• Jeonghee Nam
  • Aeran ChoiEmail author
  • Brian Hand


Current initiatives in science education in Korea have emphasized science literacy as the most important purpose of science education; that is, science education needs to focus on helping each student to become a scientifically literate person who is able to make reasoned decisions. In attempting to address this focus concern about science literacy, the researchers of this study attempted to implement the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach and examined both the SWH and the control groups using the modified Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). Students’ performance on a Summary Writing Test (SWT) was also examined. Participant students of this study were eighth grade students in three middle schools located in the second biggest city in Korea. Each of the three teachers from three schools taught both the SWH and the control classes. The results of this study showed significant differences between the SWH and the control groups on the SWT. There was a difference in the total RTOP scores between the SWH and the control groups. Differences among schools imply that higher level of teachers’ implementation of the SWH approach would appear to result in better student achievement.


argument-based inquiry approach pedagogy writing to learn science 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akkus, R., Gunel, M. & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 1, 1–21.Google Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A. & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities (11–18). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Connally, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connally & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 1–14). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science & Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 985–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Greenbowe, T. J. & Hand, B. (2005). Using the science writing heuristic to improve students’ understanding of chemistry. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists guide to effective teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Gunel, M., Hand, B. & McDermott, M. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19, 354–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hand, B. (2004). Cognitive, constructivist mechanisms for learning science through writing. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hnad & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 21–31). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L. & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with Year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. Instructional Science, 35, 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hand, B. & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27–29.Google Scholar
  17. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J. & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  18. Herrenkohl, L. R. & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473.Google Scholar
  19. Hohenshell, L. M. & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 261–289.Google Scholar
  20. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A. & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.Google Scholar
  21. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V. & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Huerisitic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2008). Korean students’ achievement in TIMS International Science Report. Seoul: Koran Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  23. Korea Ministry of Education (2007). Korea National Science Education Standards. Seoul, Korea: Korea Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.Google Scholar
  26. Langer, J. A. & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning (NCTE research report. No. 22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, B. (1998). Argumentation and Secondary Science Education. Research report (RR 97-II-6). Seoul: Korea Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, A. & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the Elementary Science Classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S. & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Science Report: Findings from IEA's trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grade. MA: Boston College.Google Scholar
  30. Mason, L. & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change: What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implication for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rivard, L. P. & Straw, S. W. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science & Education, 84, 566–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J. & Hand, B. M. (2001). Recrafting the general chemistry laboratory report. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(4), 230–234.Google Scholar
  38. Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J., Hand, B. M. & Legg, M. J. (2001). Using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) to move toward an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(12), 1680–1686.Google Scholar
  39. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science & Education, 93(3), 448–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chemistry EducationPusan National UniversityBusanRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Science EducationKent State UniversityKentUSA
  3. 3.Science EducationUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations