Advertisement

Using Writing-to-Learn Science Strategies to Improve Year 11 Students' Understandings of Stoichiometry

  • Brian Hand
  • Olivia Eun-mi Yang
  • Crystal BruxvoortEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study researched the use of writing-to-learn strategies within a high-school (Year 11) chemistry classroom. The writing task itself asked the students to write a business letter to a younger audience of middle-school (Year 7) students. A mixed-method design was used for the study, incorporating pre/post- testing with semi-structured interviews. The evidence supports that the treatment students performed statistically significantly better on a conceptual question compared to the control group. Additionally, the treatment students felt that writing to a younger audience prompted them to use different language than they would have if, for example, writing to their teacher. Further, the treatment students described that the writing task promoted their understanding of and their confidence in their knowledge of the stoichiometry concepts addressed in class.

Key Words

writing to learn chemistry stoichiometry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bunce, D.L., Gabel, D.L. & Samuel, J.V. (1991). Enhancing chemistry problem-solving achievement using problem categorization. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(6), 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cain, L. (1986). S'Mores – A demonstration of stoichiometric relationships. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(12), 1048–1049.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, C.S. & Brickhouse, N.W. (1989). What makes chemistry difficult? Alternate perceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(3), 223–225.Google Scholar
  6. Dierks, W., Weninger, J. & Herron, J.D. (1985). Mathematics in the chemistry classroom: Part 1. The special nature of quantity equations. Journal of Chemical Education, 62(10), 839–841.Google Scholar
  7. Frank, D.V., Baker, C.A. & Herron, J.D. (1987). Should students always use algorithms to solve problems? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 514–515.Google Scholar
  8. Gabel, D.L., Sherwood, R.D. & Enochs, L. (1984). Problem-solving skills of high school chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(2), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Galbraith, D. (1999).Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gower, D.M., Daniels, D.J. & Lloyd, G. (1977). The mole concept. School Science Review, 58, 658–676.Google Scholar
  11. Guthrie, J.M. (1991). Proportional reasoning in the solution of problems in high school chemistry and its impact on developing critical thinking skills. [On-line]. ERIC Document Reproduction Service: 351183.Google Scholar
  12. Hand, B., Prain, V. & Hohenshell, L. (2000). Exploring Year 10 biotechnology students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, April 28–May 1, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. Hand, B., Prain, V. & Hohenshell, L. (2001). Students’ perceptions of learning when using planned writing to learn science strategies within a Year 10 Biotechnology class. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO, March 25–28.Google Scholar
  14. Herron, J.D. & Greenbowe, T.J. (1986). What can we do about Sue: A case study of competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(6), 528–531.Google Scholar
  15. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Phelps, A.J. (1996). Teaching to enhance problem solving – It's more than the numbers. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(4), 301–303.Google Scholar
  17. Poole, R. (1989). Teaching stoichiometry: A two-cycle approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(1), 57–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prain, V. & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prain, V. & Hand, B. (2005). Science and literacy. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary Science Teacher Education: Issues and Practice. Association of Educators of Science Teachers publication.Google Scholar
  20. Steiner, R.P. (1986). Teaching stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(12), 1048.Google Scholar
  21. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wolfer, A.J. & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Introductory college chemistry students' understanding of stoichiometry: Connection between conceptual and computational understandings and instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, April 28–May 1, 2000. [On-line]. ERIC Document Reproduction Service: ED440856.Google Scholar
  24. Zoller, U., Lubezky, A., Nakhleh, M.B., Tessier, B. & Dori, Y.J. (1995). Success on algorithmic and LOCS vs. conceptual chemistry exam questions. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(11), 987–989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Hand
    • 1
  • Olivia Eun-mi Yang
    • 2
  • Crystal Bruxvoort
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin–WhitewaterWhitewaterUSA
  3. 3.Calvin CollegeGrand RapidsUSA

Personalised recommendations