Writing-to-Learn in Secondary Science Classes: For Whom Is It Effective?

References

• Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 149–169. doi: 10.1007/s11165-008-9105-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, S. V., Olinghouse, N., Faggella-Luby, M., & Welsh, M. (2017). Framework for disciplinary writing in science grades 6-12: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 935–955. doi: 10.1037/edu0000186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn, J. E. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Unlocking the secrets and making them work. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(2), 168–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational, beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holzapfel, L., Nuckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: Prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 452–468. doi: 10.1037/a0026683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 313–335. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, D., Zhang, S. McTigue, E. M., Wright, K. L. (April, 2017). Do you get the picture?: A meta-analysis of the effects of graphics on reading comprehension. Presented at the 2017 American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Haden, C. A., Reese, E., & Fivush, R. (1996). Mothers’ extratextual comments during storybook reading: Stylistic differences over time and across texts. Discourse Processes, 21(2), 135–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., & Black, W. C. (2000). Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hammett, L. I. S. A. A., Kleeck, A. N. N. E., & Huberty, C. A. R. L. J. (2003). Patterns of parents’ extratextual interactions during book sharing with preschool children: A cluster analysis study. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 442–438. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4151836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (2009). Test of Written Language – Fourth Edition [Measurement Instrument].
   Google Scholar
• Hand, B., Park, S., & Suh, J. K. (2018). Examining teachers’ shifting epistemic orientations in improving students’ scientific literacy through adoption of the Science Writing Heuristic approach. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (eds) Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 339–355). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 261–289. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2013). Trends in international mathematics and science study. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270. doi: 1040-726X/99/0900-0203$16.00/0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second‐generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 143178. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knipper, K. J., & Duggan, T. J. (2006). Writing to learn across the curriculum: Tools for comprehension in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 462–470. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.5.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konopak, B. C., Martin, M. A., & Martin, S. H. (1987). Reading and writing: Aids to learning in the content areas. Journal of Reading, 31(2), 109–115. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40029822
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2010). A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non‐traditional writing tasks over a ten year period. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 518–539. doi: 10.1002/tea.20350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McTigue, E. M. (2009). Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 143–153. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Miller, D. M., Scott, C. E., & McTigue, E. M. (2018). Writing in the secondary-level disciplines: A systematic review of context, cognition, and content. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 83–120. doi: 10.1007/s10648-016-9393-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2014). General information about The Nation’s Report Card: Sample questions, science. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/field_pubs/sqb/pdf/2104_ sq_s_g4_g12.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). Writing now: A policy research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/WrtgResearchBrief.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. doi: 10.1002/sce.10066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otfinowski, R., & Silva-Opps, M., (2015). Writing toward a scientific identity: Shifting from prescriptive to reflective writing in undergraduate biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 4(2), 19–23. doi: 10.2505/4/jcst15_045_02_19
   Google Scholar
• Poe, M., Lerner, N., & Craig, J. (2010). Learning to communicate in science and engineering: Case studies from MIT. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rainey, E., & Moje, E. B. (2012). Building insider knowledge: Teaching students to read, write, and think within ELA and across the disciplines. English Education, 45(1), 71–90. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23365001
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie, S., Rigano, D., & Duane, A. (2008). Writing an ecological mystery in class: Merging genres and learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 143–166. doi: 10.1080/09500690601161783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roid, G. H. (1994). Patterns of writing skills derived from cluster analysis of direct-writing assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 159–120. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame0702_4
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. doi: 10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slough, S. W., McTigue, E. M., Kim, S., & Jennings, S. K. (2010). Science textbooks’ use of graphical representation: A descriptive analysis of four sixth grade science texts. Reading Psychology, 31, 301–325. doi: 10.1080/02702710903256502.
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute of Education. (1988). Writing and Reading in the Classroom (J. Britton) (Tech. Rep. No. _425). Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Reading.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, B. (2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics: An insight-based approach. New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., & Marsicano, G. (2014). Academic motivation predicts educational attainment: Does gender make a difference? Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 142–131. doi: 101016/jlindif.2014.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 109(4), 21–29. doi: 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32
   Google Scholar
• Wright, K. L. (2016). Methods and measures for using writing to transform knowledge in science classes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, K. L. (2017). Writing-to-learn in science class: The impact of a low-cost intervention on students’ scientific writing skills. ALER Yearbook: Literacy: The Critical Role of Teacher Knowledge, 39, 81–98.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, K. L., Hodges, T. S., & McTigue, E. M. (2018). A validation program for the Self-Beliefs, Writing-Beliefs, and Attitude Survey: A measure of adolescents’ motivation toward writing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, K. L., Franks, A. D., Kuo, L.-J., McTigue, E., & Serrano, J. (2016). Both theory and practice: Science literacy instruction and theories of reading. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1275–1292. doi: doi: 10.1007/s10763-015-9661-2.
   Google Scholar