Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Writing in Science: Why, How, and for Whom? A Systematic Literature Review of 20 Years of Intervention Research (1996–2016)

  • REVIEW ARTICLE
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The role writing plays in learning science has evolved over time, as have the settings and contexts in which writing in science research has taken place. This systematic review examines 20 years (1996–2016) of writing in science intervention studies in K-12 settings with a specific focus on comparing contexts that do and do not include English language learners (ELLs), who are at risk academically. Findings include an overall validation of writing-to-learn theories in science learning contexts. Findings also include notable differences between articles containing studies that include ELLs and those that do not such as a general lack of depth in terms of description, analysis, and rigor on writing with ELLs in the science classroom. In addition, trends over the last two decades are noted. Implications for research and practice based on the findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, J. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10(3), 334–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acosta, S., & Garza, T. (2011). The podcasting playbook: a typology of evidence-based pedagogy for pre-K classrooms with English language learners. Research in the Schools, 18(2), 40–57.

  • Adamson, K., Santau, A., & Lee, O. (2013). The impact of professional development on elementary teachers’ strategies for teaching science with diverse student groups in urban elementary schools. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9306-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardasheva, Y., Norton-Meier, L., & Hand, B. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. (2014). Attending to the language and literacy needs of English learners in science. Equity and Excellence in Education, 47(2), 230–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. A., & Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92(4), 708–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, R., & Lind, K. K. (2013). Math and science for young children (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn-activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.

  • Cook, G., Boals, T., & Lundberg, T. (2011, November). Academic achievement for English learners—what can we reasonably expect? The Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 66–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran, F. C., & Kellogg, A. T. (2016). Understanding science achievement gaps by race/ethnicity and gender in kindergarten and first grade. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 237–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: a genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: the representation of meaning in writing. Written Composition, 1(1), 120–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, D. (1992). Conditions for discovery through writing. Instructional Science, 21(1-3), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • García, E. E., & Frede, E. C. (2010). Young English language learners: current research and emerging directions for practice and policy. Early childhood education series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrard, J. (2010). Health science literature reviews made easy: the matrix method. Sandbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garza, T., Huerta, M., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B. J., & Tong, F. (2018). Pedagogical differences during a science and literacy integrated intervention for English language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(4), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1302913.

  • Gee, J. P. (2005). Language in the science classroom: academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girod, M., & Twyman, T. (2009). Comparing the added value of blended science and literacy curricula to inquiry-based science curricula in two 2nd-grade classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: what the research does and does not say. American Educator, 33, 8–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning in science: a secondary analysis of six studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 515–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: effects on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakuta, K., Butler, Y., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (policy report 2000–1). San Francisco, CA: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: literary and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on year 10 biology students’ understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35(4), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Gunel, M., & Ulu, C. (2009). Sequencing embedded multimodal representation in a writing to learn approach to the teaching of electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Cavagnetto, A., Chen, Y., & Park, S. (2016a). Moving past curricula and strategies: language and the development of adaptive pedagogy for immersive learning environments. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9499-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2016b). Aligning teaching to learning: a 3-year study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 847–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., & Onghena, P. (2017). Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc..

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science-learning writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. (2004). Socialising ESL students into the discourse of school science through academic language. Language and Education, 18(2), 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2003). The use of argumentation in Haitian creole science class-rooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huerta, M., & Jackson, J. K. (2010). Connecting literacy and science to increase achievement for English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0402-4.

  • Huerta, M., Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., & Irby, B. J. (2014). Developing and validating a science notebook rubric for fifth grade non-mainstream students. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1849–1870. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.879623.

  • Huerta, M., Irby, B., Lara-Alecio, R., & Tong, F. (2016a). Relationship between language and concept science notebook scores of English language learners and/or economically disadvantaged students. International Journal of Science and Math Education, 14(2), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9640-7.

  • Huerta, M., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2016b). Measuring and comparing academic language development and conceptual understanding via science notebooks. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.992582.

  • Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1010–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N., Rivera, M., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Accommodations for English language learners taking large-scale assessments: a meta-analysis on effectiveness and validity. Review of Educational Research, 29(3), 1168–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of science literacy: from the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 143–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Teachers College Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M., & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect of an instructional intervention on middle school learners’ science and English reading achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 987–1011. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21031.

  • Lee, O. (2002). Science inquiry for elementary students from diverse backgrounds. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 26) (pp. 23–69). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., & Buxton, C. (2013). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770328.

  • Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1996). Interactional patterns of linguistically diverse students and teachers: Insights for promoting science learning. Linguistics and Education: an International Research Journal, 8(3), 269–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R. D., LeRoy, K., & Secada, W. G. (2008). Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(1), 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Mahotiere, M., Salinas, A., Penfield, R. D., & Maerten-Rivera, J. (2009). Science writing achievement among English language learners: results of three-year intervention in urban elementary schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(2), 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Penfield, R. D., & Buxton, C. A. (2011). Relationship between “form” and “content” in science writing among English language learners. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1401–1434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, J., Chamberlin, S. A., Johnson, J. B., & Verma, G. (2016). Social justice, place, and equitable science education: broadening urban students’ opportunities to learn. Urban Review, 48(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0358-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 912–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: a classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 305–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28(3), 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2010). Secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non-traditional writing tasks over a ten year period. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 518–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. M., Scott, C. E., & McTigue, E. M. (2018). Writing in the secondary-level disciplines: a systematic review of context, cognition, and content. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 83–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9393-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017–144). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, D.C.: Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, C. B., Kim, J. S., Scarcella, R., Kramer, J., van Kyk, D. A., et al. (2012). Enhancing the interpretive reading and analytical writing of mainstreamed English learners in secondary school: results form a randomized field trial using a cognitive strategies approach. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 323–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappas, C. C., & Pettigrew, B. S. (1998). The role of genre in the guessing game of reading. Language Arts, 75, 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 170–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, C. (2013). Writing and learning in view of the lab: why “they” might be right. Literacy in Composition Studies, 1(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2013). Language demands and opportunities in relation to next generation science standards for English-language learners: what teachers need to know. White paper written for understanding language. Available: http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/language-demands-and-opportunities-relation-next-generation-science-standards-ells.

  • Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Ayala, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). Evaluating students’ science notebooks as an assessment tool. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1477–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saenz, R. (2008). A profile of Latinos in rural America. The Carsey School of Public Policy at the Scholars' Repository. Paper 35. Retrieved from: http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/35.

  • Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santau, A. O., Secada, W., Maerten-Rivera, J., Cone, N., & Lee, O. (2010). US urban elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners: results from the first year of a professional development intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 2007–2032. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903280588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: a conceptual framework. Technical Reports, University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, UC Berkeley. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6pd082d4.

  • Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: a functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. E., McTigue, E. M., Miller, D. M., & Washburn, E. K. (2018). The what, when, and how of preservice teachers and literacy across the disciplines: a systematic literature review of nearly 50 years of research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. M., Lyon, E. G., Stoddart, T., Mosqueda, E., & Menon, P. (2014). Improving science and literacy learning for English language learners: evidence from a pre-service teacher preparation intervention. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(5), 621–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa-Cruz, CA: University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinburgh, M., Silva, C., Smith, K. H., Groulx, J., & Nettles, J. (2014). The intersection of inquiry-based science and language: preparing teachers for ELL classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(5), 519–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2000). Teaching science writing to first graders: “Genre learning and recontextualization”. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(1), 35–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D. (2001). What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science education community stay the course for meaningful reform? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(4). Retrieved from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/yore.html.

  • Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: language and science literacy – Empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwiers, J. (2006). Integrating academic language, thinking, and content: learning scaffolds for non-native speakers in the middle grades. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Early Childhood, Multilingual, and Special Education, UNLV College of Education, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy Box 453014, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-3014, USA

    Margarita Huerta

  2. Department of Educational Psychology and Higher Education, UNLV College of Education, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway 453003, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-3014, USA

    Tiberio Garza

Authors
  1. Margarita Huerta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiberio Garza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margarita Huerta.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huerta, M., Garza, T. Writing in Science: Why, How, and for Whom? A Systematic Literature Review of 20 Years of Intervention Research (1996–2016). Educ Psychol Rev 31, 533–570 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09477-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09477-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation