Advertisement

Examining Teachers’ Shifting Epistemic Orientations in Improving Students’ Scientific Literacy Through Adoption of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach

  • Brian HandEmail author
  • Soonhye Park
  • Jee Kyung Suh
Chapter

Abstract

The role of language is critical both in how science is done and through the products of scientific practices. Importantly, language is viewed as an epistemic tool that enables learners to engage with construction and critique in the practices of science. The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach places particular importance on engaging in the critical language practices of science while building the conceptual understandings of science topics through immersion in an argument-based inquiry approach to learning. This chapter focuses on a study with 28 middle school science teachers who were taking part in a 3-year research project centered on the implementation of the SWH approach for the teaching of science. Teachers were involved in a professional development program where they were introduced into four critical areas for implementing the approach: Learning, Language, Scientific Practice, and Pedagogy. Importance was placed on encouraging teachers to engage in the critical written and oral discourse practices of science that underpin the SWH approach and are essential features of scientific literacy. To track teacher change over the study, an Epistemic Orientation Survey (EOS) was developed that enabled us to examine the alignment between Language as an Epistemic Tool, Science as an Epistemic Practice, and Learning as an Epistemic Act. Building on previous work on the SWH approach, we have examined students’ critical thinking growth rates to the change in teachers’ epistemic orientations as a way to gauge how well such a language-based approach can provide cognitive resources for future growth in developing understanding of science concepts.

Keywords

Epistemic orientation Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) scientific literacy construction and critique language use in science 

References

  1. Ardasheva, Y., L. Norton-Meier, & B. Hand. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and nonthreatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. M. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction 34(2), 100–147. DOI  10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120
  4. Ennis, R. H., & Millman, J. (2005). Cornell critical thinking test, level X (5th ed.) Seaside: The Critical thinking Company.Google Scholar
  5. Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hand, B. (2008). Introducing the science writing heuristic approach. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  8. Hand, B., Cavagnetto, A., Chen, Y-C., & Park, S. (2016). Moving past curricula and strategies: Language and the development of adaptive pedagogy for immersive learning environments. Research in Science Education, 46, 223–241.Google Scholar
  9. Hand, B., Nam, C., Cavagnetto, A. R., & Norton-Meier, L. (2013). The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach as an argument-based inquiry. Roundtable discussion at 1st International Conference on Immersion approaches to Argument-based Inquiry (ABI) for Science Classrooms.Google Scholar
  10. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin, A. M., & 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
  12. McDermott, M., & Hand, B. (2010). A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non-traditional writing tasks over a ten-year period. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 518–539.Google Scholar
  13. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  14. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Norton-Meier, L. (2008). Creating border convergence between science and language: A case for the Science Writing Heuristic. In B. Hand (Ed.). Science Inquiry, Argument and Language: A case for the Science Writing Heuristic. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63–70.Google Scholar
  17. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Suh, J., & Park, S. (2016, January). Epistemic orientation toward teaching science: Toward better conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented at the International meeting of Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE), Reno, Nevada, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Watts, M., & Bentley, D. (1987). Constructivism in the classroom: Enabling conceptual change by words and deeds. British Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations