Abstract
This chapter describes a study that aimed to investigate how a multimodal writing lesson impacted student learning of 13 to 14-year-old students in a science class. The research described in this chapter addresses the following research questions: (i) how does a lesson on multimodal writing affect students’ text production and use of alternative modes of representation in the development of a written product communicating about science concepts, (ii) is there a gender difference in the characteristics of multimodal writing, and (iii) how do different lesson structures affect students’ ability to use multimodal writing. The principles of effective writing-to-learn lessons were implemented in science classrooms and the written products of 98 science students from three different schools were analyzed. Of these 98 students, 54 were given a lesson on multimodal writing prior to being assigned the task of creating a multimodal product, while 44 students were in a control group that did not receive instruction on multimodal writing before assignment of the task. Content analysis of the student products indicated that a single lesson on multimodal writing did not affect students’ overall text production, but students in the test group did use more alternative modes than students in the control group. This difference in quantity was not shown to affect the quality of the end products. A significant difference in the characteristics of multimodal writing was seen between genders, with females outperforming males when multimodal products were evaluated for effectiveness. Although some differences in lesson structures were noted across the study, evidence on their effect on learning is preliminary at best. In conclusion, the findings suggest that a single lesson on multimodal writing is not enough for students to understand how to effectively develop multimodal writing products as a way to communicate about science concepts, but that good general writing skills benefit students in transferring from traditional writing to multimodal writing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ackerman, J. M. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10(3), 334–370.
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Languages, modality and disciplinary knowledge. Unpublished manuscript from http://www.slidefinder.net/m/multimod/multimod/15642224
Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28–32.
Bangert-Drowns, R., 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(1), 29–58.
Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In L. M. Tynjala & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 83–104). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50.
Galbraith, D., & Torrance, M. (1999). Conceptual processes in writing: From problem-solving to text production. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (Studies in writing, pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714–725.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354–367.
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.
Hand, B. M., Gunel, M., & Ulu, C. (2009). Sequencing embedded multimodal representations in a writing to learn approach to the teaching of electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 225–247.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English.
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.
McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding. Instructional Science, 41(1), 217–246.
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude–treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379–390.
Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.
Lappalainen, H. (2011). Sen edestään löytää – äidinkielen ja kirjallisuuden oppimistulokset perusopetuksen päättövaiheessa 2010. [What goes around, comes around -final learning achievements in Finnish language of students ending middle-school in 2010]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus/Finnish National Board of Education.
Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944.
Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
Newell, G. E. (2006). Writing to learn: How alternative theories of school writing account for student performance. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235–247). Guilford: The Guilford Press.
Nieswandt, M., & Bellomo, K. (2009). Written extended-response questions as classroom assessment tools for meaningful understanding of evolutionary theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 333–356.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 179–201.
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609–626.
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2005). Science and literacy. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: Issues and practice (pp. 154–174). Mahwah: Association of Educators of Science Teachers Publication.
Räsänen, L. (1991). Tytöt ja fysikaalisten käsitteiden oppiminen [Girls and concept learning in physics]. Kasvatus, 22(3), 185–194.
Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing experiment manuals in science education: The impact of writing, genre, and audience. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 203–233.
Rivard, L. O. 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.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227–237.
Snyder, B. (1973). The hidden curriculum. New York: Knopf.
Tarmo, M. (1991). Opettajan sukupuolilinssit [Teachers’ gender-glasses]. Kasvatus, 22(3), 195–204.
Välijärvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakylä, P., Reinikainen, P., Sulkunen, S., Törnroos, J., & Arfmann, I. (2007). In J. Välijärvi, P. Kupari, P. Linnakylä, P. Reinikainen, S. Sulkunen, J. Törnroos, & I. Arfmann (Eds.), The Finnish success in PISA – and some reasons behind it. Jyväskylä: Kirjapaino Oma OY.
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Yore, L., 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.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the teachers who gave their valuable time in order to make this study possible.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Additional information
Note
This article is a modified version of the article published in LUMAT: Research and Practice in Math, Science and Technology Education. (Vol 1, No. 5, 2013)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tolppanen, S., Rantaniitty, T., Aksela, M. (2016). Effectiveness of a Lesson on Multimodal Writing. In: Hand, B., McDermott, M., Prain, V. (eds) Using Multimodal Representations to Support Learning in the Science Classroom. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16449-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16450-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)