Writing Like a Scientist: Exploring ElementaryTeachers’ Understandings and Practicesof Writing in Science
Nicole J. Glen • Sharon Dotger
� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2013
Abstract This qualitative study examined the connections between elementary
teachers’ conceptions of how scientists use writing and how the teachers used
writing during science lessons. Data collected included lesson observations, inter-
views, handouts to students, and curriculum resources. The findings revealed that
teachers in this study thought scientists write for several purposes: the presentation
of data, observations, experiences, procedures, and facts. The teachers used writing
tasks that mirrored this with their students. The teachers also had a limited definition
of creativity in writing, and when they had students write creatively in science it was
to add in fictional elements. Implications of this study include providing teachers
with better models for how and why scientists write, including these models in more
inquiry-based science lessons, and directly relating concepts of nature of science to
elementary science writing.
Keywords Writing � Teacher beliefs � Elementary education
Writing during science lessons is one important way for elementary teachers to
support students’ learning. Writing while doing and learning science is important for
conceptual learning and for learning about the scientific discipline (Prain and Hand
1996). Writing can allow teachers to portray to students the excitement, personal
investment, and problem solving that is inherent in science. Teachers can also
N. J. Glen (&)
Elementary and Early Childhood Education Department, Bridgewater State University,
Bridgewater, MA 02325, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Dotger
Department of Science Teaching, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Sci Teacher Educ
DOI 10.1007/s10972-013-9348-x
integrate writing and science in ways that are authentic to science and literacy, such
that students use writing like practicing scientists and authors might, thereby leading
to learning in both subjects (McQuitty et al. 2010; Purcell-Gates et al. 2007).
Scientists use writing for documenting and presenting data and inferences;
making new ideas permanent; allowing reflection, analysis, and evaluation of
thoughts and discoveries; and informing and persuading others about science (Hand
et al. 2003; Norris and Phillips 2003; Yore 2004; Yore et al. 2003). In science
education then, writing can be used for many of these same purposes, resulting in
students communicating ideas and knowledge to themselves and others, under-
standing science content and science as a discipline, and creating knowledge
(Rivard 1994; Saul 2004; Yore et al. 2003). Science education reform documents,
like A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council [NRC]
2012), also support the use of writing in science by explaining that writing should be
used for clearly and accurately communicating scientific ideas, constructing and
evaluating scientific explanations, and posing and evaluating arguments and
conclusions based on evidence.
Purpose of This Study
A weakness of many studies about writing in science is that they do not investigate
teachers’ understandings about how to use writing in science: ‘‘Research on the
usefulness of [writing] strategies is incomplete until we better understand how andwhy strategies are actually used, or are not used, in [science] classrooms’’ (Moje
1996, p. 191). Teachers’ understandings and uses of writing during science
instruction, including the factors that influence teachers’ pedagogical decisions, are
missing from much of the writing-to-learn research. For example, Keys (1999a)
conducted a study with middle school students to find out what information they
included in their science writing when they were not instructed on how to write
scientific reports. Interestingly, many presented factual information, and only a few
included inferences and new hypotheses. Keys explained that one reason this may
have occurred is because the traditional forms of writing that students are often
exposed to in science class (e.g., fill in the blank, short-answer questions, factual
reports) may have resulted in students not considering the use of personal
interpretations, hypotheses, or explanations in their science writing. Yet, Keys made
this claim knowing that ‘‘we have little information on the degree to which teachers
use scientific genres, their goals and purposes for using these genres, their
expectations for student products, or the way they integrate science writing with
other instructional strategies’’ (Keys 1999b, p. 128).
Only one study (Rowell 1991) determined that a third grade teacher regularly
used some form of procedural writing in science because it fit with the teacher’s
understanding about how science was supposed to be conducted and written about.
Rowell’s study, however, featured only one science unit conducted by one teacher
deemed exceptional by the district science consultant at integrating language arts
and science. The study presented here adds to what Rowell found, but examined
more teachers with varied expertise and science backgrounds over a longer period of
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123
time. This study examined the ways in which four elementary teachers from one
school understood how scientists use writing and how this translated into science
writing practices for their students. The following research questions guided this
study:
1. How do elementary teachers understand the ways in which scientists use
writing?
2. How do elementary teachers’ understandings about how scientists use writing
influence how the teachers design science writing tasks?
Conceptual Background and Literature Review
Conceptual Background
This study used the idea that writing can help students learn any subject. In science,
this learning can also include an understanding of how the scientific discipline
works. It is necessary, though, to think about what ‘learning’ entails. Historically,
learning has been described as a process where the learner constructs: (1)
understanding by looking for meaning in the events of his or her world; (2)
relationships based on his or her understandings about the world that are organized
into existing schemata and can be used to interpret familiar and new situations; and
(3) relationships based on his or her established schemata (prior knowledge)
(Resnick 1983).
The implications of this for writing are that the writer’s schemata, or ‘‘complex
structures of information that represent the individual’s past encounters with the
world…contain[ing] the language user’s knowledge of objects, situations, and
events, as well as knowledge of procedures for interpreting, retrieving, and
organizing information’’ (p. 321), are used to produce and connect relevant data for
expression through writing (Kucer 1985). This, in turn, leads to new knowledge
formation because relationships among concepts are located, activated, explored,
and analyzed as the learner is writing. Olson (1977) pointed out that written
language must be explicit, is permanent and subject to scrutiny, criticism, and
reflection, and helps formulate abstract statements into factual knowledge. Thus,
writing is ‘‘an instrument for the exploration of new ideas’’ (Olson 1977, p. 16) and
a ‘‘specialized tool of analytic thinking’’ (p. 18) since meaning must be formed
through explicit explanations that use logical structure. At the same time, the writer
must also have knowledge of and experience with the concepts about which he or
she writes in order to successfully convey information and ideas to others. It is these
aspects of writing that are important for enhancing a writer’s cognitive processes.
Writing-to-learn is one way students can use writing as a cognitive tool to develop
conceptual understanding of science (Fulwiler 1987; Gere 1985; Zinsser 1988).
Writing-to-learn causes the learner to synthesize ideas, many of which never existed
until he or she thinks and writes them, thus allowing the learner to become aware of
these connections and thereby knowing more than before writing it (Van Nostrand
1979).
Writing Like a Scientist
123
More recently, research about writing has also turned to sociocultural theories to
explain how context plays a role in students’ writing processes (Prior 2006). Genres
are both cognitive and social tools that enable students to learn discipline-based
ways of thinking, representing, and communicating ideas (Chapman 2006). In this
way, writing-to-learn can provide students with an understanding of how
‘‘knowledge production…[in science] operates according to particular norms
for…practice, conventions for communicating and representing knowledge and
ideas, and ways of interacting, defending ideas, and challenging the deeply held
ideas of others in the discipline’’ (Moje 2007, p. 28). These norms are created and
practiced based on social and cultural interactions among scientists and the general
public’s knowledge of science.
Science education positions writing as an important way for students to build
conceptual knowledge of science (Prain and Hand 1996; Yore et al. 2003).
However, writing during science also aligns with sociocultural theories of writing
such that writing can be used to learn about the nature of science. Teachers can
‘‘select language tasks that encompass the range of genre, information sources, and
communication technologies encountered by practicing scientists and science-
literate adults’’ (Yore 2004, p. 86). Although some theorists argue that this means
students should ‘‘learn to write (and read) the traditional, ‘impersonal’ report in the
appropriate technical language,’’ (p. 609), others note that in order for science to
remain accessible to a wide variety of students, then additional genres, such as the
personal and speculative writing of scientists, can also be used by students
(McQuitty et al. 2010; Prain and Hand 1996).
Similarly, literacy educators like Purcell-Gates et al. (2007) recommend that
authentic literacy activities take place in content areas. Authentic literacy activities
include writing texts that help students understand real-world, social processes of
writing and are not solely to help students write for evaluative school purposes. This
can be accomplished with teachers modeling scientific language and writing (Honig
2010) and using mentor texts. Mentor texts are books and other print resources that are
read and reread for different purposes to help students see relevance to their own lives
(Dorfman and Cappelli 2009). Mentor texts can serve as an authentic literacy model
for the types of writing done in real-world science. Therefore, science and literacy
education have common goals about one of the purposes for writing—to teach
students how to write in ways similar to how and what practicing scientists write.
This study utilized Applebee’s (1982) broad definition of writing from his large-
scale study of secondary school teachers, as well as Bereiter and Scardamalia’s
(1987) and Tolchinsky’s (2006) theoretical definitions of writing. Therefore, writing
included ‘‘any task in which information or experiences were being written down
for later reference’’ (Applebee 1982, p. 370) for oneself and someone other than
oneself (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1987; Tolchinsky 2006). This definition
incorporated all of the writing seen during this study.
Literature Review
Many elementary teachers see themselves and texts as dispensers of scientific
knowledge (King et al. 2001; Levitt 2001; Tilgner 1990) and structure their science
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123
lessons to ensure that students learn a set of scientific facts (Water-Adams 2006)
from a text-dominated curriculum (Baker and Saul 1994). As a result, these teachers
tend to use writing for knowledge telling, where students recall information for the
purpose of telling the teacher what they know through simple writing tasks
(Holliday et al. 1994). This type of writing does not allow for students to write for
real-world purposes. Thus, although students in these classrooms may write a lot in
science, it is rarely to enhance learning (Rivard 1994). Contrary to this, writing-to-
learn is the minds-on component to hands-on science because it helps students to
build knowledge, construct understanding, and engage in the reasoning and
problem-solving processes of scientists (Glynn and Muth 1994; Gunel et al. 2007;
Yore et al. 2003).
Learning science through inquiry, where students devise hypotheses, procedures,
data collection techniques, scientific explanations, and communication methods
(American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] 1990; NRC 2012),
can allow for more authentic science writing activities to take place in the
elementary classroom. Then, as students participate in these activities, opportunities
to develop writing skills (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and punctuation), to
create arguments and persuade others of scientific claims, and to learn the technical
writing of science are also present (Rivard 1994; Yore et al. 2003). Writing can also
enable students to transition from their own descriptions of science phenomena to
more technical science vocabulary by providing opportunities for drafting and
revising ideas and writing for varying audiences (Prain and Hand 1996; Sutton
1993).
An example of learning technical science writing is when students collect
observations and data about a phenomenon and record them during inquiry. As a
result, they are learning that scientists use observations. Observations are statements
about nature that are accessible through the human senses (Lederman 2007). Several
studies have found that when teachers ask students to write in science notebooks,
observations (including data) are the most often recorded type of information
(Alonzo 2001, 2008; Ruiz-Primo et al. 2010). It is important that students write
observations during science lessons because the act of writing about them, and not
just making the observations, allows students to think more thoroughly and notice
what they are seeing, hearing, touching, and smelling (Sutton 1993). Then, this
record of information is accessible to students in order to find patterns and create
explanations about nature.
The observations students record can eventually be used to write inferences,
another example of technical science writing. Inferences are the scientific
explanations that scientists create from their observations (Lederman 2007). There
is some debate about what constitutes an ‘‘explanation’’ in science education and
how it compares to argumentation (e.g. McNeill 2011; Osborne and Patterson
2011). The goal of this paper is not to enter the debate but to explain how teachers’
understandings of scientific writing may influence if and how they have students
write their own inferences, regardless if they are labeled as explanations or
arguments. This is important to consider because by writing aspects of a scientific
explanation or argument, students can learn how to use the language of science
while making meaning of science concepts at the same time (Mortimer and Scott
Writing Like a Scientist
123
2003; Zembal-Saul 2009). Unfortunately, when teachers ask students to write in
science, they often do not ask them to include inferences (Alonzo 2001, 2008;
Applebee and Langer 2011; Keys 1999a; Ruiz-Primo et al. 2010). Previous research
has found that teachers and students at all levels have difficulty constructing
arguments in science (Zeidler 1997; Zembal-Saul et al. 2002; Zohar 2004). Teachers
often lack the pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of the nature of science to
effectively teach science using argumentation (Driver et al. 2000). As a result,
students are often using writing for procedures, observations, and facts, a small part
of the full process of inquiry and knowledge development in science. Nevertheless,
learning how to construct scientific explanations or arguments is a skill that can be
enhanced with practice and intervention (Driver et al. 2000), even in the elementary
classroom (e.g. Norton-Meier et al. 2008; Zembal-Saul et al. 2013).
Finally, elementary teachers sometimes know little about expository text
structures and the unique discourse of science, and tend to favor narrative books
and writing styles over scientific forms of writing (Shymansky et al. 1991; Yopp and
Yopp 2006). In fact, many teachers are unaware that the language of science uses
elements of vocabulary, syntax, and discourse differently from other academic
disciplines (Gee 2001). As Yager (2004) noted:
A common misconception in modern society is that the contents of science
[books] are, in fact, science….Most written materials offered to students in the
course of science instruction are but descriptions of past science explora-
tions… What students encounter are but declarations of ‘fact’ – the
explanations of the natural world that are generally accepted by the current
academy of scientists… Although many [books] and other materials may be
fine records of what scientists have come to know, they do not represent the
heart and soul of the scientific enterprise. (p. 95)
From a writing perspective, this is troublesome because many texts are ‘‘poor
models of writing and thinking within the disciplines they represented’’ (Langer and
Applebee 1987, p. 148). If teachers hold the same view about science texts as Yager
(2004) noted, then science writing that models and compliments scientific discourse
may be unfamiliar to them.
Methodology and Procedures
The findings presented here were part of a larger qualitative case study of four
elementary teachers from one suburban elementary school, Lakeview Elementary
(pseudonym), in New York (Glen 2008). A case study was used to understand
teachers’ uses of writing in science in a contemporary, real-life context where the
events were not manipulated by a researcher (Yin 2003). Case studies are useful for
gaining ‘‘an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those
involved,’’ and they are defined as a setting, context, or unit around which there are
boundaries (Creswell 2007; Merriam 1998, p. 19). This study’s attention to teachers
in one elementary school constitutes a bounded unit as there were a finite number of
people and situations involved.
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123
In order to paint a well-rounded picture of Lakeview Elementary, we sought
participants that represented the range of grade levels in the school (K-5). For
example, obtaining one teacher at the kindergarten or first grade level, one at the
second or third grade level, and one at the fourth or fifth grade level was ideal to
represent the range of grades; the school had only three or four classrooms per grade
level. Subsequently, Lakeview’s principal found four teachers who volunteered to
participate—one each in kindergarten, first, second, and fourth grade. We
purposefully chose to work with only these four teachers so that an information-
rich case study of the school could be created and so that ample time could be spent
with each of teachers for both writing and science lessons (Coyne 1997).
Additionally, we needed participants who taught both science and writing several
days of the week, and these teachers fulfilled that expectation.
For this case study, a small sample of teachers was selected because we wished to
understand the research questions in depth, not to find out what is true of many
teachers and schools (Merriam 1998). The findings described in this study may not
be applicable to all or even most other elementary schools and teachers. However,
some of the findings described in this study held true across the teachers in this
study and were similar to findings of other studies. As anticipated, many of the
themes that resulted from the study emerged from teachers working in the same
school, under the same administration, and with the same student population. Many
of the factors that influenced writing in science that arose during data analysis were
similar among the teachers, possibly due to them working with the same science
curriculum expectations and the same writing program called 6 ? 1 Trait� Writing(Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory [NWREL] 2007). Therefore, a case
study design was suitable for this study because it examined a situation (writing in
science) whose variables and events were often hard to separate from its context
(Yin 2003).
The district science curriculum was a series of topics designated each month for
each grade level and was created by teachers and administrators in the district so
that it correlated closely with the New York State science standards. However,
teachers often moved these topics to other times of the year depending on how they
saw them fitting with the rest of their curriculum, seasons, or holidays. The math/
science curriculum coordinator for the district commented that ‘‘there is a lot of
flexibility in the program, teachers can use their creativity’’ (interview: 2/13/08)
when planning their science lessons. Every teacher had a binder which consisted of
a compilation of worksheets, websites, names of videos, and lists of books that
could be used to teach each topic. There were few or no explanations of experiments
or hands-on/inquiry activities in the binders. However, for some units, the teachers
received a science kit from a local professional development institute that contained
materials and additional resources, including experiments and hands-on activities.
The writing curriculum consisted of required genres for student writing.
Students’ work was placed in each student’s portfolio, and passed along to the
next year’s teacher. For example, in first grade the required genres included ‘‘A
Story About Me,’’ how-to report, descriptive writing, persuasive letter, and research
report. Similar to science, there were months during the year that were suggested as
the appropriate time to teach each of the genres. To help teachers evaluate their
Writing Like a Scientist
123
students’ writing for each required genre, teams of district teachers and adminis-
trators created rubrics. The rubrics were based on 6 ? 1 Trait� Writing (NWREL
2007), the writing program that was used in the district. The traits that were assessed
for each genre included: (1) focus on the main idea, (2) organization and paragraph
structure, (3) voice, (4) word choice, (5) sentence fluency, (6) conventions and
grammar rules, and (7) presentation. Neither the required genres nor the traits of
writing that were assessed were specific to science.
The participants were Leslie (all names are pseudonyms), a kindergarten teacher,
Evan, a first grade teacher, Nora, a second grade teacher, and Anita, a fourth grade
teacher. The teachers ranged from having 2 years (Evan), to 5 years (Nora), to over
20 years (Leslie and Anita) of experience. All of them held a bachelor’s and/or a
master’s degree in elementary education. None of them had a formal background in
science beyond the content and teaching methodology courses required during teacher
preparation. In fact, Anita and Nora commented that they lacked content knowledge
and felt uncomfortable teaching science. Evan, however, participated every summer
in teaching a science camp to local elementary students, and claimed that this sparked
his interest and helped him feel excited and comfortable teaching science.
The study took place from November through February of the 2007–2008 school
year, during which the first author spent three to 4 days per week in the school. For
each teacher, an average of 15 lessons were formally observed, three 1-h interviews
were conducted, and numerous artifacts of lesson plans, assignments, and curriculum
guides were collected to understand how these teachers used writing during their
science instruction. As part of this study, the teachers were interviewed at least three
different times. The first interview was structured in order to gain common
information from the teachers about their teaching of science and writing and views
about learning. The second and third interviews were semi-structured and sought
more specific information about what occurred during classroom observations, along
with information about the teachers’ views of writing in science, including questions
to learn what they understood about how scientists used writing. Observations of
science and writing lessons provided information about the degree to which the
teachers used writing in the ways they described during the interviews and focused
on the ways the teachers presented and discussed writing tasks with students.
The purpose of a case study is to report descriptions, explain themes (Creswell
2007), and develop inferences and hypotheses (Merriam 1998). To do this, we used
Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) constant comparative method of analysis. During data
collection, open and axial coding was used to develop categories and interconnect the
categories to further inform future data collection (Strauss and Corbin 1990). For
example, early in the study conversations and interviews with the teachers were being
consistently categorized as teachers’ ideas about writing and science, and writing as
assessment opportunities, rather than how students’ abilities influenced the writing
that was done in the classrooms, which had been a predicted topic. The prominence of
these topics caused the researchers to focus more in-depth on them during subsequent
interviews and observations, leading to the comparison of incidents and behavior
patterns of the different teachers in relation to these categories. Selective coding
highlighted the most common categories and connected them, creating a hypothesis of
links among codes (Creswell 2007; Merriam 1998; Strauss and Corbin 1990). The
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123
computer software QSR NVivo7 was used to help create appropriate categories and
codes and to store the data. The co-authors worked together to discuss the data, the
codes, and their relationships to the research questions.
Open coding was used to group conceptually similar events, actions, and
interactions to form categories and subcategories (Corbin and Strauss 1990). Then
axial coding was used to further the development of the categories and note
indications of them (e.g., what they were, and how, when, where, and why they
occurred) (Corbin and Strauss 1990). Table 1 shows the axial coding categories
from the interviews and observations with Evan in response to the open codes of
‘‘talk and feelings about science’’ and ‘‘talk and feelings about writing.’’
The categories in Table 1 include a demonstration where Evan placed raisins in
clear soda. The students watched the raisins rise and sink in the soda, described
properties of the materials used, and stated their observations (science = making
detailed observations). The next day, students wrote a step-by-step description of
the demonstration (writing in science = procedures). In a subsequent interview,
Evan noted that the science curriculum was filled with descriptions and step-by-step
procedures, and these were common in real-world science (science = procedures to
follow). The interviews and observations with the other participating teachers
resulted in similar categories, allowing the researchers to develop the assertions
described below.
Findings
Teachers’ Views of How Scientists Use Writing
When the participants were first asked how they thought scientists used writing,
each teacher paused for a long time. Evan and Nora originally responded with ‘‘I
Table 1 Axial coding categories for Evan
For Evan, science is/means For Evan, writing in science is/means
Working with others
Making detailed observations
Having different perspectives
Sharing ideas
Creating analogies
The doing (experimenting, handling materials)
But not the writing
Procedures to follow
When everything works out fine
Learning facts
Creating models (e.g. simulating events in nature)
Procedures
Specific details (e.g. facts, specific words for
describing)
Recording observations during science
Recording procedures after science
Brainstorming facts
Creating analogies
Like any other writing they do
Different from other writing they do
Not creative, because creativity is writing things that
are make believe
This table shows the categories created during axial coding from the interviews and observations with
first grade teacher Evan
Writing Like a Scientist
123
don’t know’’ (Evan, 1/17/08; Nora, 2/5/08), and Nora seemed flustered she did not
know and defended herself by stating scientists ‘‘wouldn’t know what teachers do
[either]’’ (2/5/08). Eventually, all of the teachers gave descriptions of how they
thought scientists used writing and what they thought writing in real-world science
was like. All of the teachers believed writing was an important skill for scientists to
have in order to communicate. Leslie noted that scientists write to convey
information to those who do not know about the topic. Evan explained that written
communication is essential for scientists because if they cannot convey their
message or information to others, including ‘‘non-scientists’’ (1/17/08), then it
cannot be used by others.
The teachers explained that scientists’ purposes for writing were to communicate
factual information, including observations, procedures, findings, and conclusions.
Evan thinks of scientists’ writing as ‘‘… more literal, like fact-based, observational
type of writing’’ (3/12/08). Other teachers agreed. Leslie noted scientists write about
‘‘a lot of data, a lot of observation’’ (3/5/08). Nora believed scientists mainly write
reports about their findings, typically following the scientific method of hypothesis,
experiment, and conclusion. Anita described scientists’ writing as including
description, results, conclusions, and ‘‘cause and effect’’ (3/6/08).
The teachers believed the writing that scientists do, as described above, is
different from how others write. For example, Anita noted how the voice, use of
language, and structure of science writing is different from other writing. She
explained that science writing needed an authoritative tone of voice, ‘‘compared to
flowery and what a narrative would have in it’’ (3/6/08). She added when scientists
choose their words, the use of adjectives was different:
the adjectives have more of a job to do, they’re more to help the [scientist] be
specific, different than enhancing. I mean [scientists] don’t want to add the
kind of worthless words in [their writing]…word choice here is more for
clarity…where[as] in a narrative it would definitely be to get that picture in
your mind…it wouldn’t [just be] ‘a winter night’ but a frosty, white, you know
just adding a few descriptive words. (3/6/08)
Anita stated the language difference in science and narrative writing was also due to
the vocabulary, because writing in science ‘‘has different vocabulary… bigvocabulary’’ (3/6/08).
Anita’s sense that scientists’ writing is more straightforward than other forms of
writing may have been similar to Evan and Nora’s idea that the writing that
scientists produce could not be ‘‘creative.’’ For example, Evan felt bad that he had to
describe scientists’ writing as uncreative, but he seemed unable to put other words
to it: ‘‘I don’t really think of it as, I hate to say the word creative but I think
of realistic type of things, fact based type of stuff, that’s just what I think of it’’
(3/12/08). He explained that he was ‘‘partial to’’ (3/12/08) creative writing because
he liked to write fantasy and make-believe stories, and to him these were not what
scientists would write. During an observation in Nora’s classroom, she explained to
her students that the science writing they were about to do could ‘‘be creative’’ and
that it did not have to be ‘‘a report’’ (1/30/08). The students could write fantasy,
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123
realistic fiction, or a report. Nora did not seem to think that science writing could be
interesting or creative without fiction infused.
In summary, the teachers eventually explained that scientists wrote to convey
factual information to other scientists and the general population. This factual
information included descriptions of factual knowledge, observations, procedures,
and conclusions. The teachers also considered scientists’ writing to be straightfor-
ward and less creative than other forms of writing.
Connections Between Science Writing Assignments and Teachers’ Conceptions
of How Scientists Use Writing
These teachers’ ideas that scientists use writing to communicate factual information
were reflective of the ways many of them asked their students to write. Leslie, Evan,
and Nora all said they occasionally had students write in the same way that
scientists do; Anita claimed she did not. For example, Leslie’s science lessons often
involved students simulating nature to learn more about life cycles and other natural
processes, such as pretending they were penguins protecting an egg or using
flashlights and shapes to make shadows. Leslie noted that a lot of the writing she
had her kindergarten students do was ‘‘experience writing’’ (3/5/08) where they
wrote about what they knew, what they did, or what they observed. It was through
their ‘‘experiences’’ in science that Leslie said her students produced writing similar
to what scientists produce because they had to explain their observations or convey
information about the topic.
Evan explained that his students wrote like scientists when they wrote notes
about their observations of nature, took measurements, and recorded procedures like
how to plant a seed or make raisins float and sink in soda. He also thought that grade
level would make a difference for how he might ask students to write like scientists:
‘‘I mean scientific writing when you’re talking about first grade could be as simple
as tell me what the weather is’’ (3/12/08), whereas in higher grades writing like
scientists might mean writing about experiments that students conducted.
During certain science units, like magnets and buoyancy, Nora had her students
follow ‘‘the scientific method’’, and in these cases Nora said they wrote like
scientists to explain their hypotheses, procedures, and conclusions. However, she
also felt that any time students explained something by writing about scientific facts
and information, they were also writing like scientists. Nora described an example
of how her students’ science writing was not ‘‘that much different from other
writing in other subjects’’ (3/4/08). She read a magazine article about teacher
retention rate, and the author had called himself a scientific writer. It seemed that to
Nora any type of writer who is presenting factual information could be considered a
scientific writer, and because she often had her students do the same then they were
writing like scientists as well.
Anita believed students’ science writing was different from writing she had
students create in other subjects. She claimed she did not often have students write
like scientists. She felt her students would have trouble writing in a scientific way
due to the differences described earlier, such as complex vocabulary words,
authoritative voice, and specific purposes for adjectives. She noted that scientists’
Writing Like a Scientist
123
writing ‘‘doesn’t flow, [it doesn’t] have the typical characters, setting, plot, that
[students] are so use to writing about. [Scientists’ writing] is set up different’’ (email
3/20/08) than most of the other types of writing students created.
As explained earlier, many of the teachers perceived the factual writing scientists
produced could not be or was not ‘‘creative.’’ In this way, writing like a scientist was
unlike the other types of writing teachers said they had their students produce. For
all of the teachers, this feeling that the writing that scientists do is not creative was
implicit in how they talked about writing during interviews and to their students.
Leslie and Nora often referred to writing in science as ‘‘stories,’’ both in their
interviews and to their students, even if there were no fictional elements to a writing
piece. This may have been because they expected students to add specific details
and more adjectives to their writing in order to make it more creative. To them,
these kinds of details were most often found in the fiction ‘‘stories’’ they read to
their class. Leslie, Evan, and Nora expected their students to ‘‘be creative’’ when
they wrote in science, and all four teachers wanted their students to ‘‘have fun’’
while writing. These feelings may have partially contributed to teachers’ decision to
have students add fictional elements or eloquent details to some of their science
writing. They reasoned that because students’ writing was not only composed of
facts, it was no longer considered similar to what scientists write.
Evan and Nora provided good examples of how they viewed some forms of
writing as being creative and fun, and other forms, like writing in science, as not.
One day, Evan asked his class to write rough drafts of a letter to a family member
about a planet. He explained they needed to write facts and he wanted them to be
creative. He said they could ‘‘write some make-believe stuff because if you think
about some of the books we’ve read recently, like the Magic Tree House books, they
have a lot of make-believe stuff to make them interesting’’ (1/25/08). Rather than
referring to one of the expository texts about objects in the solar system he had
recently read to the students during science instruction, he referenced the popular
Magic Tree House fiction series he typically read aloud. In the lesson described
earlier where Nora told her students they could be creative while writing in science,
she explained several times during that lesson before and after students began that
their ‘‘story…doesn’t have to be a report. It can be fun. It can be fiction’’ (1/30/08).
Thus, when Evan and Nora decided to use writing in science, they often had
students add ‘‘interesting’’ and ‘‘fun’’ components to it, like make-believe or the use
of details that were not necessarily scientific. This resulted in a narrative form of
writing that combined real facts with make-believe elements. To these teachers, this
was a seemingly more creative form of writing, and no longer considered similar to
how practicing scientists write.
Anita’s writing goals provide a final example of the differences between writing
in science and other forms of writing. Anita regularly encouraged her students to use
similes, metaphors, and figurative language. She felt having students use language
in these ways allowed them to be creative, ‘‘which is fun for them and it really
expands their vocabulary’’ (12/14/07). Yet, students only used these features in
narrative texts and never in factual writing or during science. This may have
contributed to why Anita ‘‘never thought about’’ (3/6/08) having her students write
in ways similar to scientists. Anita thought writing in science was very different
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123
from the other types she had her students create and she did not feel it allowed her
students to practice using language in the ways described here. Therefore, it may
have been difficult for Anita to understand how and why writing like scientists
might be useful in her classroom.
Finally, the teachers believed the process through which their students produced
science writing was similar to writing in other subjects. The school in which these
teachers worked used 6 ? 1 Trait� Writing (NWREL 2007) to help students learn
to write different genres. Evan believed these traits of writing—ideas, organization,
voice, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, and presentation—applied to any
form of writing, even science writing. Given he felt he was expected to implement
the writing features found on the district writing rubrics that aligned with 6 ? 1Trait� Writing (NWREL 2007), it was essential he fit the features to whatever
writing his students did, even writing in science. Overall, when the teachers had
students write in science, they felt this writing should be used to teach the writing
process prevalent in 6 ? 1 Trait� Writing (NWREL 2007) as opposed to teaching
students how to write like scientists.
In summary, Leslie, Evan, and Nora thought the writing that scientists produce
was similar in many ways to the writing they already had students create because
their students wrote about experiences and facts and followed the writing processes
laid out in the district writing program. Contrary to the others, Anita did not think
her students wrote like scientists because science writing was different from the
types of writing they did produce. Anita felt her students were not familiar with real-
world ways of science writing because most of their experiences as students
involved fictional writing and not the use of the scientific language and text
structures she thought scientific writing contained. Finally, it seemed all of the
teachers considered the writing that scientists produce to be less ‘‘creative’’ than
other forms of writing, so many of them suggested their students add more creative
(e.g., make-believe) details while writing in science.
Discussion
One purpose of this study was to learn how teachers understood the ways scientists
write. The teachers perceived scientists’ writing to be factual, presenting data,
observations, experiences, procedures, and conclusions. These teachers’ ideas aresimilar to some of the ways scientists write; for example, scientists report data,
observations, procedures, explanations, and definitions (Suppe 1998; Yore 2004;
Yore et al. 2004). Yet, there are many ways scientists convey information which
aids their own learning. Scientists’ writing includes: (a) arguments presenting
claims and defending them with evidence; (b) critiques of other scientists’ work;
(c) diaries, journals, and field notes with data, personal beliefs, and ideas;
(d) descriptions of cause-effect relationships; and (e) editorials, descriptive reports,
newspaper columns, and books for the general public (Richardon 2005; Yore 2004).
These types of scientific writing were not used, read, or discussed in this study’s
classrooms. These types of science writing make science possible, and provide
Writing Like a Scientist
123
teachers and students with ‘‘an entry into the scientific community, its ways of
thinking, and the discourse it uses’’ (McQuitty et al. 2010, p. 321; also Honig 2010).
Additionally, the teachers in this study had a particular definition of the word
‘‘creative,’’ which to them meant ‘‘make-believe’’ or ‘‘elaborate’’ details. As a
result, this influenced how they viewed the ways scientists use writing, namely as
being contrary to ‘‘creative.’’ Yet in science, the act of scientific inquiry and
producing inferences are considered creative because scientists are using their
imaginations and critical thinking in order to develop experiments, models, and
explanations from data. Scientists invent explanations, which ‘‘requires a great deal
of creativity’’ (Lederman 2007, p. 834). When scientists, or students, create
explanations about the natural world, they are using both the empirical
observations they collected as well as their own imagination and creativity.
Therefore, the teachers in this study might benefit from an expanded definition of
‘‘creativity’’ to include the process of doing science, the models and simulations
enacted to explain science, and the writing that portrays effectively, accurately,
and interestingly to an outside audience what is being done, observed, and claimed
during science lessons.
A second purpose of this study was to understand how the teachers’ views of
scientists’ writing influenced their own uses of writing during science lessons. The
teachers asked students to write about data, observations, and experiences with
scientific phenomena, procedures for conducting experiments, and factual
knowledge about a topic (what they considered conclusions). Thus, the types
and purposes for science writing the teachers had students use occasionally
mirrored what they believed practicing scientists write. The resources the teachers
used may have influenced these types and purposes for writing in science. The
teachers and students were continually exposed to science represented as lists of
facts through the books and other sources used to teach science. Informational
texts often show science as accumulated facts, do not always show the way
research was conducted, and often present conclusions with little or no reference
to the reasoning and arguments scientists used to form them (Ford 2006; Penney
et al. 2003). By using resources that rarely modeled how scientists conduct their
work or the forms of writing scientists use in the process of doing science, the
teachers may have had little experience with the variety of writing that practicing
scientists would engage in.
Many of the ways the teachers used science writing reflect a partial understand-
ing of nature of science (NOS): i.e. science is derived from observations of the
natural world (Lederman 2007). These findings are similar to earlier studies where
teachers asked students to write observations more often than inferences (Alonzo
2001, 2008; Applebee and Langer 2011; Ruiz-Primo et al. 2010). In order for
writing in science to more fully reflect NOS, it can be helpful for writing to at least
occasionally take place within the context of inquiry-based science. In fact, the
context within which any tenet of NOS is taught and used is as important to
understanding NOS as knowing the tenets themselves (Allchin 2011).
The teachers in this study tended to have students observe natural phenomena
and simulations and test how the world works by following premade instructions
(Glen 2008). Students then used these experiences to record observations in writing
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123
as they manipulated or observed materials. This needs to be taken a step further,
though, so students are planning and conducting their own tests, asking questions,
reviewing what is already known and comparing it to what they have found, seeking
evidence through observations, experiments, and other means, proposing claims
using evidence from the data they have gathered, and communicating with others
about findings—this is scientific inquiry (NRC 2000; Yager 2004). By continuing to
teach science by using experiences without inquiry, some of the only ways these
teachers might be able to conceive of writing as useful during science lessons was to
do what they had been doing: writing about procedures, observations, and facts.
Without inquiry science, there are no claims and evidence to present in writing, no
reasoning processes to work through via writing, and no new knowledge to present
to authentic audiences. As previous research suggests, teachers often lack the
pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of NOS to effectively teach science using
argumentation (Driver et al. 2000). Thus, teachers are not going to ask their students
to write inferences in science if the teachers themselves do not understand what an
inference is, how it compares to observations, and how both are used within the
context of inquiry science.
However, teachers may not consider NOS when deciding how to use writing to
teach science. This may be due to their lack of experience or knowledge of NOS,
their own past science and literacy experiences, or the culture of their school and
community. For example, sometimes the teachers in this study purposely had their
students produce writing about science that they did not consider inherently
‘‘scientific’’. Rather, writing was used to organize, record, and convey information
and practice general literacy skills, despite the subject area (Glen 2008). In these
instances, the teachers were not concerned with having students write like scientists.
The resulting writing did not correspond to scientific genres. This is consistent with
previous studies (e.g. Honig 2010), including Hildebrand’s (1998) findings
regarding teachers’ uses of hybrid imaginative writing in science. In these studies,
teachers had students write about science topics in ways that fit better with the type
of writing the teachers were comfortable doing (such as adding make-believe details
to science facts) and with district writing curriculum requirements, such as the
6 ? 1 Trait�Writing (NWREL 2007) prominent in the current study. Several traits
of writing, such as word choice and sentence fluency, can be interpreted as a way to
add creativity to science writing by including the use of figurative language and
word patterns, respectively. But, without examples of what this might look like in
scientific writing the teachers were limited in their knowledge about how to include
science topics in the writing curriculum in ways that were more authentic to the
science discipline.
In conclusion, having only one teacher in grades kindergarten, first, second, and
fourth limited our understanding about how grade level influenced the writing and
science that was taught at Lakeview Elementary. However, these four teachers
collectively provided rich data about factors influencing science and writing
instruction that crossed grade levels. The teachers in this study all perceived
scientific writing as an uncreative endeavor used to explain facts, observations, and
experiences to others.
Writing Like a Scientist
123
Implications and Future Research
It may be the teachers in this study were not familiar with the various writing tasks
that could correspond to scientists’ writing. If this is the case, the teachers may
benefit from experiences that enable them to see what, how, and why scientists
write. This can be combined with helping teachers understand how writing that
models what scientists do is an important process to support both science and
literacy learning. If writing is used in ways that are authentic to scientific inquiry
then the practices and genres of science can be fully embedded with the literacy
skills that elementary teachers must attend to when teaching writing.
It may be necessary to attend to teachers’ understandings of NOS in order to
address how writing during science is beneficial. Most previous studies of
elementary teachers’ conceptions of NOS show that teachers held naı̈ve under-
standings about how science works (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000;
Lederman 2007). And, although previous studies have also shown that improving
teachers’ NOS views does not necessarily translate into classroom practice (Akerson
and Abd-El-Khalick 2003; Lederman 2007), teaching young students about NOS
cannot be achieved without teachers having some knowledge of it themselves
(Akerson et al. 2007). In this study, the teachers’ limited understanding about how
practicing scientists use writing may have contributed to the teachers using writing
during science lessons to teach their students more about how the narrative writing
process works as opposed to NOS or how to use scientific inquiry to generate
scientific writing. And, although it may be that school science writing can never be
like real science writing, it can still be used to portray NOS. Writing that reflects
NOS can potentially promote in teachers and students a positive attitude toward
science, respect for NOS and for scientists, and an understanding about how to do
inquiry science.
Science and literacy educators might consider several avenues of future research.
One is a more thorough understanding of how teachers’ views of NOS influence the
literacy tasks they choose to use in science. This study only began to examine this
topic with its look at teachers’ pedagogical practices and ideas about science and
how scientists use writing. Teachers’ understanding of scientists’ writing as factual
and not creative is contrary to NOS views of science as a tentative and creative
endeavor where scientists create inferences about the natural world (AAAS 1990).
In addition, it would be beneficial to determine how more teachers understand the
science-related nonfiction and fiction texts they have students read and how this is
related to their understanding of scientific writing and NOS. Previous studies
regarding the development of teachers’ understandings about NOS suggest that
explicit-reflective instruction, learning through inquiry, model lessons, and contin-
ual feedback and support over an extended period of time help elementary teachers
achieve a deeper understanding of NOS (Akerson et al. 2000, 2007; Akerson and
Hanuscin 2007; Henriques 1998; Luft and Pizzini 1998). The positive results from
these practices during the professional development of elementary teachers serve as
a good model for how to help elementary teachers use more authentic writing
practices in science as well.
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123
Learning to use mentor texts (Dorfman and Cappelli 2009) in science is another
way teachers can build their own and their students’ understandings of the authentic
literacy practices of scientists. The relevance students see in relation to science
mentor texts can come from practicing scientists’ writing, particularly those
scientists students may learn about during a unit of study, studied or collected data
with, or gained information from as needed during scientific inquiries. Additionally,
students’ interactions with authentic texts can increase students’ interests in the
topic, their ability to use and comprehend the texts, and their facility in modeling the
texts in their own writing (Caswell and Duke 1998). However, students can have
difficulty acquiring information about NOS from texts that favor narrative or
informational/factual styles of writing over ones that show the argumentative,
creative, and tentative features of science (Newell et al. 2011). Thus, it is of utmost
importance that students are exposed to texts written by real scientists. Finally,
mentor texts for both fiction and expository writing are a much touted means of
writing instruction for all grade levels, yet there has been little research on how to
support teachers’ efforts in this area (Donovan and Smolkin 2011). Therefore, this is
a much needed avenue of research and one that may be a successful way for science
and literacy educators to collaborate in order to improve teachers’ and students’
understandings of both NOS and authentic literacy practices.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of
science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7),
665–701.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case
study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025–1049.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit
activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit
instruction on K-6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18,
751–772.
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year
professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95,
518–542.
Alonzo, A. C. (2001). Using student notebooks to assess the quality of inquiry science instruction. In
P. R. Aschbacher (Chair), Challenges in assessing evidence of learning and teaching in elementaryscience. Symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, WA, April 10–14.
Alonzo, A. C. (2008). Using science notebooks as an informal assessment tool. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas,
& C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspectives from research and practice (pp.
83–99). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans.
[Electronic version]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Applebee, A. N. (1982). Writing and learning in school settings. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writersknow: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 365–381). New York:
Academic Press.
Writing Like a Scientist
123
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high
schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.
Baker, L., & Saul, W. (1994). Considering science and language arts connections: A study of teacher
cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1023–1037.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. K. (1998). Non-narrative as a catalyst for narrative development. LanguageArts, 75(2), 108–117.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.
Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research: Purposeful and theoretical sampling, merging or
clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 623–630.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2011). Supporting informational writing in the elementary grades. TheReading Teacher, 64(6), 406–416.
Dorfman, L. R., & Cappelli, R. (2009). Nonfiction mentor texts. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in
classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Ford, D. J. (2006). Representations of science within children’s trade books. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 43(2), 214–235.
Fulwiler, T. (1987). The journal book. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent &Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714–725.
Gere, A. R. (1985). Roots in the sawdust: Writing-to-learn across the disciplines. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Chicago: Aldine.
Glen, N. J. (2008). Writing in elementary school science: Factors that influence teacher beliefs andpractices. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057–1073.
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning in science: A secondary analysis of six
studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 615–637.
Hand, B. M., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B. J., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., et al. (2003).
Message from the ‘‘island group’’: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 40(7), 607–615.
Henriques, L. (1998). Maximizing the impact of your in-service: Designing the inservice and selecting theparticipants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers
of Science, Minneapolis, MN.
Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right
way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 345–362.
Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing
connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9),
877–893.
Honig, S. L. (2010). A framework for supporting scientific language in primary grades. The ReadingTeacher, 64(1), 23–32.
Keys, C. W. (1999a). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school
students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(9), 1044–1061.
Keys, C. W. (1999b). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with
writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.
King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies
of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85, 89–110.
Kucer, S. L. (1985). The making of meaning: Reading and writing as parallel processes. WrittenCommunication, 2(3), 317–336.
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. A. Abell & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). New York: Routledge.
Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of
science. Science Education, 86, 1–22.
Luft, J. A., & Pizzini, E. L. (1998). The demonstration classroom in-service: Changes in the classroom.
Science Education, 82, 147–162.
McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their
abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,48(7), 793–823.
McQuitty, V., Dotger, S., & Khan, U. (2010). One without the other isn’t as good as both together: A
theoretical framework of integrated writing/science instruction in the primary grades. NationalReading Conference Yearbook, 59, 315–328.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Moje, E. B. (1996). ‘‘I teach students, not subject’’: Teacher-student relationships as contexts for
secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(2), 172–195.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Berkshire, England:
Open University Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.
[Electronic version]. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative
reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific
literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL). (2007). 6 ? 1 Trait� Writing. Retrieved March
19, 2008, from http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/department.php?d=1.
Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims & evidence: Theimportant place of argument in children’s science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Olson, D. R. (1977). Oral and written language and the cognitive processes of children. Journal ofCommunication, 27(3), 10–26.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?
Science Education, 95, 627–638.
Penney, K., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Clark, G. (2003). The anatomy of junior high school science
textbooks: An analysis of textual characteristics and a comparison to media reports of science.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 3(4), 415–436.
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching& Teacher Education, 12(6), 609–626.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text:
Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220(4596),
477–478.
Richardon, B. (2005). What writing represents what scientists actually do? Science and Children, 43(3),
50–51.
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969–983.
Rowell, P. M. (1991). A teacher’s pedagogical frame for writing in the elementary science classroom.
Paper presented at the National Science Teachers Association Area Convention, Vancouver, British
Columbia, November.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S. P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in
science classrooms: Examining students’ scientific explanations and student learning. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583–608.
Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theoryand practice. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Writing Like a Scientist
123
Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Good, R. (1991). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs about and
perceptions of elementary school science, science reading, science textbooks, and supportive
instructional factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(5), 437–454.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures andtechniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65(3), 381–405.
Sutton, C. (1993). Figuring out a scientific understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,30(10), 1215–1227.
Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74(4), 421–431.
Tolchinsky, L. (2006). The emergence of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of writing research (pp. 83–95). New York: The Guilford Press.
Van Nostrand, A. D. (1979). Writing and the generation of knowledge. Social Education, 43, 178–180.
Water-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding of the nature of science and practice:
The influence of teacher’s beliefs about education, teaching, and learning. International Journal ofScience Education, 28(8), 919–944.
Yager, R. E. (2004). Science is not written, but it can be written about. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossingborders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 95–107).
Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2006). Informational texts as read-alouds at school and home. Journal ofLiteracy Research, 38(1), 37–51.
Yore, L. D. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts? In E. W. Saul (Ed.),
Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp.
71–94). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
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(6),
689–725.
Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and
science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81,
483–496.
Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education,93, 687–719.
Zembal-Saul, C., McNeill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What’s your evidence? Engaging K-5students in constructing explanations in science. New York: Pearson.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice
science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research inScience Education, 32(4), 437–463.
Zinsser, W. (1988). Writing to learn. New York: Harper & Row.
Zohar, A. (2004). Elements of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher order
thinking. Journal of Research in Science Education, 15(4), 293–312.
N. J. Glen, S. Dotger
123