Skip to main content
Log in

Influences of Writing Tasks on Students' Answers to Recall and Higher-Level Test Questions

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports on two inter-related studies that examined the use of non-traditional writing strategies within secondary school science classrooms. The first study involved Year 10 students who incorporated one letter writing experience into the learning sequence when studying genetics. The second study was with Year 9 students who used both a non-traditional laboratory writing heuristic and letter writing as part of the learning sequence when studying a topic on light. The same teacher was involved in both case studies. A higher-level analogy question was added to the teacher-prepared tests for each study to examine if students who participated in writing-to-learn activities were able to perform significantly better as a group than a group of students who completed traditional teacher directed laboratory activities and note-taking. Results indicate that for the first study there was not a significant difference using t-test analysis, while for the second study involving two writing treatments there was a statistically significant difference using t-test analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in responses between treatment and control groups when answering low level recall questions for either case study. Student interviews indicated awareness by students of the metacognitive value gained by using the non-traditional writing types.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, D. R. & Piburn, M. D. (1997). Constructing science in middle and secondary school classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barden, L. M. (1995). Effective questioning and the ever-elusive higher order question. The American Biology Teacher, 57(7), 423-426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, D. (Ed.). (1986). Language in the secondary classroom. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1964). Course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implication for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). London: Prentice-Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(May), 122-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, K. (1994). Improving reading comprehension using critical thinking strategies. Reading Improvement, 31(3), 142-144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Prain, V., & Scholes, I. (1996). Light learning. The Science Teacher, 63(9), 38-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to improve science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1021-1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B. & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877-893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing-to-learn science. Science Education, 83, 115-130.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1084.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Sexton, C., Wagner, K., & Gerlovich, J. (1998). Science for all children. Methods for constructing understanding. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V. & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V. & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83, 151-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, L. (1994). A review of writing-to-learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hand, B., Prain, V. & Wallace, C. Influences of Writing Tasks on Students' Answers to Recall and Higher-Level Test Questions. Research in Science Education 32, 19–34 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015098605498

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015098605498

Keywords

Navigation