Writing for learning in science: A secondary analysis of six studies

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 615-637

  Gunel, Murat ^a   Hand, Brian ^b   Prain, Vaughan ^c  

^a ATATÜRK UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Qualitative method; Science learning; Science literacy; Secondary analysis; Writing to learn

Indexed keywords

EID: 35349020039     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-007-9082-y     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Alvermann, D. (2004). Multiliteracies and self questioning in the service of science learning. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 226-238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
3. Arthur, W. Jr., Bennett, W. Jr., & Huffcutt, A.I. (2001). Conducting meta-analysis using SAS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bowerman, B. & O'Connell, R.T. (1990). Linear statistical models: an applied approach. PWS Kent, Boston.
6. 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.
7. Cooper, H & Hedges, L.V. (Eds.) (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage.
8. Dunn, O.J. & Clark, V. (1987). Applied statistics: analysis of variance and regression, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.
9. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
10. Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication 31, 21-32.
11. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In T. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139-150). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
12. Galbraith, D. & Torrance, M. (1999). Conceptual processes in writing: from problem-solving to text production. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production (pp. 1-12). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
13. 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.
14. Grimberg, I. & Hand, B. (2003). The impact of a scientific writing approach in high school students' learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
15. Gunel, M., Omar, S., Grimberg, I., & Hand, B. (2002). Quantitative results from using the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for learning in 7th grade biology class. Paper presented at the international conference on Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic, and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, September.
16. 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, AU: Harcourt Brace.
17. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L.D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to improve science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 1021-1036.
18. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004a). Exploring students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: a study with Year 10 science students. J Res Sci Teach, 41, 186-210.
19. Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E., (2004b). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. Int J Sci Educ, 26, 131-149.
20. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V., (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students' understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instruct Sci.
21. Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S.G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
22. Hohenshell, L., Hand, B., & Staker, J. (2004). Promoting conceptual understanding of biotechnology through writing to a younger audience. Am Biol Teach 66, 333-338
23. Holliday, W., Yore, L.D., & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. J Res Sci Teach 31(9), 877-893.
24. Kelly, G. & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. J Res Sci Teach 36, 883-915.
25. Keys, C.W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. J Res Sci Teach 36(10), 1065-1084.
26. Kiecolt, K.J. & Nathan, L.E. (1985). Secondary analysis of survey data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
27. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educ Psychol Rev 11(3), 203-270.
28. J.A. Kulik 2002 School mathematics and science programs benefit from instructional technology (InfoBrief, NSF 03-301) National Science Foundation Washington, DC
29. Kulik, J.A. (2002). School mathematics and science programs benefit from instructional technology (InfoBrief, NSF 03-301). National Science Foundation. Washington, DC. From http://dwbrr.unl.edu/iTech/TEAC859/Read/KulikTech.pdf.
30. Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Murali, N.S., Murali, H.R., Auethavekiat, P., Erwin, P.J., Mandrekar, J.N., Manek, N.J., & Ghosh, A.K. (2004). Impact of FUTON and NAA bias on visibility of research. Mayo Clinic Proc 79(8), 1001-1006.
32. Prain, V. & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: rethinking practices. Teach Teach Educ 12(6), 609-626.
33. Revicki, D.A., Zodet, M.W., Joshua-Gotlib, S., Levine, D., & Crawley, J.A. (2003). Health-related quality of life improves with treatment-related GERD symptom resolution after adjusting for baseline severity. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1(73), 1-9.
34. Rivard, L.P. (1994). A review of writing-to-learn in science: Implications for practice and research. J Res Sci Teach 31, 969-983.
35. Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R.L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
36. Sheskin, D. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 3rd edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
37. Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
38. Sutton, C. (1993). Figuring out a scientific understanding. J Res Sci Teach 30, 1215-1227.
39. Wallace, C.S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
40. Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference, American Psychological Association, Science Directorate, Washington, DC (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. Am Psychol 54(8), 594-604.
41. Yang, E., Hand, B., & Bruxvoort, C. (2002). Using writing-to-learn strategies to improve Year 11 students' understandings of stoichiometry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, April.
42. Yore, L.D., Bisanz, G.L., & Hand, B.M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language and science research. Int J Sci Educ 25, 689-725.