Abstract
This study used both quantitative and qualitative analyses to examine the influence of written arguments on learning in a college level introductory biology class and the types of metacognition employed by students while writing. Comparison of a treatment and control group indicates that the writing assignments used had minimal impact on overall content learning as measured by conventional exams. Subsequent interviews and think-aloud protocols with a subset of students indicated that writing arguments had the potential to foster learning through forward and backward search strategies. However, few of the students took advantage of this opportunity to use metacognitive skills. This study suggests that preparing written arguments is not sufficient, by itself, to have a reliable effect on student learning and is consistent with the view that students must be explicitly taught when and how to use different metacognitive strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Audet, R. H., Hickman, P., & Dobrynina, G. (1996). Learning logs: A classroom practice for enhancing scientific sense making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 205–222.
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.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Elrbaum.
Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.) Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (vol. 7, (pp. 83–104)). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Brown, J. E., & Stephens, E. C. (1995). Writing as transformation: A new paradigm for content writing. Clearing House, 69, 14–16.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Educator, 84, 287–312.
Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking - using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching, 31, 985–1001.
Galbraith, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction, 9, 93–108.
Hand, B., Prain, V., & Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students. answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education, 32, 19–34.
Hayes, D. A. (1987). The potential for directing study in combined reading and writing activity. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 333–352.
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, 877–893.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson ” or “doing science ”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Educator, 84, 757–792.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Educator, 83, 115–130.
Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 676–690.
Kincannon, J., Gleber, C., & Kim, J. (1999). The effects of metacognitive training on performance and use of metacognitive skills in self-directed learning situations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the 21st National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology [AECT], Houston TX.
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203–270.
Klein, P. D. (2004). Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instructional Science, 32, 191–231.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theoretical Practicum, 41, 212–218.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument - implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Educator, 77, 319–337.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Childhood Development, 74, 1245–1260.
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1986). Reading and writing instruction - toward a theory of teaching and learning. Review of Research Education, 13, 171–194.
Lin, X. (1994). Metacognition: Implications for research in hypermedia-based learning environment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 16th National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Sponsored by the Research and Theory Division, Nashville TN
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theoretical Practicum, 41, 219–225.
Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Educator, 88, 420–442.
Rowell, P. M. (1997). Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30, 19–56.
SAS (1999). SAS/STAT Users guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Education and Psychology Review, 7, 351–371.
Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Report from the Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Voss, J. F., & Wiley, J. (1997). Conceptual understanding in history. European Journal Psychic Edition, 12, 147–158.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Wallace, C. S., Tsoi, M. Y., Calkin, J., & Darley, M. (2003). Learning from inquiry-based laboratories in nonmajor biology: An interpretive study of the relationships among inquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptual growth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 986–1024.
Yore, L. D., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (1999). Writing-to-learn science: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for Educating Teachers in Science, Austin, TX.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Jounal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
Sample Essay Prompt
Hans and Franz are two relatively successful body builders living in L.A. Though they both work out at the same gym and compete in the same tournaments, Hans and Franz are bitter rivals. They often finish in first and second place and the one who happens to win a given competition often taunts the other for days. Recently, both have been invited to compete at a major, regional competition and both of them increase the pace of their workout routines. Whoever wins this event will automatically be invited to the next national competition and is in line to receive lucrative product endorsements.
The day before the competition is set to take place, Franz collapses at the gym. Earlier in the day he had complained of feeling overly warm and sweated profusely even though the temperature in the gym was relatively cool. Several witnesses at the gym report that Franz seemed out of breath even though he wasn’t working out very hard. When paramedics arrive they notice that he is feverish and has a rapid heart rate but appears blue around the mouth suggesting he wasn’t getting enough oxygen. Franz is transported quickly to the hospital but he dies later that day.
When the police search the gym for clues they notice crystals of some substance on top of Franz’s water bottle. The other weight lifters at the gym immediately suspect Hans of poisoning Franz. They tell police that Hans has a tropical fish business and that he frequently uses cyanide to stun wild fish in order to capture them more easily. Hans says that he is innocent and thinks that Franz accidentally killed himself with DNP which is used by many body builders to help them lose weight and develop better muscle definition.
Hans insists on going to the competition across the border in Mexico. You need to quickly figure out if Hans is potentially guilty before letting him leave. You call the local coroner and get the following information.
Cyanide acts by attaching to part of the electron transport chain preventing the transfer of electrons to oxygen.
DNP (di-nitro-phenol) acts by allowing hydrogen ions to easily cross phospholipids membranes.
Assignment
Write a brief (500–1,000 words) essay explaining to your superior whether Hans should be allowed to go to the tournament or not. Use the information provided above and your knowledge of energy and metabolism. You may discuss the problem with your classmates but you must write the essay yourself. Your essay should explain each of the following.
-
How does DNP affect metabolism? How might a person’s body respond to an overdose of DNP?
-
How does cyanide effect metabolism? How might a person’s body respond to an overdose of cyanide?
-
Which compound is likely to have been the cause of Franz’s death?
Appendix B
Student Interview Questions
-
1.
Describe a classroom situation where you felt you were really learning a subject well.
-
2.
What do you think are your responsibilities as a student?
-
3.
If you are studying a certain topic, like photosynthesis, how do you know when you really know the information?
-
4.
Do you ever try to apply science concepts to everyday life?
-
5.
What motivates you to learn in science classes?
-
6.
What do you do when you come across a topic that is difficult to learn?
-
7.
In your opinion, what is a good science teacher like?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Armstrong, N.A., Wallace, C.S. & Chang, SM. Learning from Writing in College Biology. Res Sci Educ 38, 483–499 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9062-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9062-9