Meaning making: What reflective essays reveal about biology students' conceptions about natural selection

Instructional Science

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 137-169

  Balgopal, Meena M ^a   Montplaisir, Lisa M ^b  

^a Veterinary Dentistry and Oral Surgery   (United States)

^b NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Affective; Authentic; Cognitive; Learning; Undergraduate; Writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951853050     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-009-9120-y     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Alvermann, D. E. (2004). Multiliteracies and self-questioning in the service of science learning. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 226-238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
2. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978.
3. Baker, L. (2004). Reading comprehension and science metacognitive connections. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 239-257). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
4. Balgopal, M. M. (2007). Examining undergraduate understanding of natural selection and evolution. (Doctoral dissertation, North Dakota State University, 2007) Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(05), 273.
5. Balgopal, M. M., Dahlberg, S., & Wallace, A. M. (2009). Guiding college students to become more ecologically literate through writing activities Paper presented at the annual conference of the Ecological Society of America, Albuquerque, NM, August 2-7.
6. Balgopal, M. M., Reed, W., & Montplaisir, L. (2006). 'Sloppy writing' and conceptual change in a college course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Researchers in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA, April 3-6.
7. Balgopal, M. M., & Wallace, A. M. (2009). Decisions and dilemmas: Using writing to learn activities to increase ecological literacy of elementary education majors. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 13-26.
8. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). Psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427.
10. Blumberg, M. S. (2002). Body heat. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
12. Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. New York: Penguin Books.
13. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition & the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
14. Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Licoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16. Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837.
17. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142.
18. D'Avanzo, C. (2003). Application of research on learning to college teaching: Ecological examples. Biosciences, 53, 1121-1128.
19. Denzin, N. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128.
21. Feldman, A. (2004). Knowing and being in science: expanding the possibilities. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 140-157). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
22. Fellows, N. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 31(9), 985-1001.
23. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
24. Futuyma, D. J. (1986). Evolutionary biology (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
25. Gee, J. P. (2002). 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 education (pp. 13-32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
26. Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
27. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
28. 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.
29. Ingram, E. L., & Nelson, C. E. (2006). Relationship between achievement and students' acceptance of evolution or creation in an upper-level evolution course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 7-24.
30. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 691-718.
31. Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students' written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044-1061.
32. Knain, E. (2005). Identity and genre literacy in high-school students' experimental reports. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 607-624.
33. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34. Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B. R., & Falconer, K. A. (2000). What kinds of scientific concepts exist? Concept construction and intellectual development in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 996-1018.
35. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316.
36. Lemke, J. L., Kelly, G. J., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Forum: Towards a phenomenology of interviews. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 83-106.
37. Levin, T., & Wagner, T. (2006). In their own words: Understanding student conceptions of writing through their spontaneous metaphors in the science classrooms. Instructional Science, 34(3), 227-278.
38. Lim, M., & Barton, A. C. (2006). Science learning and a sense of place in an urban middle school. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 107-142.
39. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
40. Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359-389.
41. Mason, L., & Buscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change: What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199-226.
42. McLeod, S. H. (1997). Notes on the heart. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
43. Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). "Maestro, what is 'quality'?": Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498.
44. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
45. Munson, C. E., & Balgopal, P. R. (1978). The worker-client relationship: Relevant role theory. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 5(3), 404-417.
46. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
47. Nagasawa, P., Landschulz, S., & Frederickson, J. (2005). Examining genre opportunities in the science classroom: Conceptual idea building, purpose, language. Paper presented at Annual Conference of the National Association of Researchers in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
48. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
49. Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67, 489-508.
50. Reardon, J. (2004). Readers are scientists: A reflective exploration of the reasoning of young scientists, readers, writers, and discussants. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 209-223). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
51. Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420-442.
52. Ruth, L., & Murphy, S. (1984). Designing topics for writing assessment: Problems of meaning. College Composition & Communication, 35(4), 410-422.
53. Saul, E. W. (2002). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 226-238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
54. Scott, T. (2005). Creating the subject of portfolios: Reflective writing and the conveyance of institutional prerogatives. Written Communication, 22(1), 3-35.
55. Shahn, E., & Costello, R. K. (2000). Evidence and interpretation: Teachers reflections on reading writing in an introductory science course. Language & Learning Across the Disciplines, 1, 47-82.
56. Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science Education, 85, 328-348.
57. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
58. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
59. Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the "Third Space". Science Education, 88, 901-914.
60. Wallace, C. S., & Hand, B. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to promote learning from laboratory. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand, & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 67-89). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
61. Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Yang, E.-M. (2004). The science writing heuristic: Using writing as a tool for learning in the laboratory. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 355-368). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
62. Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., & Webster, J. (2003). Developing pupils' written expression of procedural understanding from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 173-192.
63. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
64. Witz, K. G., Goodwin, D. R., Hart, R. S., & Thomas, H. S. (2001). An essentialist methodology in education-related research using in-depth interviews. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(2), 195-227.