Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific literacy

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 403-428

  Baram Tsabari, Ayelet ^a   Yarden, Anat ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; CURRICULA; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; STUDENTS;

BIOLOGICAL VOCABULARY; FUNCTIONAL LITERATE PERSON; SCIENTIFIC LITERACY; TEXT GENRE;

TEACHING;

EID: 17644362998     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20063     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Aikenhead, G.S. & Ryan, A.G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477-491.
2. Alexander, P.A. & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285-310). New Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Alexander, P.A. & Kulikowich, J.M. (1994). Learning from physics text: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 895-911.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). What is scientific literacy? Education Digest, 55, 43-45.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
8. Bettencourt, A. (1989). Scientific literacy: Buzzword, bus-word, or problem? East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
9. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (19th ed., Vol. 1). New York: David McKay.
10. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Brill, G., Falk, H., & Yarden, A. (2004). The learning processes of two high-school biology students when reading primary literature. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 497-512.
12. Bybee, R.W. (1997a). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices (1st ed.) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13. Bybee, R.W. (1997b, May, 26-30). Globalization of science education: Moving toward worldwide science education standards. Paper presented at the International Conference on Science Education, Seoul, Korea.
14. Chambers, S.K. & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 107-123.
15. Champagne, A.B., Kouba, V.L., Sherwood, S.A., Ho, C.-H., Cezikturk, O., & Van Benschoten, M. (2000, April 24-28). Assessing science literacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
16. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
17. Epstein, H.T. (1970). A strategy for education (1st ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Fincher-Kiefer, R.H. (1992). The role of prior knowledge in inferential processing. Journal of Research in Reading, 15, 12-27.
19. Fincher-Kiefer, R.H. (1996). Encoding differences between bridging and predictive inferences. Discourse Processes, 22, 225-246.
20. Fisher, B. (1980). Using literature to teach science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 173-177.
21. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
22. Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 275-279.
23. Grasser, A.C. & Goodman, S.M. (1985). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation of expository text. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 109-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Gross, A.D. (1978). The relationship between sex difference and reading ability in an Israeli kibbutz system. In D. Feitelson (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on reading and reading research (pp. 72-89). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
25. Guzzetti, B.J., Williams, W.O., Skeels, S.A., & Wu, S.M. (1997). Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 701-719.
26. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M.A.K. Halliday & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69-85). London, UK: Falmer Press.
27. Harlen, W., Raizen, S., & deRoo, I. (2000, April 24-28). Symposium on the assessment of scientific literacy in the OECD/PISA project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
28. Hogrebe, M.C., Nist, S.L., & Newman, I. (1985). Are there gender differences in reading achievement? An investigation using the high school and beyond data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 716-724.
29. 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.
30. Hurd, P.D. (1985). Science education for a new age: The reform movement. NASSP Bulletin, 69, 83-92.
31. Hurd, P.D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.
32. Hynd, C.R., McWhorter, J.Y., Phares, V.L., & Suttles, C.W. (1994). The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 933-946.
33. Israeli Ministry of Education. (1991). Syllabus of biological studies (7th-12th grade) [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education Curriculum Center.
34. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2003). Syllabus of biological studies [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education Curriculum Center.
35. Janick-Buckner, D. (1997). Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29, 29-32.
36. Jarman, R. & McClune, B. (2001). Use the news: A study of secondary teachers' use of newspapers in the science classroom. Educational Research, 35, 69-74.
37. Jarman, R. & McClune, B. (2002). A survey of the use of newspapers in science instruction by secondary teachers in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Science Education, 24,997-1020.
38. King, C. (2002). The "explanatory stories" approach to a curriculum for global science literature. In V.J. Mayer (Ed.), Global science literacy (pp. 53-78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
39. Kintsch, W. (1989). Learning from text. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 25-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294-303.
41. Korpan, C.A., Bisanz, G.L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J.M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81, 515-532.
42. Korpan, C.A., Bisanz, G.L., Dukewich, T.L., Robinson, K.M., Bisanz, J., Thibodeau, M.H., Hubbard, K.E., & Leighton, J.P. (1994). Assessing scientific literacy: A taxonomy for classifying questions and knowledge about scientific research (Technical Report No. 94-1): Centre for Research in Child Development, University of Alberta, Canada.
43. Kuldell, N. (2003). Read like a scientist to write like a scientist. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 32-35.
44. Laugksch R.C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71-94.
45. Laugksch, R.C. & Spargo, P.E. (1996a). Construction of a paper-and-pencil test of basic scientific literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 331-359.
46. Laugksch, R.C. & Spargo, P.E. (1996b). Development of a pool of scientific literacy test-items based on selected AAAS literacy goals. Science Education, 80, 121-143.
47. Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521.
48. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
49. McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
50. Messer-Davidow, E. (1985). Knowers, knowing, knowledge: Feminist theory and education. Journal of Thought, 20, 8-24.
51. Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London, UK: King's College.
52. Millar, R., Osborne, J., & Nott, M. (1998). Science education for the future. School Science Review, 80, 19-24.
53. Moravcsik, J.E. & Kintsch, W. (1993). Writing quality, reading skills, and domain knowledge as factors in text comprehension. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 360-374.
54. Mourez, M., Kane, R., Mogridge, J., Metallo, S., Deschatelets, P., Sellman, B., Whitesides, G., & Collier, R. (2001). Designing a polyvalent inhibitor of anthrax toxin. Nature Biotechnology, 19, 958-961.
55. Muench, S.B. (2000). Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goals. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29, 255-260.
56. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
57. Norris, S.P. & Phillips, L.M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947-967.
58. Ravid, D. (2004). Emergence of linguistic complexity in later language development: Evidence from expository text construction. In D. Ravid & B.Z.H. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
59. Ravid, D. & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29, 417-447.
60. Report of the Superior Committee on Science Mathematics and Technology Education in Israel. (1992). Tomorrow 98. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education.
61. Rosenblum, Y. & Markovits, A. (1976). Scientific prose or narrative style in a science program for the culturally disadvantaged. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2, 53-56.
62. Sandmann, A., Mackensen, I., & Lind, G. (2002, October 22-26). How "experts" learn biology. Paper presented at the European Researchers in Didaktik of Biology, Toulouse, France.
63. Schleicher, A. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris, France: OECD.
64. Schulte, B.A. (2003). Scientific writing and the scientific method: Parallel "hourglass" structure in form and content. The American Biology Teacher, 65, 591-594.
65. Schwab, J.J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education (5th ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66. Shamos, M.H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
67. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
68. Smith, G.R. (2001). Guided literature explorations: Introducing students to the primary literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 465-469.
69. Uno, G.E. & Bybee, R.W. (1994). Understanding the dimensions of biological literacy. Bioscience, 44, 553-558.
70. Wellington, J. (1991). Newspaper science, school science: Friends or enemies? International Journal of Science Education, 13, 363-372.
71. Wignell, P. (1994). Genre across the curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 6, 355-372.
72. Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
73. Yager, R.E. (1993). Science-Technology-Society as reform. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 145-151.
74. Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 190-195.
75. 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.
76. Yore, L.D., Craig, M.T., & Maguire, T.O. (1998). Index of science reading awareness: An interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grades 4-8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 27-51.