SpringerLink
Log in

A Teaching Model for Scaffolding 4th Grade Students’ Scientific Explanation Writing

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Improving students scientific explanations is one major goal of science education. Both writing activities and concept map** are reported as effective strategies for enhancing student learning of science. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a teaching model, named the DCI model, which integrates a Descriptive explanation writing activity, Concept map**, and an Interpretive explanation writing activity, is introduced in a 4th grade science class to see if it would improve students’ scientific explanations and understanding. A quasi-experimental design, including a non-randomized comparison group and a pre- and post-test design, was adopted for this study. An experimental group of 25 students were taught using the DCI teaching model, while a comparison group received a traditional lecture teaching. A rubric and content analysis was used to assess students’ scientific explanations. The independent sample t test was used to measure difference in conceptual understanding between the two groups, before and after instruction. Then, the paired t test analysis was used to understand the promotion of the DCI teaching model. The results showed that students in the experimental group performed better than students in the comparison group, both in scientific concept understanding and explanation. Suggestions for using concept map** and writing activities (the DCI teaching model) in science classes are provided in this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualisation of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., & Canas, A. J. (2007). Concept maps: experiments on dynamic thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 448–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (2006). Scientific literacy: a systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89, 335–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, G. W. (1996). Look to the moon. Science and Children, 34(3), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, R. (2009). Beyond explanations: what else do students need to understand science? Science Education, 93, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B. (2007). 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. 21–31). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learning strategies in junior secondary science: a case study. Science Education, 86, 737–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Gunel, M., & Ulu, C. (2009). Sequencing embedded multimodal representations in a writing to learn approach to the teaching of electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S. J. (2007). A study of students’ construction of science knowledge: talk and writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research, 49(1), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. (2004). Using concept map** for assessing and promoting relational conceptual change in science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 88, 373–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manalo, E., Uesaka, Y., Perez-Kriz, S., Kato, M., & Fukaya, T. (2013). Science and engineering students’ use of diagrams during note taking versus explanation. Educational Studies, 39, 118–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC, 1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieswandt, M., & Bellomo, K. (2009). Written extended-response questions as classroom assessment tools for meaningful understanding of evolutionary theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 333–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., & Smith, M. L. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., Mintzes, J. J., & Wandersee, J. H. (2000). Learning, teaching, and assessment: A human constructivist view. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: a human constructivist view (pp. 1–13). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: a necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E. W. (2000). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: rethinking practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roald, I., & Mikalsen, O. (2001). Configuration and dynamics of the earth-sun-moon system: an investigation into conceptions of deaf and hearing pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • She, H. C., & Liao, Y. W. (2010). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 91–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolkin, L. B., McTigue, E. M., Donovan, C. A., & Coleman, J. M. (2009). Explanation in science trade books recommended for use with elementary students. Science Education, 93, 587–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefani, C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Students’ levels of explanations, models, and misconceptions in basic quantum chemistry: a phenomenographic study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 520–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 141–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 633–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2007). A longitudinal study of conceptual change: preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Introduction: Does writing promote learning in science? In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand, & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom (pp. 1–8). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., & Webster, F. (2003). Writing for learning in secondary science: rethinking practice. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Y., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Application of generalizability theory to concept map assessment research. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 273–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 689–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors deeply appreciate the National Science Council in Taiwan for the financial support and encouragement under Grant NSC 100-2511-S-018-021-MY3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yua-ma Elementary School, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Hsiu-Ting Yang

  2. National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Kuo-Hua Wang

Authors
  1. Hsiu-Ting Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kuo-Hua Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsiu-Ting Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, HT., Wang, KH. A Teaching Model for Scaffolding 4th Grade Students’ Scientific Explanation Writing. Res Sci Educ 44, 531–548 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9392-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9392-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation