Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding?

Research in Science and Technological Education

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 227-240

  Newton, Lynn D ^a   Newton, D P ^b   Blake, A ^b   Brown, K ^a,b  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347374909     PISSN: 02635143     EISSN: 14701138     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0263514022000030471     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. NKWTON, L.D., 2001b. Supporting understanding: using teachers' questions in the elementary school. Teachers and Curriculum, (NZ), 5: 6–10.
2. NlCKERSON, R.S., 1985. Understanding understanding. American Journal of Education, 93: 201–239.
3. OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education). 1994. Primary Matters, London: HMSO.
4. OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education). 1999. Primary Education, 1994-98, London: The Stationery Office.
5. PEACOCK, A., and GATES, S., 2000. Newly qualified primary teachers' perceptions of the role of text material in teaching science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(2): 155–171.
6. PlAGET, J., 1978. Success and Understanding, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
7. ROBERTS, H.C., 1969. The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus, New York: Nostradamus Inc.
8. ROBERTSON, I., and KAHNEY, H., 1996. The use of examples in expository text: outline of an interpretation theory for text analysis. Instructional Science, 24: 93–123.
9. TRABASSO, T., and SPERRY, L.L., 1985. The causal basis for deciding importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24: 612–630.
10. WILDY, H., and WALLACE, J., 1992. Understanding teaching or teaching for understanding. American Educational Research Journal, 29: 143–156.
11. YORE, L.D., 1991. Secondary science teachers' attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28: 55–72.
12. UNSWORTH, L., 2001. Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23: 342–352.
13. VACHON, M.K., and HANEY, R.E., 1991. A procedure for determining the level of abstraction of science reading material. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28: 342–352.
14. VAN DEN BROEK, P., VIRTUE, S., EVERSON, M.G., TZANG, Y., and SUNG, Y., 2002. “ Comprehension and memory of science texts ”. In The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension, Edited by: OTERO, J., LEÓN, J.A., and GRAESSER, A.C., 131–154. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. WALPOLE, S., 1998. Changing texts, changing thinking. The Reading Teacher, 52: 358–370.
16. WEBER, R.W., 1990. Basic Content Analysis, 39–74. London: Sage.
17. WELLINGTON, J., 2001. School textbooks and reading in science. School Science Review, 300: 71–83.
18. WHEELER, A.E., and HILL, D., 1990. Diagram-ease. Why children misinterpret diagrams. The Science Teacher, 57: 58–63.
19. BECK, I.L., MCKEOWN, M.G., SINATRA, G.M., and LOXTERMAN, J.A., 1991. Revising social studies text from a text processing perspective: evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26: 251–76.
20. BREWER, W.F., CHINN, C.A., and SAMARAPUNGAVAN, A., 2000. “ Explanations in scientists and children ”. In Explanation and Cognition, Edited by: KElL, F.C., and WlLSON, R.A., 279–298. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
21. BRITTON, B.K., and GRAESSER, A.C., eds. 1996. Models of Understanding Text, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. BROWN, G., and WRAGG, E.G., 1993. Explaining, London: Routledge.
23. CAINE, R., and CAINE, G., 1994. Mating Connections, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
24. CHAMBLISS, M.J., and CALFEE, R.C., 1989. Designing science textbooks to enhance student understanding. Educational Psychologist, 24: 307–322.
25. CHAN, C.K., and SACHS, J., 2001. Beliefs about learning in children's understanding of science texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26: 192–210.
26. COHEN, S.A., and STEINBERG, J.E., 1983. Effects of three types of vocabulary on readability of intermediate grade science textbooks. Reading Research Quarterly, 19: 86–101.
27. COLBURN, A., 1998. Constructivism and science teaching. Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks, 435: 7–44.
28. DAS GUPTA, P., and BRYANT, P.E., 1989. Young children's causal inferences. Child Development, 60: 1138–1146.
29. DEE-LUCAS, D., and LARKIN, J.H., 1991. Equations in scientific proofs. American Educational Research Journal, 28: 661–682.
30. DRISCOLL, M.P., MOALLEM, M., DICK, W., and KIRBY, E., 1994. How does the textbook contribute to learning in a middle school science class?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19: 79–100.
31. DUNN, J., and BROWN, J.R., 1993. Early conversations about causality. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11: 107–123.
32. GARDNER, H., and BOIX-MANSILLA, V., 1994. Teaching for understanding in the disciplines and beyond. Teachers College Record, 96: 198–218.
33. GARNER, R., and ALEXANDER, P.A., 1994. Beliefs about Text and Instruction with Text, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. RODRIGUES, S., and THOMPSON, I., 2001. Cohesion in science lesson discourse: clarity, relevance and sufficient information. International Journal of Science Education, 23: 929–940.
35. ROSSI, J.P., 1990. The function of frame in the comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82: 727–732.
36. ROYER, J.M., 1986. “ Designing instruction to produce understanding ”. In Cognitive Classroom Ltarning, Edited by: PHYE, G.D., and ANDRE, T., 83–113. San Diego: Academic Press.
37. SIERPINSKA, A., 1994. Understanding in Mathematics, London: Falmer Press.
38. SIMON, H.A., 2000. “ Discovering explanations ”. In Explanation and Cognition, Edited by: KEIL, F.C., and WILSON, R.A., 21–59. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
39. STRAUSS, S., 1993. Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge about children's minds and learning. Educational Psychologist, 28: 279–290.
40. HARLEN, W., and HOLROYD, C., 1997. Primary teachers' understanding of concepts of science: impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19: 93–105.
41. HUBISZ, J.L., 2001. Report on a study of middle school physical science texts. The Physics Teacher, 39: 304–309.
42. KITCHER, P., and SALMON, W.C., 1989. Scientific Explanations, Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis.
43. LEÓN, J.A., and PEÑALBA, G.E., 2002. “ Understanding causality and temporal sequence in scientific discourse ”. In The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension, Edited by: OTERO, J., LEÓN, J.A., and GRAESSER, A.C., 155–178. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44. LINKHOUS, V., 2000. Simply speaking. Childhood Education, 76: 161
45. MAURICE-NAVlLLE, D., and MONTENEGRO, J., 1992. The development of diachronic thinking. British Journal of Developmental Educational Psychology, 10: 365–383.
46. MAYER, R.E., 1989. Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81: 240–246.
47. MAYER, R.E., STEINHOFF, K., and BOWER, G., 1995. A generative theory of textbook design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43: 31–43.
48. McNAMARA, D.S., KlNTSCH, E., and SONGER, N.B., 1996. Are good texts always better?. Cognition and Instruction, 14: 1–43.
49. McWHIRTER, N., 1999. The Book of Millennium Records, London: Virgin.
50. MlLLAR, R., and OSBORNE, J., 1998. Beyond 2000: science education for the future, London: University of London.
51. MINTZES, J.J., WANDERSLEE, J.H., and NOVAK, J.D., 1997. Teaching Science for Understanding, San Diego: Academic Press.
52. NEWTON, D.P., 1990. Teaching with Text, London: Kogan Page.
53. NEWTON, D.P., 1994. Supporting the comprehension of tabulated data. British Educational Research Journal, 20: 455–63.
54. NEWTON, D.P., 1995. Support for Understanding: Discourse Which Aids the Construction of a Functional Mental Model of Causal Situations. Research in Science and Technological Education, 13: 109–122.
55. NEWTON, D.P., 2000. Teaching for Understanding, London: Routledge/Falmer.
56. NEWTON, D.P., 2002. Talking Sense in Science, London: Routledge/Falmer.
57. NEWTON, D.P., and MERRELL, C.H., 1994. Words that count. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 25: 457–462.
58. NEWTON, D.P., and NEWTON, L.D., 2000. Do teachers support causal understanding through theirdiscourse when teaching primary science?. British Educational Research Journal, 26: 599–613.
59. NEWTON, D.P., NEWTON, L.D., BLAKE, A., and BROWN, K., 2002. “ Is understanding a priority in elementary science teaching? ”. In Progress in Educational Research, New York: Nova Science. in press
60. NEWTON, L.D., Teachers' questioning for understanding in primary science. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Primary Science Teacher Education. 9 July. Durham, England: University of Durham.
61. NEWTON, L.D., 1997b. Teachers' questioning for understanding in science. British Journal of Curriculum and Assessment, 8: 28–32.
62. NEWTON, L.D., 2001a. Teaching for understanding in primary science. Evaluation and Research in Education, 15(3): 143–153.
63. GLYNN, S., and TAKAHASHI, T., 1998. Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35: 1129–1149.
64. GOPNIK, A., 2000. “ Explanations as orgasm and the drive for causal knowledge ”. In Explanation and Cognition, Edited by: KElL, F.C., and WILSON, R.A., 299–323. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
65. GREENBAUM, S., 1996. The Oxford English Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66. GUZZETTI, B.J., WILLIAMS, W.O., and SKEELS, S.A., 1997. The influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34: 701–719.
67. HALFORD, G.S., 1993. Children's Understanding, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68. HAMILTON, R.J., 1985. A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and objectives. Review of Educational Research, 55: 47–73.
69. HANNUS, M., and HYONA, J., 1999. Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24: 95–123.