Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Writing Like a Scientist: Exploring Elementary Teachers’ Understandings and Practices of Writing in Science

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

This qualitative study examined the connections between elementary teachers’ conceptions of how scientists use writing and how the teachers used writing during science lessons. Data collected included lesson observations, interviews, handouts to students, and curriculum resources. The findings revealed that teachers in this study thought scientists write for several purposes: the presentation of data, observations, experiences, procedures, and facts. The teachers used writing tasks that mirrored this with their students. The teachers also had a limited definition of creativity in writing, and when they had students write creatively in science it was to add in fictional elements. Implications of this study include providing teachers with better models for how and why scientists write, including these models in more inquiry-based science lessons, and directly relating concepts of nature of science to elementary science writing.

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

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K-6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 751–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C. (2001). Using student notebooks to assess the quality of inquiry science instruction. In P. R. Aschbacher (Chair), Challenges in assessing evidence of learning and teaching in elementary science. Symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 10–14.

  • Alonzo, A. C. (2008). Using science notebooks as an informal assessment tool. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 83–99). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. [Electronic version]. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Applebee, A. N. (1982). Writing and learning in school settings. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 365–381). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Saul, W. (1994). Considering science and language arts connections: A study of teacher cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1023–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. K. (1998). Non-narrative as a catalyst for narrative development. Language Arts, 75(2), 108–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research: Purposeful and theoretical sampling, merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 623–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2011). Supporting informational writing in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 406–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfman, L. R., & Cappelli, R. (2009). Nonfiction mentor texts. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. J. (2006). Representations of science within children’s trade books. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 214–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulwiler, T. (1987). The journal book. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gere, A. R. (1985). Roots in the sawdust: Writing-to-learn across the disciplines. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glen, N. J. (2008). Writing in elementary school science: Factors that influence teacher beliefs and practices. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

  • Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057–1073.

    Article  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(4), 615–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B. M., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B. J., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., et al. (2003). Message from the “island group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 607–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, L. (1998). Maximizing the impact of your in-service: Designing the inservice and selecting the participants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Minneapolis, MN.

  • Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 345–362.

    Article  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 

  • Honig, S. L. (2010). A framework for supporting scientific language in primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W. (1999a). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W. (1999b). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85, 89–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucer, S. L. (1985). The making of meaning: Reading and writing as parallel processes. Written Communication, 2(3), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. A. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J. A., & Pizzini, E. L. (1998). The demonstration classroom in-service: Changes in the classroom. Science Education, 82, 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuitty, V., Dotger, S., & Khan, U. (2010). One without the other isn’t as good as both together: A theoretical framework of integrated writing/science instruction in the primary grades. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 59, 315–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (1996). “I teach students, not subject”: Teacher-student relationships as contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(2), 172–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL). (2007). 6 + 1 Trait ® Writing. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/department.php?d=1.

  • Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims & evidence: The important place of argument in children’s science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. R. (1977). Oral and written language and the cognitive processes of children. Journal of Communication, 27(3), 10–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penney, K., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Clark, G. (2003). The anatomy of junior high school science textbooks: An analysis of textual characteristics and a comparison to media reports of science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 3(4), 415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(6), 609–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220(4596), 477–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardon, B. (2005). What writing represents what scientists actually do? Science and Children, 43(3), 50–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rowell, P. M. (1991). A teacher’s pedagogical frame for writing in the elementary science classroom. Paper presented at the National Science Teachers Association Area Convention, Vancouver, British Columbia, November.

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S. P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining students’ scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Good, R. (1991). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs about and perceptions of elementary school science, science reading, science textbooks, and supportive instructional factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(5), 437–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65(3), 381–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, C. (1993). Figuring out a scientific understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1215–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74(4), 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolchinsky, L. (2006). The emergence of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 83–95). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Nostrand, A. D. (1979). Writing and the generation of knowledge. Social Education, 43, 178–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Water-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding of the nature of science and practice: The influence of teacher’s beliefs about education, teaching, and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 919–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E. (2004). Science is not written, but it can be written about. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 95–107). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2006). Informational texts as read-alouds at school and home. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts? In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 71–94). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    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 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., McNeill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What’s your evidence? Engaging K-5 students in constructing explanations in science. New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinsser, W. (1988). Writing to learn. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2004). Elements of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher order thinking. Journal of Research in Science Education, 15(4), 293–312.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Elementary and Early Childhood Education Department, Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA, 02325, USA

    Nicole J. Glen

  2. Department of Science Teaching, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA

    Sharon Dotger

Authors
  1. Nicole J. Glen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharon Dotger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole J. Glen.

About this article

Cite this article

Glen, N.J., Dotger, S. Writing Like a Scientist: Exploring Elementary Teachers’ Understandings and Practices of Writing in Science. J Sci Teacher Educ 24, 957–976 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9348-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9348-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation