Trends in Language, Reading, and Writing Research in Science Education Larry D. Yore University of Victoria Kaohsiung, Taiwan February 21, 2005

Trends in Language,Reading, and Writing Researchin Science Education

Larry D. Yore

University of Victoria

Kaohsiung, Taiwan

February 21, 2005

2

Educational Reforms inNorth America: Canada & USA

3

Cross-Curricular Viewof Current Reforms Standards for the English Language Arts (NCTE/IRA) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics

(NCTM) Science for All Americans (AAAS) National Science Education Standards (NRC) Curriculum Standards for Social Studies (NCSS) Technology for All Americans (ITEA) Western Canadian Protocol for Mathematics (Alberta,

British Columbia, other western provinces) Pan-Canadian Framework for Science (CMEC)

4

Common Features Acrossthe Disciplines (Ford, Yore, & Anthony, 1997)

Target Goals All Students Contemporary Literacy

Pedagogical Intentions Constructivism Authentic Assessment

5

Contemporary Literacy(Yore, 2000)

Abilities, Thinking, and Habits of Mind to Construct Disciplinary Understanding

Communications to Inform and Persuade

Big Ideas/Unifying Concepts

6

Interacting Senses of Science Literacy: Cognitive Symbiosis(Norris & Phillips, 2003)

Fundamental Sense Cognitive and

Metacognitive Abilities Critical Thinking Habits of Mind Scientific Language Arts Information and

Communication Technologies

Derived Sense Understanding of the

Big Ideas and Unifying Concepts

Nature of Science People’s attempt to

search, describe, and explain patterns of events in nature

Scientific Inquiry Technological Design

7

Cognitive and Metacognitive Abilities Building knowledge claims and making sense of the

world Critical analysis of claims, procedures, measurement

errors, data, etc. Justifying data as evidence for/against a claim based

on the theoretical backings/warrants Analytical reasoning, problem solving and

troubleshooting Science processes: Observing, measuring, etc. Planning and evaluating inquiries and designs

8

Critical Thinking: Deciding What to Believe or Do About a Challenge

Worthwhile challenge, issue, or problem deserving consideration (Ford, 1998)

Deliberations of evidence, criteria, opinions Judgment about what to do/believe Justification of the claim/judgment Thinking about your thinking as you are

thinking to improve the quality of your thinking (Paul & Elder, 2003, Foundation for Critical Thinking)

9

Habits of Mind: Emotional Dispositions Toward Science Inquiry and Technological Design (AAAS, 1993)

Values and Attitudes Willingness to seek solutions and solve problems Keep records and offer reasons for findings Consider other interpretations and reasons

Critical-Response Skills Express skepticism; ask: “How do you know that?” Buttress claims with evidence and information Compare and consider trade-offs View science and technology with critical stance Evaluate and validate information, data, reasons, and

arguments Understand the roles of chance and errors in relationships

10

Scientific Language Arts(Yore, Hand, & Florence, 2004)

Orally present, write, read and follow directions, state purpose for the stepwise procedures, and produce a compelling argument, sound explanation, or clear description

Construct, view, and interpret sketches, diagrams, models, tables, charts, maps, pictures, and graphs

Use visual and textual displays to reveal relationships Locate and evaluate information from various textual

and digital sources Choose and use appropriate vocabulary, spatial

displays, numerical operations, and statistics Etcetera

11

Information and Communication Technologies (21st Century ICT Literacy Map for Science)

Use and read calculators, analog/digital meters and digital records, cameras, and videos (AAAS, 1993)

Troubleshoot common problems and determine potential causes of malfunctions (AAAS, 1993)

Use 21st Century tools for accessing, processing, managing, interpreting, and communicating information

Understand, manage, and create effective oral, written, and multi-media communications

Exercise sound reasoning, make complex choices, and understand interconnections among systems

Ability to frame, analyze, and solve problems Etcetera (http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/matrices/default.asp)

12

Big Ideas or Unifying Concepts (NRC, 1996)

Nature of Science History of Science Science as Inquiry Personal and Social Perspectives Content for Biological, Earth, and Physical

Sciences System, order, and organization Evidence, models, and explanations Change, constancy, and measurement Evolution and equilibrium Form and function

13

Myths about Science (McComas, 1998)

Science evolves — hypotheses, theories, laws. Hypotheses are educated guesses. The scientific method is general and universal. Evidence accumulates to produce truths. Science and inquiry result in absolute proof. Science is procedural — not creative. Science can address all questions. Scientists are objective. Experimentation is the primary route to claims. All science is reviewed to ensure honesty.

14

Modern View of Science

“There is a reality that we may know some day,

and claims about nature must be tested.”

(Yore, Hand, & Florence, 2004)

15

Modern View of Science

Science knowledge is a temporary explanation that best fits the existing evidence, established knowledge, and current thinking.

Science knowledge claims develop with the aid of a hypothesis and data that are collected and that support or refute the hypothesis.

Science knowledge claims are open to repeated public evaluation.

The scientific method is not bound by a single set of steps — problem, hypothesis, design experiment, collect data, analyze data, and draw conclusion.

16

Science is like Doing a Crossword Puzzle “Picture a scientist as working on part of an enormous

crossword puzzle: making an informed guess about some entry, checking and double-checking its fit with the clue and already-completed intersecting entries. ... Much of the crossword is blank, but many entries are already completed, some in almost-indelible ink, some in regular ink, some in pencil, some heavily, some faintly. Some are in English, some in Swahili, some in Flemish, some in Esperanto, etc. … Now and then a long entry, intersecting with numerous others.”

(Haack, 2003, pp. 93-94)

17

Constructivism (Yore, 2001)

Theory about learning — not teaching — that assumes learners construct understanding from prior knowledge, sensory experiences, and social interactions.

Prior knowledge may contain misconceptions that are difficult to change.

Conceptual change approaches must challenge misconceptions and allow learners to construct a more understandable and powerful replacement concept.

Numerous interpretations of constructivism Select an interpretation that matches the discipline and

goals — Learning Cycle

18

Constructivist Approach: Science Co-op Learning Cycle(Shymansky, Yore, & Anderson, 2004)

Engage — access, assess, and challenge learners’ prior knowledge

Explore — allow opportunities for learners to investigate the target concepts with hands-on, visual, and language experiences

Consolidate — scaffold the learners’ interpretations of the experiences and connect to the established understandings

Assess — document learners’ ideas in all parts of the cycle to facilitate and evaluate learning

19

Authentic Assessment(Yore, Williams, Shymansky, Chidsey, Henriques, & Craig, 1995)

Assess in the same context as teaching and learning

Document the construction of understanding as well as the recall of ideas

Assess throughout instruction Use assessment techniques that match the

target outcomes and processes Assess to empower learning and to inform

instruction

20

Language is both an end and a means to Science Literacy. Communications to Inform and

Persuade Language to Construct Science

Knowledge Claims Argument and Debate Discuss Alternatives and Promote Learning Reveal Relationships among Experiences Consolidate and Integrate Learning

21

Symbiosis Between Fundamental and Derived Senses

Learning how impacts using language to learn

Learning to talk/argue and talking/arguing to learn science

Learning to read science and reading to learn science

Learning to write and writing to learn science

22

Enhancing Science Literacy with Embedded Oral Interactions, Argument, Reading, and Writing Instruction in Science Inquiry(Yore, 2000; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003; Saul, 2004)

23

Talking Science: Oral Discourse and Concrete Experiences(Wellington & Osborne, 2001)

Student talk must be associated with sensory experiences to ensure vocabulary development.

Rich oral discussions within and between student groups encourage consideration of alternative interpretations and causality.

Teacher questioning needs to reflect the phase and purpose of inquiry. Engage: Accessing and assessing prior knowledge, challenging

students’ ideas, and setting purpose Explore: Productive questions should encourage students to attention-

focusing, measuring and counting, comparisons, actions, problem-posing, and reasoning

Consolidate: Questions should encourage sharing, organizing, generalizing, evaluating, and applying

Assess: Questions should document student understanding and concerns to empower future learning and inform future instruction

24

Scientific Arguments(Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004)

Logical Pattern Claims Evidence Warrants Backings Counter-claims Qualifications Rebuttals

25

Classic Pattern of Argumentation (Toulmin, 1958)

Evidence Claims

Warrants

Backings

26

Example of a Classic Argument(Yore, et al., 2004)

Examination of SARSSARS patients Caused byand healthy people a virus

Warrant 1: A unique virus (corona) was isolated by UVic and UBC scientists.Warrant 2: SARS patients’ blood and body fluids contain the virus.Backing 1: Established knowledge about respiratory diseases. Backing 2: Influenza is caused by a virus, not bacteria.

27

Extended Pattern of Argumentation (Toulmin, 1958)

Evidence Qualifiers and Claims Counter-claims

Warrants Rebuttal

Backings

28

Example of an Extended Argument (Yore, et al., 2004)

Examination of:AIDS and HIV in HIVhealthy some causespatients people AIDS

HIV was found Peoplein all AIDS with weakpatients and some immunehealthy patients systems

29

Reading in Science: Interactive and Constructive (Yore, 2000)

Text-driven Strategies Prior Knowledge about Science and

Topic Metacognition

Interactive-Constructive Model of Science Reading:Requisite Knowledge, Metacognition, and Strategies

Prior Domain andTopic Knowledge

Metacognitive Awarenessand Executive Control

Science ReadingStrategies

31

Explicit Science Reading Instruction: Strategies That Respond to Instruction Assessing Generating

Questions Summarizing Inferring Monitoring Utilizing Text

Structure

Reading and Reasoning

Improving Memory Self-regulating Skimming,

Elaborating, Sequencing

Metacognition

Self-appraisal of Cognition

Self-management of Cognition

DeclarativeKnowledge

Planning

Evaluation

Regulation

ProceduralKnowledge

ConditionalKnowledge

33

Metacognition

Metacognitive Awareness/Self-appraisal of Task Declarative: What Procedural: How Conditional: When &

Why

Executive Control/ Self-management of Task Planning: Setting

purpose, etc. Evaluation:

Monitoring progress Regulation: Adjusting

effort and action

34

Expert Science Reader(Yore, Craig, & Maguire, 1998)

Science Reading Science Text Science Reading Strategies

35

Science Reading

Reading is interactive-constructive. Meaning Making, not Meaning Taking Self-confidence and Self-efficacy Shift Reading to Textual Demands

36

Science Text

Words are labels for ideas and experience. Text is somebody’s interpretation. Text represents the nature of science

Tentative claims about reality May not actually represent reality Contains a degree of uncertainty

Evaluates plausibility, accuracy, and connectedness of text

37

Science Reading Strategies

Identify purpose, access prior knowledge, plan heuristic, and select strategies

Use knowledge-retrieval techniques Use input techniques to access text-based

information Use knowledge-constructing techniques Apply critical thinking Monitor and regulate reading

38

Writing in Science (Yore, 2000)

Knowledge Telling Knowledge Building Genre (form &

function) Narrative Description Instruction Argumentation Explanation

Effective Applications Involve a series of

tasks Require

transformation Encourage revision

without repetition

39

Narrative (Aram & Powell, 2005; Unsworth, 2001)

Process of sequencing people and events in time and space

Purpose: Entertain, tell a story, or recount personal or historical experiences

Structure (Story grammar): Setting, characters, problem, actions, and resolution

40

Description (Aram & Powell, 2005; Unsworth, 2001)

Process of classifying and describing things into taxonomies of meaning

Purpose: Documents the way something is or was

Structure: General class, qualities, parts and functions, and habits

41

Instruction (Aram & Powell, 2005; Unsworth, 2001)

Process of logically ordering a sequence of actions or behaviors

Purpose: State procedure of how something is done through a series of ordered steps or actions

Structure: Goal, materials, ordered steps, and summary statement

42

Argument (Aram & Powell, 2005; Unsworth, 2001)

Process of persuading listeners or readers to accept a logical ordering of propositions

Purpose: Promote a particular point of view, claim, or solution

Structure: Thesis/position statement, series of claims, rebuttals and evidence, and summary or reiteration of thesis/position statement

43

Explanation (Aram & Powell, 2005; Unsworth, 2001)

Process of sequencing phenomena/events in temporal or causal patterns

Purpose: Explain how something works, the processes involved, or the cause-effect relationship justified by a theoretical model or canonical knowledge

Structure: General statement, time-series steps, linked processes, cause-effect, or problem-solution

Prior Domain andTopic Knowledge

Metacognitive Awarenessand Executive Control

Science WritingStrategies

Knowledge-Building Model of Science Writing

45

Writing Genre (Yore, 2000)

Genre Purpose Outcome AudienceNarrative Recording Attitudes Self and

emotions others and ideas

Description Documentation Basic Other of events knowledge

Explanation Causality Cause-effect Others relationships

Instruction Directions Procedural Others knowledge

Argumentation Persuasion Patterns Others of argument

46

Writing in Science(Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003)

Sequential Writing Tasks — data tables, graphs, descriptions

Science Writing Heuristics Information and Communication

Technology Strategies Explicit Writing Instruction

47

Recommendation 1

Ensure any attempts to enhance your students’ argumentation, reading, and writing are based on authentic models of argument, reading, and writing and valid assessment of the oral and print-based language demands of science.

48

Recommendation 2

Make your argument, reading, and writing instruction pay off now and pay off later (symbiosis). Develop authentic science communication tasks that enhance science literacy in the fundamental sense and result in better derived sense — science learning and understanding.

49

Recommendation 3

Make science language arts instruction an integral part of the science inquiry teaching and science program and continue until graduation to elaborate and reinforce effective science communication arts — listening, speaking, debating, reading, viewing, representing, and writing.

50

Recommendation 4

Provide explicit instruction as a natural part of authentic science inquiry, debate, reading, writing, and science learning activities.

51

Recommendation 5

Explore the use of multimedia to address the expansion of science literacy into the information and communication technological (ICT) strategies, to provide multiple representations of abstract concepts, and to maximize motivation.

52

Promises & Cautions (1)

Integrate listening, speaking, viewing, reading, writing, representing, and learning

Language arts embedded in authentic inquiry

Multiple information sources, ICT, and multiple representations

53

Promises & Cautions (2)

Stress critical stance to reconcile discrepancies amongst information sources and evaluate sources

Require information collected to be transformed during writing tasks

Direct instruction supplemented with the guided practice and transfer of ownership

54

References

AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anthony, R. J., Johnson, T. D., & Yore, L. D. (1996). Write-to-learn science strategies. Catalyst, 39(4), 10-16.

Aram, R., & Powell, D. (2005). Genre in trade books. Presentation at the AETS meeting, Colorado Springs, CO.

Ford, C. L. (1998). Educating preservice teachers to teach for an evaluative view of knowledge and critical thinking in elementary social studies. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Ford, C. L., Yore, L. D., & Anthony, R. J. (1997). Reforms, visions, and standards: A cross-curricular view from an elementary school perspective. Resources in Education (ERIC), ED406168.

55

References (continued)

Haack, S. (2003). Defending science within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Hand, B. M., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.) Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 105-129). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1985). Using structured controversy in science classrooms. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Science technology society: 1985 yearbook of the National Science Teachers Association (pp. 228-234), Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationale and strategies. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

56


National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, B. D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). How to improve student learning: 30 practical ideas. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Saul, E. W. (Ed.) (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.

57


Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Anderson, J. O. (2004). Impact of a school district’s science reform effort on the achievement and attitudes of third- and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 771-790.

Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. M. (2000). Empowering families in hands-on science programs. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 48-56.

Spence, D. J., Yore, L. D., & Williams, R. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 15-30.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

58


Tucknott, J. M., & Yore, L. D. (1999). The effects of writing activities on grade 4 children’s understanding of simple machines, inventions, and inventors. Resources in Education (ERIC), ED 428 973.

Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004) Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Yore, L. D. (1996). Write-to-learn science strategies for preservice elementary teachers. In P. Rubba, P. Keig, & J. Rye (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1996 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, USA, 25-56. (ERIC ED398060)

59


Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 105-122.

Yore, L. D. (2001). What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science education community stay the course for meaningful reform? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(4). Online journal: http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse.

Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725.

60


Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1998). Index of science reading awareness: An interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grades 4-8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 35(1), 27-51.

Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 338-369.

Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 347-352.

Yore, L. D., Williams, R. L., Shymansky, J. A., Chidsey, J. L., Henriques, L., & Craig, M. T. (1995). Refocussing science assessment: Informing learners, teachers, and other stakeholders. B.C. Catalyst, 38(4), 3-9.