Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers?

Science Education

Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 420-442

  Rivard, Léonard P ^a  

^a University Saint Boniface   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442569732     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.10114     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Ackerman, J. M. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10, 334-370.
2. Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099-1114.
3. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S., Latham, A. S., & Gentile, C. A. (1994). NAEP 1992 writing report card (Report No. 23-W01). Washington, DC: Education Information Branch, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
4. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin.
5. Barnes, D. (1990). Oral language and learning. In S. Hynds & D. L. Rubin (Eds.), Perspectives on talk and learning (pp. 41-54). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of English.
6. Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101, 529-547.
7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Bourdin, B., Fayol, M., & Darciaux, S. (1996). The comparison of oral and written modes on adult's and children's narrative recall. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 159-169). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
9. Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
10. Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "conversation of mankind". College English, 46, 635-652.
11. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Smerdon, B. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297-331.
13. Carter, G., Jones, M. G., & Rua, M. (2003). Effects of partner's ability on the achievement and conceptual organization of high-achieving fifth-grade students. Science Education, 87, 94-111.
14. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
15. Chang-Wells, G. L. M., & Wells, G. (1993). Dynamics of discourse: Literacy and the construction of knowledge. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 58-90). New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
17. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 3-56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
18. Corson, D. (1988). Oral language across the curriculum. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
19. Cuban, L. (1989). The "at-risk" label and the problem of urban school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 780-801.
20. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
21. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
22. Dysthe, O. (1996). The multivoiced classroom: Interactions of writing and classroom discourse. Written Communication, 13, 385-425.
23. Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 985-1001.
24. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students' interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 227-267.
25. Galbraith, D. (1992). Conditions for discovery through writing. Instructional Science, 21, 45-71.
26. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139-159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
27. Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Teaching for understanding and application of science knowledge. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 310-318.
28. Glatthorn, A. A. (1991). Restructuring schools: Curriculum reform. In K. M. Kershner & J. A. Connolly (Eds.), At-risk students and school restructuring (pp. 77-84). Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.
29. Greene, S., & Ackerman, J. M. (1995). Expanding the constructivist metaphor: A rhetorical perspective on literacy research and practice. Review of Educational Research, 65, 383-420.
30. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
31. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Wallace, C. W. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students' answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education, 32, 19-34.
32. Hand, B. M., Prain, V., & Yore, L. (2001). Sequential writing tasks' influence on science learning. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 105-129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
33. Horowitz, R., & Samuels, S. J. (1987). Comprehending oral and written language: Critical contrasts for literacy and schooling. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 1-52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
34. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 82, 407-416.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Kirkpatrick, L. D., & Pittendrigh, A. S. (1984). A writing teacher in the physics classroom. The Physics Teacher, 22, 159-164.
38. Klein, P. D. (1999a). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203-270.
39. Klein, P. D. (1999b). Learning science through writing: The role of rhetorical structures. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 132-153.
40. Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking (Research Report No. 22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
41. Lehr, J. B., & Harris, H. W. (1988). At risk, low achieving students in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
42. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
43. Lemke, J. L. (2002). Enseñar todos los lenguajes de la ciencia: palabras, símbolos, imágenes y acciones [Teaching all the languages of science: Words, gestures, images, and actions]. In Montse Benlloch (Ed.), La educación en ciencias: ideas para mejorar su práctica (pp. 159-186). Barcelona, ES: Paidos. Retrieved February 11, 2003, from http://www.personal.umich.edu/-jaylemke/papers/barcelon.htm
44. Lewis, M., & Wray, D. (1995). Developing children's non-fiction writing: Working with writing frames. Warwickshire, UK: Scholastic.
45. Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., & Mallette, B. (1991). Peer-mediated instruction: A review of potential applications for special education. Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities, 7, 75-103.
46. Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359-389.
47. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377-411.
48. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Introduction: New visions of teaching. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 1-10). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
50. Milliken, G. A., & Johnson, D. E. (1992). Analysis of messy data, Vol. 1: Designed experiments. New York: Chapman & Hall.
51. Mullis, I. V. S., & Jenkins, L. B. (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and recovery. Trends and achievement based on the 1986 National Assessment. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
52. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
53. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). Chicago: Irwin.
54. Newell, G. E. (1998). "How much are we the wiser?": Continuity and change in writing and learning in the content areas. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The reading-writing connection (pp. 178-202). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
55. Newell, G. E., & Winograd, P. (1995). Writing about and learning from history texts: The effects of task and academic ability. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 133-163.
56. Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. White Plains, NY: Longman.
57. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
58. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of English lessons. In M. Nystrand, A. Gamoran, R. Kachur, & C. Prendergast (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 30-74). New York: Teachers College Press.
59. Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & Carbonaro, W. (2001). On the ecology of classroom instruction: The case of writing in high school English and Social Studies. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 57-81). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
60. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
61. Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62. Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils' and parents' views of the school science curriculum. London: King's College London.
63. Penrose, A. M. (1992). To write or not to write: Effects of task and task interpretation on learning through writing. Written Communication, 9, 465-500.
64. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609-626.
65. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83, 151-162.
66. Prawat, R. S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22, 5-16.
67. Pressley, M., Goodchild, E, Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 301-342.
68. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969-983.
69. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566-593.
70. Rowell, P. M. (1997). Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30, 19-56.
71. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Ideas in the air: Speculations on small group learning, environmental and cultural influences on cognition, and epistemology. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 71-88.
72. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.
73. Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: Challenges for research on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 66, 53-86.
74. Stedman, L. C. (1997). International achievement differences: An assessment of a new perspective. Educational Researcher, 26, 4-15.
75. Sutton, C. R. (1998). New perspectives on language in science. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 27-38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
76. Sweigart, W. (1991). Classroom talk, knowledge development, and writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 469-496.
77. Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 259-274.
78. Thornburg, D. G. (1991). Strategy instruction for academically at-risk students: An exploratory study of teaching "higher-order" reading and writing in the social studies. Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities, 7, 377-406.
79. Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1996). Finding something to write about: Strategic and automatic processes in idea generation. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 189-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
80. Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (2001). Writing as a learning tool. Integrating theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
81. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 607-651.
83. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
84. Wray, D., & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-fiction. London: Routledge.