Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 354-367

  Gunel, Murat ^a   Hand, Brian ^b   McDermott, Mark Andrew ^b  

^a ATATÜRK UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Audience effect; Biology learning; Conceptual learning; Writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 62049086130     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Alvermann D.E. Multiliteracies and self-questioning in the service of science learning. In: Saul W. (Ed). Border crossing: Essays on literacy and science (2004), International Reading Association, Newark, DE 226-238
2. Bangert-Drowns R.L., Hurley M., and Wilkinson B. The effects of school based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 74 1 (2004) 29-58
3. Bereiter C., and Scardamalia M. The psychology of written composition (1987), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
4. Blystone, J. Rhetorical situations: Peace talks for the war on attention to audience in the composition classroom. Paper presented at the Conference on Rhetoric and the Teaching of Writing, July 1990, Indiana, PA, USA.
5. Boscolo P., and Mason L. Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In: Tynjala L.M., and Lonka K. (Eds). Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (2001), Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 83-104
6. Cavagnetto, A. (2006). Setting the question for inquiry: The effects of whole class vs. small group on student achievement in elementary science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
7. Cooper M. The ecology of writing. College English 48 (1986) 364-375
8. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division. Guidelines and principles for the development of disability statistics (No. ST/ESA/STAT/SER.Y/10) (2001), United Nations, New York
9. Ede L., and Lunsford A. Audience addressed/audience invoked: the role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication 35 2 (1984) 155-171
10. Emig J. Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication 28 (1977) 122-128
11. Engler C.S., Raphael T.E., Anderson L.M., Anthony H.M., and Stevens D.D. Making strategies and self-talk visible: writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal 28 (1991) 337-372
12. Flower L., and Hayes J.R. The cognition of discovery: defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication 31 (1980) 21-32
13. Galbraith D. Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In: Galbraith D., and Torrance M. (Eds). Studies in writing. Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production Vol. 4 (1999), Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 139-160
14. Galbraith D., and Torrance M. Conceptual processes in writing: from problem solving to text production. In: Galbraith D., and Torrance M. (Eds). Studies in writing. Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production Vol. 4 (1999), Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 1-12
15. 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.
16. Gunel M., Hand B., and Prain V. Secondary analysis of non-traditional writing in science across different grade-levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 4 5 (2007) 615-637
17. Hand B., Hohenshell L., and Prain V. 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 (2004) 186-210
18. Hand B., and Prain V. Writing for learning in science: a model for use within classrooms. Australian Science Teachers Journal 42 3 (1996) 23-27
19. Hand B., Wallace C., and Yang E. Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education 26 (2004) 131-149
20. Hillocks G. Research in written composition: New directions for teaching (1986), ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English, Urbana, IL
21. Hohenshell L.M., and Hand B. Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: a mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education 28 2-3 (2006) 261-289
22. Holliday W., Yore L., and Alvermann D. The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31 9 (1994) 877-893
23. Howard V.A., and Barton J.H. Thinking on paper (1986), Quill, New York
24. Jaubert M., and Rebiere M. Learning about science through writing. L1 - Educational Studies in Language and Literature 5 (2005) 315-333
25. Keys C.W., Hand B., Prain V., and Collins S. Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36 10 (1999) 1065-1084
26. Kieft M., Rijlaarsdam G., and Van den Bergh H. An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction 18 4 (2008) 379-390
27. Kintsch W. Learning from text. Cognition and Instruction 3 2 (1986) 87-108
28. Klein P. Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review 11 3 (1999) 203-270
29. Klein P. The challenges of science literacy: from the viewpoint of second generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education 28 (2006) 143-178
30. Klein P.D., Piacente-Cimini S., and Williams L.A. The role of writing in learning from analogies. Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 595-611
31. Mason L. Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: a classroom study. Learning and Instruction 11 4-5 (2001) 305-329
32. Mertler C.A., and Vannatta R.A. Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. 2nd ed. (2002), Pyrczak, Los Angeles, CA
33. Mitchell R., and Taylor M. The integrating perspective: an audience response model for writing. College English 41 (1979) 267
34. Monhardt, R. A comparison of a writing-to-learn strategy in two science classrooms. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, 1996, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
35. Newell G.E. Writing to learn: how alternative theories of school writing account for student performance. In: MacArthur C., Graham S., and Fitzgerald J. (Eds). Handbook of writing research (2006), Guilford, New York 235-247
36. Prain, V. Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical implications. Paper presented at the Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagalogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, 2002, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
37. Prain V., and Hand B. Science and literacy. In: Appleton K. (Ed). Elementary science teacher education: Issues and practice (2005), Association of Educators of Science Teachers Publication, Mahwah, NJ 154-174
38. Raudenbush S.W., and Bryk A.S. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. 2nd ed. (2002), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
39. Reiff M.J. Rereading 'invoked' and 'addressed' readers through a social lens: toward a recognition of multiple audiences. JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory 16 3 (1996) 407-424
40. Reiff M.J. Teaching audience post-process: recognizing the complexity of audiences in disciplinary contexts. A National Journal for Writing Across the Curriculum 13 (2002) 100-111
41. Rijlaarsdam G., and van den Bergh H. Writing process theory: a functional dynamic approach. In: MacArthur C., Graham S., and Fitzgerald J. (Eds). Handbook of writing research (2006), Guilford, New York 41-53
42. Rijlaarsdam G., Couziijn M., Janssen T., Braaksma M., and Kieft M. Writing experiment manuals in science education: the impact of writing, genre, and audience. International Journal of Science Education and Technology 28 2-3 (2006) 203-233
43. Sheskin D. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. 3rd ed. (2004), Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL
44. Tabachnick B.G., and Fidell L.S. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. (2000), Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA
45. Wallace C.S., Hand B., and Prain V. Writing and learning in the science classroom (2004), Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
46. Yore L.D., Bisanz G.L., and Hand B.M. Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education 25 6 (2003) 689-725
47. Yore L.D., and Treagust D.F. Current realities and future possibilities: language and science literacy - empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education 28 (2006) 291-314
48. Zohar A., and Peled B. The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction 18 4 (2008) 337-353