EXAMINING THE TRANSFER OF LANGUAGE FROM SCIENCE TO MATH WRITING: AS AN EPISTEMIC TOOL

Abstract

The purpose of this study to examine how students transfer their language practices from science classrooms to math classroom in terms of writing activities. For this aim, 64 5^th grade students, who were familiar with the SWH approach that supports multimodal writing from their science classrooms, participated in the study. The students were provided questions to complete a writing activity in their math classrooms in each semester. Multimodal writing samples from two consecutive semesters, and scores of Cornell Critical Thinking (CCT) Test, conducted at the beginning and the end of year, were collected. The findings suggest that students were able to use the writing and representational work from science classrooms to math classrooms, and across time from the first semester to second semester, they improved their math writings in terms of multimodality, and also, writing scores are also significantly predictor of final CCT scores. In conclusion, when students have a rich learning environment, in this context it was the SWH approach, they learn not only content knowledge but also how language can serve as an epistemic tool. It is this use of language that, we believe, is being transferred into new context and is improved by the time. 

Keywords

• Science writing,language,transfer of knowledge,critical thinking

References

1. Adey, P., & Shayer, M., (2015). The Effects of Cognitive Acceleration. In Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. (pp. 127-143). AERA. Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In Writing as a learning tool (pp. 83-104). Springer Netherlands. Chanlen, N. (2013). Longitudinal analysis of standardized test scores of students in the science writing heuristic approach. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and instruction, 19(4), 354-367. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. M. (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh‐grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149. 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. Jaubert, M., & Rebiere, M. (2005). Learning About Science Through Writing*.L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5(3), 315-333. Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude–treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379-390. Klein, P. D., Piacente-Cimini, S., & Williams, L. A. (2007). The role of writing in learning from analogies. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 595-611. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage. National Research Council, (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education:: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press. Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children's science writing. Heinemann.Yoon, S. Y. (2012). Dual processing and discourse space: exploring fifth grade students' language, reasoning, and understanding through writing. Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low-and high-achieving students. Learning and instruction, 18(4), 337-353.