Abstract
Literacy practices in science classrooms have been traditionally limited to the provision of macroscaffolds (writing templates like Question-Hypothesis-Methodology-Results). This paper explores the allowances and shortcomings of such practice by means of a systematic examination of a corpus of lab reports written by two small groups of college students taught to write scientifically through a macroscaffold-based approach. Despite reporting the same experience and being supported by the same macroscaffold, students’ science writing differed in important ways. Group A’s impersonal inferences expressed social detachment and objectivity (students positioned themselves as distant and objective knowledge producers), whereas Group B adopted a position of social closeness and subjectivity more typical of personal genres (e.g., personal diaries). Atypical of what is expected of science writers, Group B’s personal inferences was taken as indicative of an alternative conception of what it meant to scientifically infer from one’s empirical observations. Such a different style pointed to the possibility of some students holding alternative conceptions about what it means to scientifically infer from one’s empirical observations. It is argued that, although macroscaffolding may be a helpful starting point, students need additional guidance on specific linguistic aspects of science writing, and possibly engage in genre-based literacy activities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle and high school. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Pike, C. (2001). A taxonomy of student engagement with educational software: An exploration of literate thinking with electronic text. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(3), 213–234.
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.
Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Rouledge.
Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Rouledge.
Belanger, M. (1982). A preliminary analysis of the structure of the discussion sections in ten neuroscience journal articles. (Mimeo), LSU, Aston University Reference Collection.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research and critique. Rowman & Littlefield.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Burke, K., Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. M. (2006). Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 1032–1038.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hai-Jew, S. (2012). Scaffolding discovery learning spaces. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2916–2922). Springer.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Falmer Press.
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, 186–210.
Hand, B., Yang, O. E., & Bruxvoort, C. (2007). Using writing-to-learn science strategies to improve year 11 students’ understandings of stoichiometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 125–143.
Hand, B., Chen, Y.,-C., & Suh, J.K. (2020). Does a Knowledge Generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0.
Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Opening learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 115–140). Erlbaum.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17–29.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192.
Ivanic, R. (2004). Intertextual practices in the construction of multimodal texts in inquiry-based learning. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 279–316). Information Age Publishing.
Jang, J.-Y., & Hand, B. (2017). Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach. Research in Science Education, 47, 1213–1231.
Kamberelis, G., & De La Luna, L. (2004). Children’s writing: How textual forms, contextual forces, and textual politics co-emerge. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 239–278). Rouledge.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269–292.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203–270.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24, 8–22.
McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10–16.
McDermott, M.A., & Hand, B. (2009). A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non-traditional writing tasks over a ten year period. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 518–539.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The National Academies Press.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre, text type and the English for academic purposes (EAP) classroom. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 73–90). Erlbaum.
Parkinson, J. (2011). The discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 164–175.
PCN. (2018). National curriculum parameters secondary education. Ministry of Education Retrieved online http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/pcning.pdf. Accessed March 2020.
Renninger, K. A., & List, A. (2012). Scaffolding for learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2922–2926). Springer.
Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J., Hand, B. M., & Legg, M. J. (2001). Using the science writing heuristic to move toward an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1680–1686.
Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, science and learning. Open University Press.
Sutton, C. R. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 1–18.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., Webster, J., & Bourne, J. (2003). Developing pupils' written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 173–192.
Yaman, F. (2020). Pre-service science teachers’ development and use of multiple levels of representation and written arguments in general chemistry laboratory courses. Research in Science Education, 50, 2331–2362.
Yang, H.-T., & Wang, K.-H. (2014). A teaching model for scaffolding 4th grade students’ scientific explanation writing. Research in Science Education, 44, 531–548.
Zydney, J. M. (2012). Scaffolding. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2913–2916). Springer.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Felippe A. Cronemberger and Felipe Xavier Costa, doctoral students, for their feedback and assistance in the initial phases of this research project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Not applicable.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 22 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oliveira, A.W. Supporting Student Science Writing: Beyond Unreflective Macroscaffolds. Res Sci Educ 52, 1207–1224 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10006-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10006-w