Science & Education

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 159–172 | Cite as

Enhancing Students’ Conceptual Understanding by Engaging Science Text with Reflective Writing as a Hermeneutical Circle



Students can have great difficulty reading scientific texts and trying to cope with the professor in the classroom. Part of the reason for students’ difficulties is that for a student taking a science gateway course the language, ontology and epistemology of science are akin to a foreign culture. There is thus an analogy between such a student and an anthropologist spending time among a native group in some remote part of the globe. This brings us naturally to the subject of hermeneutics. It is through language that we attempt to understand an alien culture. The hermeneutical circle involves the interplay between our construct of the unfamiliar with our own outlook that deepens with each pass. It can be argued that for novice students to acquire a full understanding of scientific texts, they also need to pursue a recurrent construction of their comprehension of scientific concepts. In this paper it is shown how an activity, reflective-writing, can enhance students’ understanding of concepts in their textbook by getting students to approach text in the manner of a hermeneutical circle. This is illustrated using studies made at three post-secondary institutions.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevilacqua, F., & Giannetto, E. (1995). Hermeneutics and science education: The role of history of science. Science & Education, 4, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities (pp. 11–18). London, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change, issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and instruction, 4, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connally, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connally & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Countryman, J. (1992). Writing to learn mathematics: Strategies that work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Eger, M. (2006). In A. Shimony (Ed.), Science, understanding, and justice: The philosophical essays of Martin Eger. Chicago, IL, USA: Open court publishing company.Google Scholar
  10. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Elby, A. (2001). Helping students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics: Physics Educational Research Supplement, 69, S64–S454.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, R. A. (2004). University student approaches to learning science through writing. International Journal of Science Education, 26(15), 1835–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feyerabend, P. K. (1962). Explanation, reduction, and empiricism. In H. Feigl & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Scientific explanation, space, and time, Minnesota studies in the philosophv of science (Vol. 3, pp. 28–97). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fulwiler, T. (1987). The journal book. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Gadamer, H.-G. (1975/1960). Truth and method (translated by G. Barden and J. Cumming, from the 2nd [1965] edition). New York, NY, USA: Crossroads.Google Scholar
  16. Hammer, D. (1989). Two approaches to learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 27(9), 664–670.Google Scholar
  17. Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays (translated by W. Lovitt) (pp. 277–282). New York, NY, USA: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  19. Hewitt, P. (1995). Lessons from lily on the introductory course. Physics Today. 85–87.Google Scholar
  20. Holiday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alverman, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthrough barriers and promises. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huffman, D., & Heller, P. (1995). What does the force concept inventory really measure? The Physics Teacher, 33(3), 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalman, C, (2001). Teaching students to solve quantitative problems in science courses by writing their way into the solution. The Successful Professor sample issue, 3–4.Google Scholar
  23. Kalman, C. S. (2006). Successful science and engineering teaching in colleges and universities San Francisco. CA, USA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Kalman, C. S. (2008). Successful science and engineering teaching: Theoretical and learning perspectives. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Kalman, C. S., Morris, S., Cottin, C., & Gordon, R. (1999). Promoting conceptual change using collaborative groups in quantitative gateway courses. American Journal of Physics: Physics Educational Research Supplement, 67, S45–S51.Google Scholar
  26. Kalman, C. S., Aulls, M. W., Rohar, S., & Godley, J. (2008). (March/April) Student’s perceptions of reflective writing as a tool for exploring an introductory textbook. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37, 74–81.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, Thomas. S. (1982). Commensurability, comparability, communicability. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 669–688.Google Scholar
  28. Kuhn, & Thomas, S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, N. (1992). Language across the curriculum: Here it began and what it promises. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines (pp. 6–21). New York, NY, USA: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
  30. Mayer, J., & Hillman, S. (1996). Assessing students’ thinking through writing. The Mathematics Teacher, 89, 428–432.Google Scholar
  31. McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2010). A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non-traditionalwriting tasks over a ten year period. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 47, 518–539.Google Scholar
  32. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Moschkovich, J. N., & Brenner, M. E. (2000). Integrating a naturalistic paradigm into research on mathematics and science cognition and learning. In A. E. Kelley & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (Chapter 17) (pp. 457–486). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Pugalee, D. K. (1997). Connecting writing to the mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Teacher, 90, 308–310.Google Scholar
  35. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (1999). Overcoming robust misconceptions through ontological training. In Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  37. Stake, R. E. (1998). Case studies. In N. K. Denison & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Suchting, W. A. (1995). Much Ado about nothing: Science and hermeneutics. Science & Education, 4(2), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallace, C. S., Hand, P., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Wittgenstein, L. (1973). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Educational and Counseling PsychologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations