Effects of Instruction in Writing-to-Learn on Low-Achieving Adolescents in Biology and Mathematics Classes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Research into Instruction in Writing-to-Learn
1.2. Low- and High-Achieving Students in Research on Writing-to-Learn
1.3. Supporting Low-Achieving Students for Learning
1.4. The Process of Writing-to-Learn
1.5. The Present Studies in Biology and Mathematics Education
- Does GWPR instruction lead to more insight and topic knowledge of low-achieving adolescents in the context of biology and mathematics when compared to business-as-usual lessons?
- Does GWPR instruction in the above contexts lead to observable differences in processes of writing to learn between experimental and control students?
2. Study 1: Writing-to-Learn for Low Achieving Students in Biology Class
2.1. Materials and Methods
2.1.1. Participants
2.1.2. Design
2.1.3. Treatment
2.1.4. Instruments
2.1.5. Procedure
2.1.6. Coding Students’ Transcribed Utterances
2.1.7. Data Analysis
2.2. Results
2.2.1. Prior Insight, Prior Topic Knowledge, and Vocabulary
2.2.2. Differences in Post-Test Insight
2.2.3. The Process of Writing-to-Learn
3. Study 2: Writing-to-Learn for Low Achieving Students in Mathematics Class
3.1. Materials and Methods
3.1.1. Participants
3.1.2. Design
3.1.3. Treatment
3.1.4. Instruments
Prior Knowledge Tests
Vocabulary
Topic Knowledge and Insight in the Post-Test
Post-Test Writing Task
3.1.5. Procedure
3.1.6. Coding Students’ Transcribed Utterances
3.1.7. Data Analysis
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Differences in Prior Insight, Prior Knowledge, and Vocabulary
3.2.2. Differences in Post-Test Insight
3.2.3. The Process of Writing-to-Learn
4. Discussion
4.1. The Writing-to-Learn Process
4.2. Students’ and Teachers’ Evaluation
5. Suggestions for Future Research
6. Pedagogical Implications
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Biology, Proportioned Means and Standard Deviations of Frequencies of Codes in Experimental (N = 5) and Control Group (N = 6), and Effect Sizes
Experimental | Control | Effect size | ||||
Codes | Mean | Std. Deviation | Mean | Std. Deviation | Cohen’s d | |
Planning: orienting | ||||||
1 Read. Assignment | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.06 | −0.39 | |
2 Thinking about task approach | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 10.03 | |
Planning: generating | ||||||
3 Generating content | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.07 | −0.15 | |
4 Using knowledge about audience | H * | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
5 Using source text for new content | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
Planning: selecting | ||||||
6 Thinking about content selection | H | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 1.30 |
7 Selecting content | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.63 | |
Planning: organizing | ||||||
8 Ordering ideas | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
9 Thinking about text structure | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.41 | |
Formulating | ||||||
10 Thinking about formulating | H | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
11 formulating | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.13 | −0.42 | |
12 Revising while formulating | H | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | −0.89 |
13 Repeating formulation | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
14 Revising after finishing an utterance | H | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Monitoring | ||||||
15 Rereading own text | H | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
16 Rereading assignment | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | −0.33 | |
17 Using source text for correct understanding | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
18 Rethinking task approach | H | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
19 Checking task completion | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | −10.26 | |
Evaluation | ||||||
20 Commenting own phrases | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
21 Commenting text structure | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
22 Commenting task performance incl. Writing process | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 | |
23 Commenting on assignment | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
24 Commenting on source text | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
Other activities | ||||||
25 Pause for thinking | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.24 | |
26 Long pause (more than 50 seconds) | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.77 | |
27 transcribing | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.00 | |
28 Not task related remarks | 0.23 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.09 | −0.11 | |
29 Expression of uncertainty | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −1.55 | |
* Hypothesized code. |
Appendix B. Mathematics, Proportioned Means and Standard Deviations of Frequencies of Codes in Experimental (N = 4)) and Control Group (N = 4), and Effect Sizes
Experimental | Control | Effect size | ||||
Codes | Mean | Std. Deviation | Mean | Std. Deviation | Cohen’s d | |
Planning: orienting | ||||||
1 Read. Assignment | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | −0.33 | |
2 Thinking about task approach | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | |
Planning: generating | ||||||
3 Generating content | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
4 Using knowledge about audience | H * | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.53 |
5 Using source text for new content | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.71 | |
Planning: selecting | ||||||
6 Thinking about content selection | H | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.05 | −0.29 |
7 Selecting content | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.05 | −0.85 | |
Planning: organizing | ||||||
8 Ordering ideas | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | |
9 Thinking about text structure | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
Formulating | ||||||
10 Thinking about formulating | H | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
11 formulating | .35 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 0.05 | 0.46 | |
12 Revising while formulating | H | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
13 Repeating formulation | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | |
14 Revising after finishing an utterance | H | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.41 |
Monitoring | ||||||
15 Rereading own text | H | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.42 |
16 Rereading assignment | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.71 | |
17 Using source text for correct understanding | H | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
18 Rethinking task approach | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.40 | |
19 Checking task completion | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.50 | |
Evaluation | ||||||
20 Commenting own phrases | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
21 Commenting text structure | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
22 Commenting task performance incl. Writing process | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.78 | |
23 Commenting on assignment | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.41 | |
24 Commenting on source text | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
Other activities | ||||||
25 Pause for thinking | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.09 | −0.76 | |
26 Long pause (more than 50 seconds) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
27 transcribing | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.04 | −0.85 | |
28 Not task related remarks | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.25 | 0.08 | −1.33 | |
29 Expression of uncertainty | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.71 | |
* Hypothesized code. |
References
- Bereiter, C.; Scardamalia, M. The Psychology of Written Composition; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Galbraith, D. Writing as discovery. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 6, 5–26, Monograph Series II. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dijk, A.; Van Gelderen, A.; Kuiken, F. Which types of instruction on writing-to-learn lead to insight and topic knowledge in different disciplines? A review of empirical studies. Rev. Educ. 2022, 10, e3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Britton, J. Shaping at the point of utterance. In Prospect and Retrospect: Selected Essays of James Britton; Pradl, G.M., Ed.; Boynton/Cook: Montclair, NJ, USA, 1982; pp. 139–145. [Google Scholar]
- Langer, J.A.; Applebee, A.N. How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning; National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE): Urbana, IL, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Mason, L. Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instr. Sci. 1998, 26, 359–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, P.D. Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educ. Psychol.Rev. 1999, 11, 203–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, P.D.; Boscolo, P.; Gelati, C.; Kirkpatrick, L.C. New directions in writing as a learning activity. In Studies in Writing: Volume 28, Writing as a Learning Activity; Rijlaarsdam, G., Klein, P.D., Boscolo, P., Kirkpatrick, L.C., Gelati, C., Eds.; Brill: Buckinghamshire, UK, 2014; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Bazerman, C. A response to Anthony Fleury’s “Liberal education and communication against the disciplines”: A view from the world of writing. Commun. Educ. 2005, 54, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, P.D.; Boscolo, P. Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. J. Writ. Res. 2016, 7, 311–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, S.; Kiuhara, S.A.; McKay, M. The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ.Res. 2020, 90, 179–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D.M.; Scott, C.E.; McTigue, M. Writing in the secondary level disciplines: A systematic review of context, cognition and content. Educ. Pschychol. Rev. 2018, 30, 83–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hand, B.; Chen, Y.; Suh, J.K. Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 33, 535–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivard, L.P. Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 420–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nückles, M.; Hübner, S.; Renkl, A. Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learn. Instr. 2009, 19, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bangert-Drowns, R.L.; Hurley, M.M.; Wilkinson, B. The effects of school-based writing to learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74, 29–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newell, G.E. Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol-analysis. Res. Teach. Engl. 1984, 18, 265–287. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, P.D.; Kirkpatrick, L.C. A framework for content area writing: Mediators and moderators. J. Writ. Res. 2010, 2, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, P.D.; Samuels, B. Learning about plate tectonics through argument writing. Alta. J. Educ. Res. 2010, 56, 196–217. [Google Scholar]
- Prain, V. Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2006, 28, 179–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akkus, R.; Gunel, M.; Hand, B. Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2007, 29, 1745–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faber, J.E.; Morris, J.D.; Liebermann, M.G. The effect of note taking on ninth grade students’ comprehension. Read. Psychol. 2000, 21, 257–270. [Google Scholar]
- Halliday, M.A.K.; Martin, J.R. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power; The Falmer Press: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Baaijen, V.M.; Galbraith, D. Discovery through writing: Relationships with writing processes and text quality. Cogn. Instr. 2018, 36, 199–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, P.D. Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instr. Sci. 2004, 32, 191–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dijk, A.; Van Gelderen, A.; Kuiken, F. Writing to learn in biology and mathematics teacher education: Promoting students’ topic knowledge and insight. 2022; submitted. [Google Scholar]
- Veel, R. Language, knowledge and authority in school mathematics. In Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and Social Processes; Christie, F., Ed.; Cassell: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Rose, D. Writing as a linguistic mastery: The development of genre based literacy pedagogy. In Handbook of Writing Development; Myhill, D., Beard, D., Nystrand, M., Riley, J., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Smits, G. Biologie Voor Jou Vmbo-Kgt; Malmberg: ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Thijssen, J.; Van der Schoot, F.; Hemker, B. Balans Van Het Biologie-Onderwijs aan Het Einde van de Basisschool 4; Cito: Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Boyle, G.J. Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Personal. Individ. Differ. 1991, 12, 211–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sijtsma, K. On the use, the misuse and the very limited usefullness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrica 2009, 74, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taber, K.S. The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dunn, L.M. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test -III-NL; Schlichting, L., Ed.; Dutch version; Harcourt Test Publishers: San Diego, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Pander Maat, H. Tekstanalyse: Een Pragmatische Benadering; Martinus Nijhoff: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, J.R.; Flower, L.S. Identifying the organization of writing processes. In Cognitive Processes in Writing; Gregg, L.W., Steinberg, E.R., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1980; pp. 3–27. [Google Scholar]
- Reichard, L.A. Getal en Ruimte wi/3 vmbo-K deel 2; Noordhoff: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Van Berchum, C. Netwerk: 3B Vmbo-Kader; Noordhoff: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Reichard, L.A. Getal & Ruimte: Wi/4 vmbo-KGT deel 1; Noordhoff: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ritchie, S.M.; Tomas, L.; Tones, M. Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33, 685–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez, I.; Mateos, M.; Martin, E.; Rijlaarsdam, G. Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional program on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality. J. Writ. Res. 2015, 7, 275–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiuhara, S.A.; Graham, S.; Hawken, L.S. Teaching Writing to High School Students: A National Survey. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 101, 136–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Gelderen, A.; Blok, H. De praktijk van het stelonderwijs in de groepen 7 en 8 van de basisschool; observaties en interviews. Pedagog.Stud. 1991, 68, 159–175. [Google Scholar]
- Countryman, J. Writing to Learn Mathematics: Strategies That Work; Heinemann: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
Experimental Group (N = 43) | Control Group (N = 32) | |
---|---|---|
Age Gender Mother tongue | M: 12.8 (SD: 0.74) Female: 21 Dutch: 29 | M: 12.8 (SD: 0.61) Female: 15 Dutch: 22 |
Experimental Group (N = 5) | Control Group (N = 5) | |
---|---|---|
Age | M: 12.4 (SD: 0.55) | M: 12.6 (SD: 0.55) |
Gender | Female: 4 | Female: 3 |
Mother tongue | Dutch: 3 | Dutch: 2 |
Control Group | Experimental Group |
---|---|
Business as usual lessons 2, 3, 4 | Writing-to-learn tasks lessons 2, 3, 4 |
|
|
|
|
N = 75 | Experimental Group (N = 43) | Control Group (N = 32) |
Variables | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) |
1) Prior insight | 5.65 (1.71) | 5.50 (1.92) |
2) Prior topic knowledge | 5.60 (1.31) | 5.56 (1.64) |
3) Vocabulary | 19.65 (1.15) | 19.41 (2.58) |
4) Post-test insight | 6.16 (2.46) | 6.84 (2.43) |
Experimental | Control | Effect Size | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Codes | Mean | Std. Deviation | Mean | Std. Deviation | Cohen’s d |
Planning: generating | |||||
Using knowledge about audience | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Planning: selecting | |||||
Thinking about content selection | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 1.30 |
Formulating | |||||
Thinking about formulating | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
Revising while formulating | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | −0.89 |
Revising after finishing an utterance | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Monitoring | |||||
Rereading own text | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
Rethinking task approach | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
Experimental Group (N = 30) | Control Group (N = 37) | |
---|---|---|
Age | M: 15.8 (SD: 0.57) Female: 19 Dutch: 27 | M: 15.8 (SD: 0.64) Female: 16 Dutch: 35 |
Gender | ||
Mother tongue |
Experimental Group (N = 4) | Control Group (N = 4) | |
---|---|---|
Age | M: 15.3 (SD: 0.50) | M: 15.5 (SD: 0.58) |
Gender | Female: 2 | Female: 1 |
Mother tongue | Dutch: 4 | Dutch: 4 |
Control Group | Experimental Group | |
---|---|---|
Business as usual (lessons 2–7) | First draft (lessons 2, 4, 6) | Revision (lessons 3, 5, 7) |
|
|
|
|
|
N = 67 | Experimental Group (N = 30) | Control Group (N = 37) |
Variables | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) |
1) Prior insight | 0.60 (0.62) | 0.65 (0.72) |
2) Prior topic knowledge | 5.00 (1.46) | 4.46 (1.33) |
3) Vocabulary | 21.67 (5.03) | 22.05 (5.05) |
4) Post-test insight | 19.67 (6.23) | 12.95 (7.51) |
Experimental | Control | Effect Size | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Codes | Mean | Std. Deviation | Mean | Std. Deviation | Cohen’s d |
Planning: generating | |||||
Using knowledge about audience | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.53 |
Planning: selecting | |||||
Thinking about content selection | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.05 | −0.29 |
Formulating | |||||
Thinking about formulating | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Revising while formulating | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Revising after finishing an utterance | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.43 |
Monitoring | |||||
Rereading own text | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.42 |
Rethinking task approach | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.40 |
Indicators for Learning by Writing | Biology Cohen’s d | Mathematics Cohen’s d |
---|---|---|
Planning Using knowledge about audience Thinking about content selection | Not used * Large | Medium Small negative effect |
Formulating Thinking about formulating Revising while formulating Revising after finishing an utterance | No effect Large negative effect No effect | Not used Not used Large |
Monitoring Rereading own text Rethinking task approach | No effect No effect | Small Small |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Van Dijk, A.; Van Gelderen, A.; Kuiken, F. Effects of Instruction in Writing-to-Learn on Low-Achieving Adolescents in Biology and Mathematics Classes. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090595
Van Dijk A, Van Gelderen A, Kuiken F. Effects of Instruction in Writing-to-Learn on Low-Achieving Adolescents in Biology and Mathematics Classes. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(9):595. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090595
Chicago/Turabian StyleVan Dijk, Aartje, Amos Van Gelderen, and Folkert Kuiken. 2022. "Effects of Instruction in Writing-to-Learn on Low-Achieving Adolescents in Biology and Mathematics Classes" Education Sciences 12, no. 9: 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090595