Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 28, Issue 2-3, 2006, Pages 179-201

  Prain, Vaughan ^a  

^a LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 31344440817     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500336643     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Aikenhead, G. (1996). Science education: border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27(1), 1–52.
2. Aikenhead, G. (2003, August). Review of research on humanistic perspectives in science curricula. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. Retrieved April 24, 2004, from http://www.usask.ca/education/people/aikenhead/ESERA_2.pdf
3. Aikenhead, G. S., Jegede O., & Allen, N. (1999). Culture studies in science education: Students’ indigenous cultures versus the culture of science. NARST Preconference Session, Boston.
4. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33, 131–152.
5. Alford, M. (2002). Wittgenstein and scientific knowledge. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from http://lnsearth.mit.edu/∼alford/jjapp.html.
6. Alvermann, D. (2002, September). Science after school: Putting everyday literacies to work in the service of classroom learning. 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, B.C., Canada. Retrieved March 16, 2004, from http://www.educ.uvic.ca/faculty/lyore/sciencelanguage/partic.htm.
7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: the structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.
9. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London and Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education).
10. Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool. Amsterdam: Kluwer Press.
11. Bowler, P. (1992). The Fontana history of the environmental sciences. London: Harper Collins.
12. Brickhouse, N. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.
13. Champagne, A., & Kouba, V. (1999). Written products as performance measures. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee, & J. Novak, (eds.). Assessing science understanding: A Human constructivist view (pp. 224–248). New York: Academic Press.
14. Christie, F. (1981). The language development project. English in Australia, 58, 3–10.
15. Cobern, W. W., Gibson, A. T., & Underwood, S. A. (1995). Valuing scientific literacy. Science Teacher, 62(9), 28–31.
16. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.
17. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
18. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., et al. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology- based learning environments. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
19. Dewey, J. (1916/1994). Democracy and education. New York: MacMillan.
20. Dolin, J. (2001). Representational forms in physics. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Bisdikian, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & E. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge-based society. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the ESERA (Vol. 1, pp. 359–364). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki/European Science Education Research Association.
21. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649–672.
22. Dunbar, K. (1999). The scientist in vivo: How scientists think and reason in the laboratory. In L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 89–98). Amsterdam: Plenum Press.
23. Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1994). The content of science. A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.
24. Florence, M., & Yore, L. (2002, April). Learning to write like a scientist. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
25. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
26. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
27. Gentner, D., Holyoak, K., & Kokinov, B. (Eds.) (2000). Analogy: Perspectives from cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
28. Gianello, L. (Ed.). (1988). Getting into gear: Gender inclusive teaching strategies developed by the McClintock Collective. Canberra, Australia: Curriculum Development Centre.
29. Gilbert, J. (Ed.). (1993). Models and modeling in science education. Hatfield, England: Association for Science Education.
30. Gobert, J., & Clement, J. (1999). The effects of student-generated diagrams versus studentgenerated summaries on conceptual understanding of spatial, causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Education, 36(1), 39–53.
31. Gould, S. (1996). Full house: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York: Harmony Books.
32. Gunel, M., Akkus, R., Hohenshell, L., & Hand, B. (2004, April). Improving student performance on higher order cognitive questions through the use of the science writing heuristic. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.
33. Gunstone, R. (1995). Constructivist learning and the teaching of science. In B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom. Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace.
34. Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
35. Halliday, M. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. Halliday & J. Martin, Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
36. Halliday, M., & Martin, J. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
37. Hand, B., Alvermann, D., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B., Norris, S., Phillips, L., et al. (2003). Message from the “Island Group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 607–615.
38. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & 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
39. Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27–29.
40. Hand, B., Keys, C., Prain, V., & Sellars, S. (1998, April). Rethinking the laboratory report: Writing to learn from investigations. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
41. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (Eds.). (1995). Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom. Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace.
42. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035.
43. Hanrahan, M. (1999). Rethinking science literacy: enhancing communication and participation in school science through affirmational dialogue journal writing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 699–718.
44. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. New York: Routledge.
45. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women. New York: Routledge.
46. Harrison, A. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401–435.
47. Hawking, S (1988/1997). A brief history of time: from the big bang to black holes. New York: Bantam Press.
48. 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.
49. Hildebrand, G. (1999, April). Breaking the pedagogical contract: Teachers’ and students’ voices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.
50. Hildebrand, G. (2004, April). Hybrid writing genres: a link between pleasure and engagement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.
51. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
52. Jonassen, D., & Carr, C. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. In S. LaJoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 165–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. Keller, E., & Longino, H. (Eds.). (1996). Feminism and science. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
54. Kelly, G. J. (2004, April). Epistemological dimensions of science literacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.
55. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883–915.
56. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.
57. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds, Educational Researcher, 27(3), 1–10.
59. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science. Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.
60. Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.
61. Lemke, J. (2002a). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. Retrieved March 17, 2004, from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm.
62. Lemke, J. (2002b). Multimedia genres for science education and scientific literacy. Retrieved March 17, 2004, from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/webs/nasa/Davis-NASA.htm.
63. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
64. Linn, M. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 781–796.
65. Martin, J. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. Halliday & J. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
66. Martin, J. (1999). Mentoring semiogenesis: “genre-based” literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 123–155). London: Cassell (Open Linguistics Series).
67. Martin, J. (2000). Design and practice: Enacting functional linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 116–126.
68. Martin, J., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.
69. Michaels, S., & Sohmer, R. (2000). Narratives and inscriptions: cultural tools, power and powerful sense-making. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.
70. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
71. Ogborn, J. (1995). Recovery reality. Studies in Science Education, 25, 3–38.
72. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
73. Paton, R. (2002). Metaphors in scientific thinking. Retrieved from http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/∼rcp/metaphor.html.
74. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing and learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609–626.
75. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83, 151–162.
76. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2002). Pupil learning through writing in science. In S. Amos & R. Boohan (Eds.), Aspects of teaching secondary science: Perspectives on practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
77. Rivard, L., & Straw, S. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science. Science Education, 84, 566–593.
78. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science (Vol. 1). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
79. Roth, W.-M. (2004). Gestures: The leading edge in literacy development. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.
80. Roth, W.-M., & McRobbie, C. (1999). Lifeworlds and the “w/ri(gh)ting” of classroom research. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(5), 501–522.
81. Rowell, P. A. (1997). Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30, 19–56.
82. Russell, T., & McGuigan, L. (2001). Promoting understanding through representational redescription: an illustration referring to young pupils’ ideas about gravity. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Bisdikian, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & E. Kallery (Eds.), Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the ESERA (Vol. 2, pp. 600–602). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki/European Science Education Research Association.
83. Sankey, H. (2002). The language of science: Meaning variance and theory comparison. Retrieved March 18, 2004, from http://www.hps.unimelb.edu.au/student/biographies/howardpaper7.htm.
84. Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.
85. Scheppegrell, M. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 67–96.
86. Shepherd, L. (1993). Lifting the veil: The feminine face of science. Boston: Shambhala Publications.
87. Stadler, H., Benke, G., & Duit, R. (2001). How do boys and girls use language in physics classes? In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education—Past, present, and future. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
88. Stenning, K. (1998). Representation and conceptualisation in educational communication. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 320–333). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
89. Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
90. Sutton, C. (1993). Figuring out a scientific understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1215–1227.
91. Sutton, C. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 1–18.
92. Thier, M., & Daviss, B. (2002). The new science literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
93. Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (Eds.). (1999). Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
94. Tucknott, J. M., & Yore, L. D. (1999, March). The effects of writing activities on Grade 4 children’s understandings of simple machines, inventions and inventors. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.
95. Unsworth, L. (1997). Explaining explanations: enhancing science learning and literacy development. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 43(1), 34–49.
96. Unsworth, L. (2000). Investigating subject-specific literacies in school learning. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities. London: Continuum (Cassell).
97. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
98. Veel, R (1996). Learning how to mean—Scientifically speaking. In F. Christie (Ed.), Genre and institutions: The language of work and schooling. London: Cassell Academic.
99. Venuti, L. (Ed.). (2000). The translation studies reader. New York: Routledge.
100. Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject. Studies in Science Education, 37, 43–84.
101. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
102. Yore, L., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). The desired image of a science writer. Science Education, 86(5), 672–692.