Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 349–383 | Cite as

“Here the Scientists Explain What I Said.” Coordination Practices Elicited During the Enactment of the Results and Discussion Sections of Adapted Primary Literature

  • Hedda Falk
  • Anat YardenEmail author
Article

Abstract

Adapted primary literature (APL) is a novel text genre that retains the authentic characteristics of primary literature. Learning through APL represents an educational intervention with an authentic scientific context. In this case study, we analyzed the 80-min discourse developed during the enactment of an article from an APL-based curriculum in biotechnology in one class, and examined epistemic practices used by students during their meaning-making of the Results and Discussion sections of the article. Specifically, we examined coordination practices, by which students connected elements belonging to different epistemic status or context (theory, data, experimental stages, biotechnological applications and text). The application of coordination practices was identified more than 70 times during the lesson. In the context of the Results section, the students displayed research-oriented coordination practices, which were frequently associated with claims of comprehension difficulty. In the context of the Discussion section, students displayed text-oriented coordination practices, associated with analysis of the text characteristics. We are suggesting that the research-oriented coordination practices and some of the text-oriented ones enabled the emergence of authentic scientific practices and learning by inquiry. Another type of text-oriented coordination practice enabled reflection on scientists’ experimental processes, enabling learning science as inquiry. The enactment model of APL used here allowed for both the emergence of the two dimensions of inquiry learning and the promotion of scientific literacy in the fundamental and derived senses.

Keywords

Adapted primary literature (APL) Biology education Biotechnology education Coordination practices Discourse analysis Epistemic practices High school Inquiry Scientific literacy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the teacher, Micheline Gutman, and students who participated in this study and Maria Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre for her useful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. AY is the incumbent of the Helena Rubinstein Career Development Chair.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (vol. 3, pp. 285–310). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shapping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brill, G., Falk, H., & Yarden, A. (2004). The learning processes of two high-school biology students when reading primary literature. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell, & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  8. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking Science and Literacy in the K-8 Classroom. Arlington: National Science Teacher Association.Google Scholar
  10. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidov, Y., Rosen, R., Smulsky, D. R., Van Dyk, T. K., Vollmer, A. C., Elsemore, D. A., et al. (2000). Improved bacterial SOS promoter: lux fusions for genotoxicity detection. Mutation Research, 466, 97–107.Google Scholar
  12. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1964). Science as subject matter and as method. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey On Education: Selected Writings (pp. 121–127). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  15. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning of Sciences, 8(3/4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falk, H., Piontkevitz, Y., Brill, G., Baram, A., & Yarden, A. (2003). Gene tamers: Study biotechnology through research (In Hebrew, 1st ed.). Rehovot: The Amos de-Shalit Center for Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  17. Falk, H., Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2008). Teaching a biotechnology curriculum based on adapted primary literature. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1841–1866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2007). Routines, roles, and responsibilities for aligning scientific and classroom practices. Science Education, 91, 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaskins, I. W., Guthrie, J. T., Satlow, E., Ostertag, J., Six, L., Byrne, J., & Connor, B. (1994). Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Goals, teacher development, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1039–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S. J., & Palinscar, A. S. (2004). Teacher, text, and experience: A case of young children’s scientific inquiry. The Journal of the Learning of Sciences, 13(4), 455–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Havdala, R., & Ashkenazi, G. (2007). Coordination of theory and evidence: Effect of epistemological theories on students' laboratory practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1134–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hug, B., & McNeill, K. L. (2008). Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science; Does data type influence classroom conversations. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1725–1751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2003). Syllabus of Biological Studies (10th-12th Grade). Jerusalem: State of Israel Ministry of Education Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
  26. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Reigosa, C. (2006). Contextualizing practices across epistemic levels in the chemistry laboratory. Science Education, 90, 707–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 748–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lemke, J. L. (1998a). Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods and problems. In B. J. Fraser, & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1175–1189). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Lemke, J. L. (1998b). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin, & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London: King's College.Google Scholar
  37. Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes, 14, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Myers, G. (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge. English for Specific Purpose, 11, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2008). Reading as inquiry. In R. A. Duschl, & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 233–262). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  42. Palinscar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2000). The interplay of firsthand and text-based investigations in science education (CIERA REPORT #2-007). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  43. Palinscar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. Carver, & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-five Years of Progress (pp. 151–194). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.Google Scholar
  45. Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303–326.Google Scholar
  46. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, 4(1), 1–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab, & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The Teaching of Science (pp. 1–103). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 726–764). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87, 490–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tamir, P. (1985). Content analysis focusing on inquiry. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tamir, P. (2004). Curriculum implementation revisited. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(3), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wu, H. K., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders' use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 190–195.Google Scholar
  61. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zion, M., Shapira, D., Slezak, M., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., et al. (2004). Biomind—a new biology curriculum that enables authentic inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 59–67.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science TeachingWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations