhaps might be fairer than 1, from my memory of Nuffield 2-3 was quite common although 1 was not unusual. '1 to 3'? It doesn't harm your point.
L135 - Use of supplementary material to avoid lengthy digressions from the stated point of the paper works.
L144-155 - Please consider placing this in a sub-section 2.1.1 highlighting ethics e.g. 'Ethical considerations'. This is something of importance to GC's ethos. If you choose to, renumber following sections i.e. 2.1.2 for Roles of Teachers etc ....
L195 - Motivation of academics is a useful and important aspect to consider. Well put.
L198 - I agree it's definitely 'can' not 'is'. This is not as developed as it could be. Hillier et al (2019) 'Demystifying Academics' in GC (https://gc.copernicus.org/articles/2/1/2019/) includes an analysis of how impact is included in academics promotion criteria in the context of how they/we are motivated.
L557-559 - Your choice, but a somewhat negative tone. e.g. L559 instead of 'no data' you could just state that 'We have also gathered data on the impact of the PRiSE initiative, which is assessed elsewhere (Archer & Witt, 2020)'

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (24 Feb 2021) by Sam Illingworth (Executive editor)

AR by Martin Archer on behalf of the Authors (24 Feb 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We explore how best to support school students to experience undertaking research-level physics by evaluating provision in the PRiSE framework of research in schools projects. These experiences are received by students and teachers much more positively than typical forms of outreach. The intensive support offered is deemed necessary, with all elements appearing equally important. We suggest the framework could be adopted at other institutions applied to their own areas of scientific research.