Writing‐to‐learn Strategies in Secondary School Cell Biology: A mixed method study

Writing‐to‐learn techniques can enhance learning, yet a need remains for more empirical research on the quality of learning that results from engaging in particular writing tasks with description of the instructional support for writing situated in context. This report builds on past research linking inquiry, social negotiation, and writing strategies to student learning assessed for recall and conceptual understanding. Assessments were administered after two different writing types: laboratory reports written in either a conventional (Control group) or a non‐traditional format using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH group) and a summary report of concepts explored in the inquiry activities. Results following summary report writing indicated SWH students performed better on conceptual questions, recognized distinct thinking was required by the two writing types, and were more likely to describe learning as they were writing compared with Control group students. Females who used the SWH and wrote summary reports to peers benefited most.

[1]  Carolyn W. Keys.  Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report , 2000 .

[2]  Stanley B. Straw,et al.  The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study , 2000 .

[3]  E. Guba,et al.  Naturalistic inquiry: Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985, 416 pp., $25.00 (Cloth) , 1985 .

[4]  Brian Hand,et al.  Recrafting the General Chemistry Laboratory Report. , 2002 .

[5]  Carolyn W. Keys.  The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth‐grade students , 1994 .

[6]  N. Pelaez,et al.  Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. , 2002, Advances in physiology education.

[7]  J. Lagowski.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[8]  Vaughan Prain,et al.  Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science , 1999 .

[9]  L. Mason.  Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse , 1998 .

[10]  Vaughan Prain,et al.  Exploring students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students , 2004 .

[11]  Jonathan Osborne,et al.  Language and Literacy in Science Education , 2001 .

[12]  Arthur N. Applebee.  Writing and Reasoning , 1984 .

[13]  D. Kuhn.  Science as argument : Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking , 1993 .

[14]  Brian Hand,et al.  Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh‐grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects , 2004 .

[15]  Carolyn W. Keys.  Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science , 1999 .

[16]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[17]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  The Social Construction of Scientific Concepts or the Concept Map as Conscription Device and Tool for Social Thinking in High School Science. , 1992 .

[18]  유창조.  Naturalistic Inquiry , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[19]  Liesl Marie Hohenshell,et al.  Enhancing science literacy through implementation of writing-to-learn strategies: exploratory studies in high school biology , 2004 .

[20]  Larry D. Yore,et al.  A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy , 1999 .

[21]  J. Ackerman,et al.  The Promise of Writing to Learn , 1993 .

[22]  L. Yore,et al.  Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research , 2003 .

[23]  Larry D. Yore,et al.  Reading in science: Developing an operational conception to guide instruction , 1991 .

[24]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  The Social Construction of Scientific Concepts or the Concept Map as Device and Tool Thinking in High Conscription for Social School Science , 1992 .

[25]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[26]  Nancy J. Fellows.  A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning , 1994 .

[27]  Ina V. S. Mullis,et al.  The Science Report Card: Elements of Risk and Recovery. Trends and Achievement Based on the 1986 National Assessment. , 1988 .

[28]  Perry D. Klein.  Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-To-Learn , 1999 .

[29]  Jeannett Martin,et al.  Writing Science: Literacy And Discursive Power , 1993 .

[30]  J. Lemke.  Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[31]  L. Rivard,et al.  A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research , 1994 .

[32]  Vaughan Prain,et al.  Influences of Writing Tasks on Students' Answers to Recall and Higher-Level Test Questions , 2002 .

[33]  Patricia M. Rowell.  Learning in School Science: The Promises and Practices of Writing. , 1997 .

[34]  James Hartley,et al.  The Psychology of Written Communication , 1981 .

[35]  Carolyn W. Keys.  Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students' written discourse about scientific investigations , 1999 .

[36]  Larry D. Yore,et al.  The reading–science learning–writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises , 1994 .