Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science classrooms

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1111-1133

  Nam, Jeonghee ^a   Choi, Aeran ^b   Hand, Brian ^c  

^a Pusan National University   (South Korea)

^b KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

argument based inquiry approach; pedagogy; writing to learn science

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052268059     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-010-9250-3     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Akkus, R., Gunel, M. & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 1, 1-21.
2. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. New York: Penguin.
4. Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A. & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan.
5. Connally, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connally & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 1-14). New York: Teachers College Press.
6. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science & Education, 84(3), 287-312.
7. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
8. Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 985-1001.
9. Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
10. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139-159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
11. Greenbowe, T. J. & Hand, B. (2005). Using the science writing heuristic to improve students' understanding of chemistry. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists guide to effective teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Gunel, M., Hand, B. & McDermott, M. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19, 354-367.
13. Hand, B. (2004). Cognitive, constructivist mechanisms for learning science through writing. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hnad & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 21-31). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
14. 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.
15. 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. Instructional Science, 35, 343-373.
16. Hand, B. & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.
17. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J. & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
18. Herrenkohl, L. R. & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.
19. Hohenshell, L. M. & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289.
20. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A. & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
21. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V. & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Huerisitic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.
22. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2008). Korean students' achievement in TIMS International Science Report. Seoul: Koran Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
23. Korea Ministry of Education (2007). Korea National Science Education Standards. Seoul, Korea: Korea Ministry of Education.
24. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
26. Langer, J. A. & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning (NCTE research report. No. 22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
27. Lee, B. (1998). Argumentation and Secondary Science Education. Research report (RR 97-II-6). Seoul: Korea Research Foundation.
28. Martin, A. & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the Elementary Science Classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17-38.
29. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S. & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Science Report: Findings from IEA's trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grade. MA: Boston College.
30. Mason, L. & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change: What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199-226.
31. Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
32. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
34. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
35. Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implication for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969-983.
36. Rivard, L. P. & Straw, S. W. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science & Education, 84, 566-593.
37. Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J. & Hand, B. M. (2001). Recrafting the general chemistry laboratory report. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(4), 230-234.
38. Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J., Hand, B. M. & Legg, M. J. (2001). Using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) to move toward an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(12), 1680-1686.
39. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science & Education, 93(3), 448-484.