Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

TEACHING SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN SCIENCE STUDIES: DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the impact of ‘Scientific Communication’ (SC) skills instruction on students’ performances in scientific literacy assessment tasks. We present a general model for skills instruction, characterized by explicit and spiral instruction, integration into content learning, practice in several scientific topics, and application of performance tasks. The model was applied through an instructional program that focuses on the following learning skills: information retrieval, scientific reading and writing, listening and observing, data representation, and knowledge presentation. Throughout the 7th–8th grades, 160 students learned the whole program or one of its components: structured instruction (SI) of SC skills, or performance tasks (PT). A comparison group of 42 students did not receive instruction of SC skills. Students’ performances were assessed through a questionnaire and a complex task that measured students’ scientific content knowledge, SC skills, and the quality of the final products. Results indicated that students who learned the whole program or one of its components achieved higher scores in all categories than the comparison group students. High achievers can benefit from just one component of the program: either structured instruction (SI) or learning from practice (PT). However, they can hardly acquire SC skills spontaneously. Low and average achievers require both components of the SC program to improve their performances. Results show that without planned intervention, the spontaneous attainment of SC skills occurs only to a limited extent. Systematic teaching of skills can make a significant difference. The explicit instruction of skills integrated into scientific topics, the opportunities to implement the skills in different contexts, the role of performance tasks as ‘assessment for learning’—all these features are important and necessary for improving students’ scientific literacy. Our general model of skills instruction can be applied to the instruction of other high-order skills. Its application can lead to the realization of the central goal of science education: literate students possessing scientific knowledge.

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

  • Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press Available at: http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/bolintro.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S. W. (1999). Skills taxonomy driver for designing an independent learning course in environmental chemistry. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 71, 851–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C. (1992). Redesigning classroom activities for the future. Educational Technology, 32, 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., & Strage, A. (1996). The contradiction between teacher’s instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school biology courses. Science Education, 80, 145–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BSCS (1993). Developing biological literacy pp. 107–124. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (1977). Achieving scientific literacy: From purpose to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., & Ben-Zvi, N. (1998). Science curriculum: transforming goals to practices. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 487–498). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, B., Kaunda, L., Allie, S., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2000). The communication of laboratory investigations by university entrants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 839–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castello, M., & Monereo, C. (1999). Teaching learning strategies in compulsory secondary education. 8th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Sweden.

  • Champagne, A. B., Lovitts, B. E., & Callinger, B. J. (Eds.) (1990). This year in school science. 1990: Assessment in the service of instruction. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

  • Coll, R. K., Taylor, N., & Lay, M. C. (2008). Scientists’ habits of mind as evidenced by the interaction between their science training and religious beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 1–31, iFirst Article. Available at: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/82088_902013943_787688349.pdf.

  • Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Competence and performance in intellectual development. In E. D. Neimark, R. De Lisi, & J. L. Newman (Eds.), Moderators of competence (pp. 43–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meaning and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dienes, Z., & Berry, D. (1997). Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (1998). Realising authentic science learning through the adaptation of science practice. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 317–331). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, G., & Meyer, K. (1998). Performance assessment tasks in science: What are they measuring? In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 761–789). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eylon, B., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: an examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (1981). Teaching students to learn: A student-centered approach. Great Britain: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: Empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8, 123–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauld, C. F. (1982). The scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education, 66, 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauld, C. F. (2005). Habits of mind, scholarship and decision making in science and religion. Science & Education, 14, 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauld, C. F., & Hukins, A. A. (1980). ‘Scientific attitudes: A review. Studies in Science Education, 7, 129–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, K. (1997). A comparison of three methods of instruction for acquiring information skills. Educational Research, 39, 271–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: a test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1085–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudgins, B. B., Riesenmy, M. R., Mitchell, S., Klein, C., & Navarro, V. (1994). Teaching self-direction to enhance children’s thinking in physical science. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, J. M. (2000). The transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1279–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerstiens, G. (1998). Studying in college, then & now: An interview with Walter Pauk. Journal of Developmental Education, 21, 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, M. (2000). Infusing higher-order thinking and learning to learn into content instruction: a case study of secondary computing studies in Scotland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 509–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, C. M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulm, G., & Malcom, S. M. (1991). Science assessment in the service of reform. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., diSessa, A., Pea, R. D., & Songer, N. B. (1994). Can research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science education? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3, 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1976). Sociological ambivalence and other essays. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., & Schwartz, R. A. (2001). Role of study skills in graduate-level educational research courses. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhuis-Geers, J. (1993). PROcedure to promote effective and efficient study skills (PROPES) with PA-students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA.

  • Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision making on socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PISA (2003). Available at: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/science/struct.htm.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 369–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherz Z., Eylon, B., & Bialer, L. (2008). Professional Development in Learning Skills for Science (LSS): the use of Evidence-Based Framework. International Journal of Research in Science Education, 30, 643–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherz, Z., Michman, M., & Tamir, P. (1985). Preparing academically disadvantaged students. Journal of College Science Teaching, March-April, 395–401.

  • Scherz Z., Spektor-Levy, O., & Eylon, B. (2005). Scientific Communication: An instructional program for high-order learning skills and its impact on students’ performance. In: K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de-Jong & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the Quality of Science Education (pp. 231–243). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 410–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 903–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B. & Scherz, Z. (2008). Teaching communication skills in science: Tracing teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 462–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, J. (1983). Composing and comprehending: Two sides of the same basic process. Language Arts, 60, 581–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straka, G. A., Nenniger, P., Spevacek, G., & Wosnitza, M. (1996). A model for motivated self-directed learning. Education, 53, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • TIMMS (1999). Science Items. Available at: http://isc.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/t99science_items.pdf.

  • TIMMS (2003). Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/.

  • Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, D. P. (1993). Assessment as an episode of learning. In R. E. Bennet, & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation shills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Education, The School of Education, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel

    Ornit Spektor-Levy

  2. The Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    Bat-Sheva Eylon & Zahava Scherz

Authors
  1. Ornit Spektor-Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bat-Sheva Eylon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zahava Scherz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zahava Scherz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, BS. & Scherz, Z. TEACHING SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN SCIENCE STUDIES: DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 7, 875–903 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9150-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9150-6

Key words

Search

Navigation