Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students’ understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports on a study that examined the cumulative effects on students’ learning of science, and perceptions of the role of writing in learning, when the students engaged in multiple writing tasks with planning strategy support. The study was conducted with Year 10 biology students who completed two consecutive units on Cells and Molecular Biology. A mixed method study was implemented using a pre-/post-test design with a focus on student performance on higher order conceptual questions, and semi-structured interviews with treatment students after the completion of each unit of study. Results from the quantitative component indicated that multiple, non-conventional writing had a significant benefit in helping students learn Molecular Biology. The results for the Cell unit were not so conclusive suggesting the strategies are most useful for novel content. The interviews with students demonstrated that they understood and engaged successfully with both the conceptual and linguistic demands of the tasks. These findings, taken as a whole, confirm that multiple writing tasks can support effective student learning, provided various pedagogical conditions are met.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton J. (1982) Spectator role and the beginning of writing. In: Pradl G. (Ed.), Prospect and retrospect: selected essays of james Britton. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers Inc. pp. 46–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner J.S. (1966) Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald M. (1991) Origins of the modern mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari M., Bouffard T., Rainville L. (1998) What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers’ self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science 26: 473–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower L., Hayes J. (1980) The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication 31: 21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower L., Hayes J. (1984) Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Composition 1: 120–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith D. (1999) Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In: Galbraith D., Torrance M. (Eds.), Knowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press pp. 139–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith D., Rijlaarsdam G. (1999) Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction 9: 93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser B., Strauss A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldere

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday M.A.K., Martin J.R. (1993) Writing science: literacy and discursive Power. London: Falmer Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand B., Keys C.W. (1999) Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher 66(4): 27–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand B., Hohenshell L.M., 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand G. (1998) Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(4): 345–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C.W., Yang, E.-M., Hand, B. & Hohenshell, L. (2001). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the␣National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO, March 25–28

  • Klein P. (1999) Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review 11(3): 203–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein P.D. (2000) Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction 18(3): 317–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein P. (2006) The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education 28 (2–3): 143–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles M.B., Huberman A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of New Methods, (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain V. (2006) Learning from writing in secondary science: some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education 28(2–3): 179–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain V., Hand B., Hohenshell L.M. (2001) Students’ composing strategies in writing for learning in secondary science. Aster 33: 49–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rijlaarsdam, G., & Couzijn, M. (2002). Effects of observation of readers’ feedback on understanding in physics. Paper presented at the Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction and Teacher Education, International Conference, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, September 12–15

  • Rijlaarsdam G., Couzijn M., Janssen T., Braaksma M., Kieft M. (2006) Writing experimental manuals in science education: The impact of writing genre and audience. International Journal of Science Education 28(2–3): 203–234

    Article  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: 969–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheppegrell M. (1998) Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Teaching of English 25: 67–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheskin D.J. (2000) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, (2nd ed.). Florida: CRC Press LLC

    Google Scholar 

  • Tynjala, P., Mason, L. & Lonka, K. (Eds.) (2001) Writing as a learning tool. Amsterdam: Kluwer Press

  • Unsworth L. (2000) Investigating subject-specific literacies in school learning. In: Unsworth L. (Ed), Researching language in schools and communities. London: Continuum (Cassell)

    Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth L. (2001) Teaching Multiliteracies across the Curriculum: Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Iowa, N238 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Brian Hand

  2. Western Washington University, 516 High Street, Bellingham, WA, 98225-9155, USA

    Liesl Hohenshell

  3. La Trobe University, Bendigo, Edwards Road, Bendigo, Vic, 3550, Australia

    Vaughan Prain

Authors
  1. Brian Hand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liesl Hohenshell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vaughan Prain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Hand.

Appendix I

Appendix I

Means, Standard Deviations, and Sample Sizes for Correlation Matrix Variables (significant correlations presented in Table 3).

Variable

M

SD

n

ITED

67.6860

23.78792

86

PRC1

.6429

.88689

84

PRC2

.0952

.39937

84

PRC3

2.0595

.94870

84

PRCT

2.7976

1.43770

84

POC1

1.8049

1.28081

82

POC2

2.0854

1.19878

82

POC3

3.1585

.80844

82

POCT

7.0488

2.29278

82

PRMB1

.1098

.41592

82

PRMB2

.2439

.77875

82

PRMB3

.6951

.67931

82

PRMBT

1.0488

1.28527

82

POMB1

1.1059

1.15494

85

POMB2

1.2353

1.34206

85

POMB3

1.6471

.63068

85

POMBT

3.9882

2.24401

85

  1. Note. Codes indicate: PR = pre-test, C = cell unit, PO = post-test, MB = Molecular Biology Unit; numbers refer to individual conceptual question items and T = total score. Unequal sample sizes resulted from missing data due to students’ extended absences during the testing period

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hand, B., Hohenshell, L. & Prain, V. Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students’ understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instr Sci 35, 343–373 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9012-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9012-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation