Abstract
The action of writing has been subject of several empirical and theoretical studies in the
areas of linguistic, psychology and literacy. Not only writing as a cognitive process is considered to be
leaning, but also it has been adopted and used as learning and scaffolding mechanism by different
disciplines such as science education. Research on language and learning in the science content area has
emphasized the use of writing as a powerful learning tool (Keys, 1999b). Moving away from teaching
traditional scientific genres, which emphasize the need for students to learn micro and macro structures of
the genres of science writing to be able to understand science, researchers have focused more on
expressive and creative writing that promotes meaningful learning in science. Especially in the area of
elementary science education there has been growing number of reform movements and research studies
that emphasize the significance of writing as a learning tool.
References
- Alamargot, D., & Andriessen, J. (2002). The power of the text production activity in collaborative modeling: Nine recommendations to Make a Computer Supported Situation Work. In M. Baker, P. Brna, K. Stenning & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. xiv, 337 p.). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, Netherlands ; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Alvermann, D. E. (2004). Multiliteracies and self questioning in the service of science learning. In W. Saul (Ed.), Border Crossing: Essays on Literacy and Science. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. The psychology of education and instruction series. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, Suite 102, 365 Broadway, Hillsdale, NJ 07642. Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In L. M. Tynjala & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 83-104). the Netherlands, Dordrecth: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write : conceptual processes in text production. Studies in writing ; v. 4 (pp. 139-160). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Galbraith, D., & Torrance, M. (1999). Conceptual processes in writing: From problem solving to text production. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write : conceptual processes in text production. Studies in writing ; v. 4 (pp. 1-12). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school based literacy. In W. Saul (Ed.), Border crossing: Essays on literacy and science. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Secondary Analysis of Non-Traditional Writing in Science across Different Grade-levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(5), 615-637. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science : literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hand, B. (2004). Cognitive, Constructivist Mechanisms for Learning Science through Writing. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 150). Dordrecht ; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (1996). Writing for Learning in Science: A Model for Use within Classrooms. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(3), 23-27. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737-755. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Hohenshell, L. (2001). Students' perceptions of learning when using planned writing-to-learn science strategies within a year 10-biotechnology class. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students' answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education, 32(1), 19-34. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Writing as Problem Solving. Visible Language, 14(4), 388-399. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1987). On the structure of the writing process. Topics in Language Disorders, 7(4), 19-30. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research in written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English. Holliday, W., Yore, L., & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877- 893. Howard, V. A., & Barton, J. H. (1986). Thinking on paper. New York: Quill. 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(2), 115-130. Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270. Klein, P. (2000). Elementary students' strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 317-348. Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English. Lemke, J. L. (1994). E-mail message to the Language in Science Learning list. Monhardt, R. (1996). A comparison of a writing-to-learn strategy in two science classrooms. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:. Osborne, J., & Wellington, J. (2001). Language & literacy in teaching science. Buckingham: Open University Press. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2005). Science and literacy. In K.Appleton (Ed.), Elementary Science Teacher Education: Issues and Practice: Association of Educators of Science Teachers publication. Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Rijlaarsdam, G., Couziijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing experiment manuals in science education: The impact of writing, genre, and audience. International Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(2-3), 203-233. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566-593. Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press. Tynjala, P. E., Mason, L. E., & Lonka, K. E. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice. Studies in writing, Volume 7. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Order Department, P.O. Box 358, Accord Station, Hingham, MA 02018-0358 (paperback: ISBN-0- 7923-6914-9,. 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., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86(5), 672-692. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy - empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 291-314.
Abstract
1ÖZET Yazma eyleminin bili.sel ve psikolojik olarak içerdi i süreçler pek çok ara.t,rmac,n,n ilgisini çekmi. ve yine birçok ara.t,rmaya konu olmu.tur. Beretier ve Scardamalia (1987) gibi dil bilimci psikologlar yazmay, var olan “bilgiyi söyleme” ve “bilgiyi dönü.türme” modellerini geli.tirerek aç,klamaya çal,.m,.lard,r. Bilgiyi söyleme modelinde, gerekli olan bilgi uzun sureli haf,zadan al,narak yaz,ya dönü.türülmektedir. Bilgi dönü.türme modeline göre ise bilgi dönü.türmeye aktif bir problem çözümü arac,l,k etmektedir. Problem çözme esnas,nda yazar,n var olan iki kayna , aktif olarak etkile.im halindedir. Bunlar, alan bilgisi (content space) ve dil bilgisidir (linguistic space). Var olan kavramlardan ho.nutlu un olmad, , durumlarda bu iki alan,n etkile.mesiyle yeni bilgiler haz,rlan,rve yazar konu hakk,nda yeni bir ö reti geli.tirir. Sonraki y,llarda Galbraith, (1999) problem çözme modelinin yazma sürecinin içeri ini aç,klamada yüzeysel kald, ,n, iddia etmi.tir. Ayr,ca problem çözme metaforunun yazma surecinde ö renme gerçeklemesi durumunu aç,klayamad, ,n, savunmu.tur. Ona göre, incelenmesi gereken en temel unsurlardan birisi bilginin saklanma-depolanma .eklidir. Bilgi cümleler halinde y, ,larak de il, semantic bir a ile zihnin her yerinde, di er olgularla ba da.t,r,larak saklan,r. Ve her hangi bir bilgiyi ça ,rd, ,m,zda-aktive etti imizde pek çok farkl, domain bu aktivasyona kar.,l,k verir. Yazma esnas,nda ise yaz,lacak konu, dinleyici kitlesi, yazma format,, içerik ve pek çok di er unsurlar aktivasyonun içeri ini ve s,n,rlar,n, belirler. Ayr,ca, yarat,lan her bir aktivasyon sonucu üretilen yaz, yeni bir girdi olarak yepyeni aktivasyon döngüleri olu.turur. S,n,rl,klar ve farkl, aktivasyonlar yeni ö renmeleri sa lar. Yazmay, bir ö renme mekanizmas, olarak tan,mlayan linguistic ve psikoloji alanlar,ndaki teorik ve empirik çal,.malar,n etkileri e itim bilimlerinde de kendini göstermi.tir. Pek çok dal yazmay, müfredat,n,n içerisine alm,.t,r, fakat yazman,n amac, konusunda çeli.kiler do mu.tur. Örne in, bilim e itimi alan,ndaki baz,ara.t,rmac,lar, Halliday ve Martin (1993), bilim e itiminde yazman,n bilimsel söylemler (rapor tutma, gözlem kay,tlar, vb.) içerisinde gerçekle.mesini savunmu.lard,r. Öte yandan, Alvermann (2004), Gee (2004), Prain ve Hand (2005), and Yore ve Treagust (2006) gibi ara.t,rmac,lar yazman,n geleneksel s,n,rlar,n d,.,nda bir formatta olup, hem ilkö retim ö rencilerinin günlük dilleri ile bilimsel dili ba da.t,racak yap,ya sahip olmas, gerekti ini savunmu.lar, hem de geleneksel olmayan yazma aktivitelerinin kullan,lmas,n,n bilimsel kavramlar, ö renmede faydal, bir metot oldu unu vurgulam,.lard,r. Bu görü.ün temsilcileri yazarak ö renme aktiviteleri ö rencilerin kabul gören standart bilimsel bilgilere eri.melerine yüreklendiren, ö rencilerin epistemolojik inançlar,n,, ve ak,l yürütme stratejilerini bilimin do as, iskeleti etraf,nda vücuda getiren ve ö rencilerin bilimsel kavramlar, ö renmesinde yukar,da sözü geçen ö eleri entegre eden bir araç olarak benimsemi.ler ve bu alanda çal,.malarda bulunmu.lard,r. Dünyan,n pek çok ülkesinde ilkö retim bilim e itimi dâhil, müfredat,n bir parças, olan ö renme amaçl,yazma ülkemizde henüz yeterince gündeme al,nmam,.t,r. Gerek müfredat,n içeri i gerekse bilim e itimi ara.t,rmalar,n,n gündemini me.gul etmeyen ö renme amaçl, yazma aktiviteleri bizler için ke.fedilmeyi bekleyen yeni olgulard,r. Türk e itim sisteminde hedeflenen amaçlardan biri olan “bilimsel okuryazarl, , geli.tirme” ve anlaml, bilim ö renmeyi destekleme ad,na ö renme amaçl, yazma ara.t,rmalar, ülkemiz ara.t,rmac,lar,na yeni ufuklar açabilir
References
- Alamargot, D., & Andriessen, J. (2002). The power of the text production activity in collaborative modeling: Nine recommendations to Make a Computer Supported Situation Work. In M. Baker, P. Brna, K. Stenning & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. xiv, 337 p.). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, Netherlands ; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Alvermann, D. E. (2004). Multiliteracies and self questioning in the service of science learning. In W. Saul (Ed.), Border Crossing: Essays on Literacy and Science. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. The psychology of education and instruction series. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, Suite 102, 365 Broadway, Hillsdale, NJ 07642. Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In L. M. Tynjala & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 83-104). the Netherlands, Dordrecth: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write : conceptual processes in text production. Studies in writing ; v. 4 (pp. 139-160). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Galbraith, D., & Torrance, M. (1999). Conceptual processes in writing: From problem solving to text production. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write : conceptual processes in text production. Studies in writing ; v. 4 (pp. 1-12). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school based literacy. In W. Saul (Ed.), Border crossing: Essays on literacy and science. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Secondary Analysis of Non-Traditional Writing in Science across Different Grade-levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(5), 615-637. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science : literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hand, B. (2004). Cognitive, Constructivist Mechanisms for Learning Science through Writing. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 150). Dordrecht ; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (1996). Writing for Learning in Science: A Model for Use within Classrooms. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(3), 23-27. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737-755. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Hohenshell, L. (2001). Students' perceptions of learning when using planned writing-to-learn science strategies within a year 10-biotechnology class. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students' answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education, 32(1), 19-34. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Writing as Problem Solving. Visible Language, 14(4), 388-399. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1987). On the structure of the writing process. Topics in Language Disorders, 7(4), 19-30. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research in written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English. Holliday, W., Yore, L., & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877- 893. Howard, V. A., & Barton, J. H. (1986). Thinking on paper. New York: Quill. 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(2), 115-130. Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270. Klein, P. (2000). Elementary students' strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 317-348. Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English. Lemke, J. L. (1994). E-mail message to the Language in Science Learning list. Monhardt, R. (1996). A comparison of a writing-to-learn strategy in two science classrooms. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:. Osborne, J., & Wellington, J. (2001). Language & literacy in teaching science. Buckingham: Open University Press. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2005). Science and literacy. In K.Appleton (Ed.), Elementary Science Teacher Education: Issues and Practice: Association of Educators of Science Teachers publication. Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Rijlaarsdam, G., Couziijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing experiment manuals in science education: The impact of writing, genre, and audience. International Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(2-3), 203-233. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566-593. Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press. Tynjala, P. E., Mason, L. E., & Lonka, K. E. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice. Studies in writing, Volume 7. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Order Department, P.O. Box 358, Accord Station, Hingham, MA 02018-0358 (paperback: ISBN-0- 7923-6914-9,. 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., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86(5), 672-692. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy - empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 291-314.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | March 1, 2009 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2009 Volume: 8 Issue: 1 |