Writing experiment manuals in science education: The impact of writing, genre, and audience

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 28, Issue 2-3, 2006, Pages 203-233

  Rijlaarsdam, Gert ^a,b   Couzijn, Michel ^a   Janssen, Tanja ^a   Braaksma, Martine ^a,c   Kieft, Marleen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 31344432082     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500336932     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Studies in writing: Vol. 9. Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. 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(1), 29–58.
3. Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593–604.
4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bizzell, P. (1982). Composing processes: An overview. In A. R. Petrosky & D. Bartholoae (Eds.), The teaching of writing: The eighty-fifth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 49–70). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Bonset, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004). Mother tongue education (L1) in the learning to learn paradigm: Creative redevelopment of learning materials. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4, 35–62.
7. Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405–415.
8. Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1–36.
9. Braaksma, M. A. H., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Couzijn, M. (2001). Effective learning activities in observation tasks when learning to write and read argumentative texts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1, 33–48.
10. Brandt, D. (1992). The cognitive as the social: An ethnomethodological approach to writing process research. Written Communication, 9, 315–355.
11. Brillhart, L. V., & Debs, M. B. (1981). Teaching writing—A scientist’s responsibility. Journal of College Science Teaching, 10(5), 303–304.
12. Chi, M. T. H., & Van Lehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 69–105
13. Couzijn, M. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 9, 109–142.
14. Couzijn, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004). Learning to read and write argumentative text by observation. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching of writing (2nd ed.), Part 1, Studies in learning to write (pp. 241–258). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
16. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamic of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Galbraith, D. (1996). Self-monitoring, discovery through writing and individual differences in drafting strategy. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 121–141). Amsterdam: University Press.
19. Galbraith, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction, 2, 93–108.
20. Gallaghan, M., Knapp, P., & Noble, G. (1993). Genre in practice. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 179–202). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
21. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Gratz, R. K. (1990). Improving lab report quality by model analysis, peer review and revision. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19(5), 292–295.
23. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.
26. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research in written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English.
27. Holliway, D. R., & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience perspective in young writers composing and revising: Reading as the reader. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 13. Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 87–101). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28. King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK-TEL WHY®©: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221–235.
29. King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 134–152.
30. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.
31. Linn, M. C., & His, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66–85.
33. Ocel, J. J., Palmer, B. A., Wittich, C. M., Carmichael, S. W., & Pawlina, W. (2003). Outcomes of the gross and developmental anatomy teaching assistant experience. Clinical Anatomy, 16(6), 526–530.
34. Prain, V. (2002, September). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical implications. Paper presented at the international conference on Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
35. Princeton University. (2002). Undergraduate engineering council’s “survival tips”. Retrieved July 31, 2002, from www.princeton.edu.
36. Rijlaarsdam, G. (2003, August). Studying processes in writing and reading literary fiction: Outcomes for researchers and learners. Keynote address at the 10th European conference for Research on Learning and Instruction. Padua, Italy.
37. Rijlaarsdam, G., & Braaksma, M. (2004). Schrijven en leren schrijven. Niet zelf doen, maar zien hoe anderen het doen [Writing and learning-to-write. Learning from observing others]. Levende Talen Magazine, 3, 17–22.
38. Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., & Van den Bergh, H. (2004). The study of revision as a writing process and as a learning-to-write process. Revision in the context of different drafting strategies. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 13. Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 189–207). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39. Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2004). Effective learning and teaching of writing: Student involvement in the teaching of writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching in writing (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
40. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: McMillan.
41. Schriver, K. A. (1991). Plain language through protocol-aided revision. In E. R. Steinberg (Ed.), Plain language: Principles and practice (pp. 148–172). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
42. Schriver, K. A. (1992). Teaching writing to anticipate readers’ needs: A classroom-evaluated pedagogy. Written Communication, 9(2), 179–208.
43. Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cognitive science series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Sonnenschein, S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1983). Training referential communication skills: The limits of success. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35, 426–436.
45. Sonnenschein, S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1984). Developing referential communication: A hierarchy of skills. Child Development, 55, 1936–1945.
46. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
47. Tulving, E. (1972). Semantic and episodic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press.
48. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multi-literacies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. New York: Open University Press.
49. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 689–725.
50. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.