Advertisement

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

  • Ornit Spektor-Levy
  • Bat-Sheva Eylon
  • Zahava ScherzEmail author
Article

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.

Key words

learning skills LSS- learning skills for science performance-based assessment scientific communication scientific literacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bennett, S. W. (1999). Skills taxonomy driver for designing an independent learning course in environmental chemistry. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 71, 851–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berliner, D. C. (1992). Redesigning classroom activities for the future. Educational Technology, 32, 7–13.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BSCS (1993). Developing biological literacy pp. 107–124. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  11. Bybee, R. W. (1977). Achieving scientific literacy: From purpose to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castello, M., & Monereo, C. (1999). Teaching learning strategies in compulsory secondary education. 8th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Sweden.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dienes, Z., & Berry, D. (1997). Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 3–23.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Gibbs, G. (1981). Teaching students to learn: A student-centered approach. Great Britain: Open University.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gauld, C. F. (1982). The scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education, 66, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gauld, C. F. (2005). Habits of mind, scholarship and decision making in science and religion. Science & Education, 14, 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gauld, C. F., & Hukins, A. A. (1980). ‘Scientific attitudes: A review. Studies in Science Education, 7, 129–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hara, K. (1997). A comparison of three methods of instruction for acquiring information skills. Educational Research, 39, 271–286.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kerstiens, G. (1998). Studying in college, then & now: An interview with Walter Pauk. Journal of Developmental Education, 21, 20–24.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kulm, G., & Malcom, S. M. (1991). Science assessment in the service of reform. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  38. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merton, R. K. (1976). Sociological ambivalence and other essays. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effects of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scherz, Z., Michman, M., & Tamir, P. (1985). Preparing academically disadvantaged students. Journal of College Science Teaching, March-April, 395–401.Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B. & Scherz, Z. (2008). Teaching communication skills in science: Tracing teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 462–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Squire, J. (1983). Composing and comprehending: Two sides of the same basic process. Language Arts, 60, 581–589.Google Scholar
  56. Straka, G. A., Nenniger, P., Spevacek, G., & Wosnitza, M. (1996). A model for motivated self-directed learning. Education, 53, 19–29.Google Scholar
  57. TIMMS (1999). Science Items. Available at: http://isc.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/t99science_items.pdf.
  58. TIMMS (2003). Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/.
  59. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ornit Spektor-Levy
    • 1
  • Bat-Sheva Eylon
    • 2
  • Zahava Scherz
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Science Education, The School of EducationBar Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  2. 2.The Department of Science TeachingThe Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations