Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2004 Enhancing science literacy through implementation of writing-to-learn strategies: exploratory studies in high school biology Liesl Marie Hohenshell Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Science and Mathematics Education Commons, and the Secondary Education and Teaching Commons Recommended Citation Hohenshell, Liesl Marie, "Enhancing science literacy through implementation of writing-to-learn strategies: exploratory studies in high school biology " (2004). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 1166. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1166 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Enhancing science literacy through implementation of writing-to-leam strategies: Exploratory studies in high school biology by Liesl Marie Hohenshell A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Education Program of Study Committee: Brian Hand, Major Professor Tom Andre Jackie Blount Jim Colbert Joanne Olson Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2004 UMI Number: 3158340 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI UMI Microform 3158340 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 11 Graduate College Iowa State University This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation of Liesl Marie Hohenshell has met the dissertation requirements of Iowa State University Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 Informed Participants 3 Dissertation Organization 3 CHAPTER 2. SUPPORTING SCIENCE LITERACY THROUGH WRITING-TO- 11 LEARN: A LITERATURE REVIEW OF GOALS, WRITING MODELS, PROCESSES, AND STRATEGIES Abstract , 11 Introduction 11 Conceptions of Science Literacy 13 Reasons for Advocating Scientific Literacy 20 Goals for the Scientifically Literate 27 Theoretical Framework 34 Constructivist Science Teaching and Learning 60 General Constructivist Pedagogy 66 Language 74 Science as Inquiry and Argumentation 90 Theoretical Models of Writing 102 Limitations and Pedagogical Considerations 116 Justification 130 CHAPTER 3. EXPLORING STUDENTS' RESPONSES TO CONCEPTUAL 145 QUESTIONS WHEN ENGAGED WITH PLANNED WRITING EXPERIENCES: A STUDY WITH YEAR 10 SCIENCE STUDENTS Abstract 145 Introduction 146 Research Context 15 3 Research Design 155 Quantitative Component 166 Qualitative Component 168 Pedagogical Strategies 170 Results 171 Discussion 183 Implications 190 CHAPTER 4. WRITING-TO-LEARN STRATEGIES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL 192 CELL BIOLOGY: TWO PARALLEL MIXED METHOD STUDIES Abstract 192 Introduction 193 iv Research Design 204 Pedagogical sequence 208 Data Collection 212 Results 219 Open-ended Survey Comparisons and Interviews 233 Discussion and Implications 244 CHAPTER 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 252 Research Questions 252 General Conclusions 262 Direction for Future Research 263 REFERENCES 265 APPENDIX A. INFORMED CONSENT LETTER (CHAPTER 4) 283 APPENDIX B. SURVEY CODING TABLES (CHAPTER 4) 284 APPENDIX C. SUMMARY REPORT GUIDANCE PROMPTS (CHAPTER 4) 292 APPENDIX D. CELLS TEST FORM A (CHAPTER 4) 294 APPENDIX E. CELLS TEST FORM B (CHAPTER 4) 296 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS If I knew all about this one thing, wouldn't that be something... I am grateful for the support of my conceptual growth, which has been recognized as a developmental, life-long process of conceptual change by my professors at Iowa State University. Several have gone above and beyond their roles as instructors of content, serving as advisors, mentors and models of excellence, Chris Lubienski, David Owen, Mack Shelley, and my committee members, Tom Andre, Jackie Blount, Jim Colbert, Brian Hand, and Joanne Olson, to name a few. In particular, I am indebted to my major professor, Brian Hand, for providing an intellectual environment that could simply not have been topped. He has continually been an inspiration by being the one he is, consistently living his values; his actions aligned with his convictions. He modeled multiple forms of academic discourse in a respectful and non- threatening atmosphere, true to his culture. He ensured numerous opportunities to meet and work with premier scholars in the field, Vaughn Prain, Larry Yore, Carolyn Wallace, and Perry Klein, to name a few. I am also thankful for the interactions with each one of these professors, as they worked with me directly on research projects and/or provided thoughtful, constructive, comments on drafts. This kind of support is invaluable. Vaughn and Brian are masters of argumentation dialogue. Thus, the continual opportunities to engage with them in such discussions were the most formative of my educational experience to date. Brian also organized and structured research teams composed of individuals whose contributions and collaboration were essential to the work in this dissertation, Eun-mi Yang, Mark Williams, Jay Staker, Murat Gunel, Sozan Omar, Irene Grimberg, and Recai Akkus, to name a few. I am grateful for each one of these individuals, vi as our discussions and interactions have "stimulated thinking" about education in its fullest sense. Allison Donaldson, Nancy Wirth, and Judy Weiland made the process of navigating the university system a manageable and painless experience. Nancy and Allison shared their knowledge on numerous occasions. They added both style and grace to events that, had I been left to my own devices would not have been nearly as elegant. In addition, appreciation is extended to those at The Ohio State University, Doug Owens, Xiao-dong Lui, Arthur White, Karen Irving, Karen Zuga, Michael Scott, and Anita Roychoudhury whose advice and encouragement helped me defeat the odds and finish. In writing the dissertation I became a bit solipsistic, immersed in solitude. Often I felt like a doppelgânger, a ghostly counterpart to my real self, walking among a separate, external reality rather than existing within it. It is those who lay in wait for the return, my friends (esp. Suzanne Allen, Lisa Allen, & Kirsty Gane), family (esp. Lecil & Rita Hohenshell), and faithful canine companions, Leah and Sister Suzan, who most deserve appreciation. Their patience, support, encouragement, reassurance, and unconditional love are gifts so essential, it is the attempt to express this sentiment that makes me realize the true limitations of language. There are simply no words to convey the extent of my gratitude. To the force beyond the realm of science, may the arrogance and in particular, the selfishness this work represents subside. If I have achieved some level of success in coherently communicating some general understanding of what for me is largely still developing, I am grateful for the time I was afforded to construct and represent this. As with Emig, "writing is self-rhythmed. One writes best as one 1earns best, at one's own pace" (1977, p. 126). 1 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION Authors and researchers working within the writing-to-leam movement suggest that language creates, describes and reflects existing ideas and understandings (Keys, 1999b; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Lemke, 1990). For the writer, the act of writing promotes attainment of personal meaning, processing skills, requires thinking, and offers an opportunity for reflection on content (Applebee, 1984). Through writing, a student can demonstrate significant effort and communicate understanding of content. However, the promises of writing as powerful learning mode are manifold; and the practices and strategies used to reach such potential, appear to be equally as complex. The purposes of the enclosed papers were to reveal some of these dimensions, and make modest empirical contributions to a growing research base, which seeks to advance understanding of some of these dimensions. Introduction Recent editions of instructional texts for science teachers encourage the use of a variety of writing tasks, but provide little to no guidance or direction, presuming that students have the rhetorical knowledge and procedural strategies to succeed in writing and learning by engaging in these types of tasks. Literacy may imply a need to write (Norris & Phillips, 2003); however, alternative conceptions exist concerning what literacy in science means (Laugksch, 2000). While there are various models describing the cognitive