Writing for Learning in Science: A Secondary Analysis of Six Studies

Article

Abstract

This study is a secondary analysis of six previous studies that formed part of an ongoing research program focused on examining the benefits of using writing-to-learn strategies within science classrooms. The study is an attempt to make broader generalizations than those based on individual studies, given limitations related to sample sizes, topics, and classroom contexts. The results indicated that using writing-to-learn strategies was advantageous for students compared to those students working with more traditional science writing approaches. Using diversified types of writing enabled students in treatment groups to score significantly better on conceptual questions and total test scores than those in comparison groups. Importantly, when the cognitive demand of the question is increased from an extended recall to a design type question, there are significant performance differences between comparison and treatment groups in favour of treatment. The authors argue that the use of writing-to-learn strategies requires students to re-represent their knowledge in different forms and, as such, greater learning opportunities exist. Traditional writing strategies tend to favour replication of knowledge rather than re-representation knowledge.

Key words

qualitative method secondary analysis science learning science literacy writing to learn 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Alvermann, D. (2004). Multiliteracies and self questioning in the service of science learning. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 226–238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, W. Jr., Bennett, W. Jr., & Huffcutt, A.I. (2001). Conducting meta-analysis using SAS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Bowerman, B. & O’Connell, R.T. (1990). Linear statistical models: an applied approach. PWS Kent, Boston.Google Scholar
  6. Champagne, A. & Kouba, V. (1999). Written products as performance measures. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee, & J. Novak (Eds.) Assessing science understanding: a human constructivist view (pp. 224–248). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, H & Hedges, L.V. (Eds.) (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Dunn, O.J. & Clark, V. (1987). Applied statistics: analysis of variance and regression, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication 31, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In T. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–150). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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 (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gee, J.P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  14. Grimberg, I. & Hand, B. (2003). The impact of a scientific writing approach in high school students’ learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  15. Gunel, M., Omar, S., Grimberg, I., & Hand, B. (2002). Quantitative results from using the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for learning in 7th grade biology class. Paper presented at the international conference on Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic, and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, September.Google Scholar
  16. Gunstone, R. (1995). Constructivist learning and the teaching of science. In B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Teaching and learning in science: the constructivist classroom. Sydney, AU: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  17. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L.D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to improve science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 1021–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004a). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: a study with Year 10 science students. J Res Sci Teach, 41, 186–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E., (2004b). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. Int J Sci Educ, 26, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V., (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students’ understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instruct Sci.Google Scholar
  21. Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S.G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  22. Hohenshell, L., Hand, B., & Staker, J. (2004). Promoting conceptual understanding of biotechnology through writing to a younger audience. Am Biol Teach 66, 333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holliday, W., Yore, L.D., & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. J Res Sci Teach 31(9), 877–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelly, G. & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. J Res Sci Teach 36, 883–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keys, C.W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. J Res Sci Teach 36(10), 1065–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kiecolt, K.J. & Nathan, L.E. (1985). Secondary analysis of survey data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educ Psychol Rev 11(3), 203–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kulik, J.A. (2002). School mathematics and science programs benefit from instructional technology (InfoBrief, NSF 03–301). National Science Foundation. Washington, DC. From http://dwbrr.unl.edu/iTech/TEAC859/Read/KulikTech.pdf.Google Scholar
  29. Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Murali, N.S., Murali, H.R., Auethavekiat, P., Erwin, P.J., Mandrekar, J.N., Manek, N.J., & Ghosh, A.K. (2004). Impact of FUTON and NAA bias on visibility of research. Mayo Clinic Proc 79(8), 1001–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prain, V. & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: rethinking practices. Teach Teach Educ 12(6), 609–626.Google Scholar
  32. Revicki, D.A., Zodet, M.W., Joshua-Gotlib, S., Levine, D., & Crawley, J.A. (2003). Health-related quality of life improves with treatment-related GERD symptom resolution after adjusting for baseline severity. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1(73), 1–9.Google Scholar
  33. Rivard, L.P. (1994). A review of writing-to-learn in science: Implications for practice and research. J Res Sci Teach 31, 969–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R.L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Sheskin, D. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 3rd edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  36. Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sutton, C. (1993). Figuring out a scientific understanding. J Res Sci Teach 30, 1215–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallace, C.S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference, American Psychological Association, Science Directorate, Washington, DC (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. Am Psychol 54(8), 594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang, E., Hand, B., & Bruxvoort, C. (2002). Using writing-to-learn strategies to improve Year 11 students’ understandings of stoichiometry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, April.Google Scholar
  41. Yore, L.D., Bisanz, G.L., & Hand, B.M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language and science research. Int J Sci Educ 25, 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science EducationAtaturk UniversityErzurumTurkey
  2. 2.Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.School of EducationLa Trobe UniversityBendigoAustralia

Personalised recommendations