As this young learner points out, researchers and scientists alike must plan carefully to ask good questions and then collect data in such a way to answer the research question. This is the focus of this chapter: to explore how the very methodology selected to investigate teacher practices and student learning helped to answer our broad, overarching research question: What is the impact on student learning when teachers are supported as learners during professional development and through the process of implementing an innovative approach to science and literacy?
Amelia, who is quoted above, was a participant in a 3-year research project conducted in a US Midwestern state that investigated teacher implementation of an innovative approach to integrating science and literacy called the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH, Hand & Keys, 1999). Teachers need help in implementing writing strategies within their classrooms that ultimately have an impact on helping students learn science. The No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB, 2002) emphasized reading and mathematics to the exclusion of other subjects, particularly in the elementary grades. Therefore, there is a growing need for integrating language and science (Bybee, 1995; Hand & Prain, 2006; Saul, 2004).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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, 29(14), 1745–1765.
Bybee, R. W. (1995). Achieving science literacy. The Science Teacher, 62(7), 28–33.
Cavagnetto, A. (2006). Setting the question for inquiry: The effects of whole class vs. small group on student achievement in elementary science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Duschl, R. A., & Ellenbogen, K. (1999). Middle school science students' dialogic argumentation. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of the European Science Education Research Association “Research in science education: Past, present, and future”, Kiel, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/projekte/esera/book/regf.htm
Duschl, R. A., & Ellenbogen, K. (2002, September). Argumentation processes in learning science. Paper presented at the international conference on Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Gowin, D. (1981). Educating. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. (2005). Introduction to the Science Writing Heuristic. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemist's guide to effective teaching (pp. 140–154). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gunel, M. (2006). Investigating the impact of teachers' practices of inquiry and non-traditional writing on students' academic achievement of science during longitudinal professional development program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Gunel, M., Akkus, R., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. A. (2006, April). Effects of teacher level of implementation of the science writing heuristic on students' performance on post-test and standardized tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
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.
Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27–29.
Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2006, July). Examining the impact of teacher implementation on student performance on standardized testing when using the Science Writing Heuristic in K-6 science programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Canberra, Australia.
Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 101–107.
Hand, B., Wallace, C. S., & Yang, E.-M. (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.
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.
Howe, K. R. (2003). Closing methodological divides: Toward democratic educational research (Vol. 11, Philosophy and Education Series). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
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(10), 1065–1084.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Levine, J. H., Roos, T. B. (2002). Introduction to data analysis: The rules of evidence. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://www.dartmouth.edu/?mss/Volumes%20I%20and%20II%20.pdf
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Steigelbauer, S. (1991). Using knowledge of change to guide staff development. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the '90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 15–36). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mehan, H. (2001). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285–294.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Los Angeles: Pyrczak.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002).
Omar, S., & Gunel, M. (2004, January). The impact of teacher implementation on student performance when using the Science Writing Heuristic. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) (ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-1). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
Rudd, J. A., II, Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. (2001). Recrafting the general chemistry lab report. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(4), 230–234.
Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57–67.
Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association & National Science Teachers Association.
Sheskin, D. J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (3rd edn.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Smith, M. L. (2006). Multiple methodology in education research. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 457–476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87(4), 490–516.
United States National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available from http://www.nap.edu/catalog. php?record_id = 4962
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, C. S., & Narayan, R. (2002, September). Acquiring the social language of science: Building science language identities through inquiry-based investigations. Paper presented at the international conference on Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Wilkinson, L., & APA Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Cavagnetto, A., Akkus, R., Gunel, M. (2009). Pedagogy, Implementation, and Professional Development for Teaching Science Literacy: How Students and Teachers Know and Learn. In: Shelley, M.C., Yore, L.D., Hand, B. (eds) Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8426-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8427-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)