Writing to learn in science: Effects on Grade 4 students' understanding of balance

Rouse, Amy Gillespie; Graham, Stephen; Compton, Donald L.

doi:10.1080/00220671.2015.1103688

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This resulted in longer and grammatically and lexically more complex forms of writing, which in many writing intervention studies is an area of concern for struggling writers. Furthermore, these improvements translated to substantial improvements in ratings of participants' holistic writing quality, with the degree (and length) of improvement comparable to published results with struggling learners (Graham & Perin, 2007;Rouse et al, 2017). In fact, students' maintenance of learning, especially in light of the short duration of our intervention, suggests our approach is promising.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…The focus of our study is to improve adolescents' abilities to write disciplinary explanations in science. Writing to learn in science has received greater attention in the past 10 years (Rouse et al, 2017) and is timely, given reforms to science instruction (National Research Council [NRC], 2012) and writing (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers., 2010). The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and underlying Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) describe a vision of proficiency based on a view that students must understand a body of knowledge (disciplinary core ideas) and that they learn to engage in scientific inquiry attempting developmentally appropriate activities that prompt them to apply their existing knowledge to exploring new questions and solving problems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Writing Scientific Explanations: Effects of a Cognitive Apprenticeship for Students With LD and English Learners

Lee

Paz

2021

Exceptional Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current study, we examined the effect of cognitive apprenticeship with contextualized language instruction on students with LD (SWLDs) and English learners’ (ELs) ability to compose scientific explanations using a multiple-probe, multiple-baseline single-case design. Six middle school students (three in each subgroup) participated in ten 30-min sessions in an after-school program. The intervention was implemented with high fidelity, and all participants believed they benefited from the writing instruction. After instruction, SWLDs and ELs had similar gains. They wrote better explanations, as demonstrated by substantial improvements in the quality of their causal and mechanistic reasoning ( τ = 1), grammatical and lexical sophistication ( τ = 1), and holistic writing ( τ = 0.95–0.96). Changes in writing performance were maintained for 4 or more weeks. We discuss implications of these findings for science classrooms and suggest areas for future writing research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing Scientific Explanations: Effects of a Cognitive Apprenticeship for Students With LD and English Learners

Lee

Paz

2021

Exceptional Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One, in Boscolo and Mason (2001), students in the treatment and control conditions engaged in the same kind of writing in three sessions (write everything you know about the spices and metals in the 15th century; observe the reproduction of Columbus’s landing and write all the information you can; and write your perceptions about your work on this unit), whereas treatment students engaged in further writing in six additional sessions (e.g., writing explanations, comments, hypotheses, analyses, interpretations, reflections on content material). Two, in Gillespie Rouse et al (2017), students in the control condition wrote about what they liked about science class and the work they were doing, whereas the writing of students in the treatment condition focused directly on what they were learning (e.g., “What is happening with the balance and weights? Are you noticing any patterns?…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall effects of writing-to-learn, however, were not moderated by type of assessment, Q = 4.70, df = 4, p = .32. We did not include four studies in this analysis as they did not clearly indicate the type of tests (Bell & Bell, 1985; Greer, 2010; Idris, 2009) or used an assessment other than the ones tested (Gillespie Rouse et al, 2017). We could not use all assessments in Parson (2013) and Pillsbury (2008) for the same reasons.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis

Graham

Kiuhara²,

MacKay

2020

Review of Educational Research

Self Cite

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis examined if students writing about content material in science, social studies, and mathematics facilitated learning ( k = 56 experiments). Studies in this review were true or quasi-experiments (with pretests), written in English, and conducted with students in Grades 1 to 12 in which the writing-to-learn activity was part of instruction. Studies were not included if the control condition used writing to support learning (except when treatment students spent more time engaging in writing-to-learn activities), study attrition exceeded 20%, instructional time and content coverage differed between treatment and control conditions, pretest scores approached ceiling levels, letter grades were the learning outcome, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, writing about content reliably enhanced learning (effect size = 0.30). It was equally effective at improving learning in science, social studies, and mathematics as well as the learning of elementary, middle, and high school students. Writing-to-learn effects were not moderated by the features of writing activities, instruction, or assessment. Furthermore, variability in obtained effects were not related to features of study quality. Directions for future research and implications for practice are provided.

show abstract

“…Others reported findings for all participants, including SWLD and EL, which made it difficult to evaluate the treatment effect for particular groups of students. Some researchers measured the clarity of written language (Rouse et al, 2017;Wright et al, 2018), while others evaluated the organizational quality, consistency, or coherence of the writing. For example, informational texts were evaluated for (a) grammar, (b) spelling, and (c) organization (Benedek-Wood et al, 2014;Hebert et al, 2018).…”

Section: Dependent Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science Writing Intervention Research for Students With and At Risk for Learning Disabilities, and English Learners: A Systematic Review

Lee

Paz

2021

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing in science can be challenging for all learners, and it is especially so for students with cognitive or language-based learning difficulties. Yet, we know very little about how to support students with learning disabilities (LD) or who are English learners (EL) when asked to write for authentic purposes during science instruction. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of 14 high-quality studies to identify effective writing instruction elements for students with LD, those who are EL, and for at-risk learners more generally. We analyzed the studies according to purpose, participants, dependent variables, and interventions. Then, we categorized instructional elements into two broad types of support: (a) cognitive skills and processes, and (b) linguistic skills and processes. Quantitative analyses showed students (regardless of disability or language status) who received structured cognitive instruction on text features demonstrated substantial growth in writing. Conversely, although language in science differs from everyday language, it is absent from this literature. Thus, our findings provide insights into necessary cognitive and linguistic supports for these students, and implications for designing effective writing instruction.

show abstract

Writing to learn in science: Effects on Grade 4 students' understanding of balance

Cited by 17 publications

References 29 publications

Writing Scientific Explanations: Effects of a Cognitive Apprenticeship for Students With LD and English Learners

Writing Scientific Explanations: Effects of a Cognitive Apprenticeship for Students With LD and English Learners

The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis

Science Writing Intervention Research for Students With and At Risk for Learning Disabilities, and English Learners: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About