Science education researchers now broadly agree about the fundamental role of the literacies of science in learning in elementary and secondary school (Gee, 2004; Lemke, 1998, 2003; Moje, 2007; Norris & Phillips, 2003; Yore, 2004). These literacies include all the signifying language practices of science discourse, including verbal, visual, and mathematical languages, as well as understanding the purposes and rationale for these literacies in representing scientific thinking and practices. For example, verbal language refers not just to technical science vocabulary and knowledge of functional features of particular science text types but also to verbal reasoning capacities evident in scientific explanations (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004). There is now broad consensus that students need to learn what Moje has characterized aptly as “disciplinary literacy” (p. 1). In the case of science, this means that students need to (a) learn how, why, and when they should interpret and construct models, graphs, tables, and diagrams and then (b) integrate these representations with the written language of science as part of the broader process of becoming scientifically literate.
Researchers in this field are united in seeking to characterize and explain current or possible future effective classroom practices that promote, or could promote, this disciplinary learning. However, as with all key curricular areas in school, researchers are now also more aware of (a) the marked diversity of learners' needs, cultural resources, and representational capacities; (b) the impact of new technologies on how science is conducted and represented in the science community, and possible or desirable parallel teaching and learning tasks in school; and (c) the complex challenges entailed in students learning the meaningmaking and knowledge-production practices of this subject. In the science education research community, this has led to a fitting diversity of research orientations and foci for study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Ainsworth, S.,&Iacovdies, I. (2005, August). Learning by constructing self-explanation diagrams. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Alvermann, D. E. (2004). Multiliteracies and self-questioning in the service of science learning. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 226–238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association&National Science Teachers Association.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–600.
Bazerman, C. (2007, August 15–18). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www3.unisul.br/paginas/ensino/pos/linguagem/cd/ English/5i.pdf
Bereiter, C.,&Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all [Comment]. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.
Boruch, R.,&Mosteller, F. (2002). Overview and new directions. In F. Mosteller&R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 1–14). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Boscolo, P.,&Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.)&P. Tynjälä, L. Mason,&K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory into practice (Vol. 7 of Studies in Writing, pp. 83–104). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Bruckmann, M., Duit, R., Tesch, M., Fischer, H., Kauertz, A., Reyer, T., et al. (2007). The potential of video studies in research on teaching and learning science. In R. Pintó&D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 77–89). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Clarke, D. (Ed.). (2001). Perspectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science classrooms (Vol. 25, Mathematics Education Library Series). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Danish, J. A.,&Enyedy, N. (2007). Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations. Science Education 91(1), 1–35.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
Ford, M. J.,&Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32.
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.)&M. Torrance&D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (Vol. 4 in Studies in Writing, pp. 139–164). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Gee, J. P. (2003, April). It's theories all the way down: A response to scientific research in education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association&National Science Teachers Association.
Greeno, J. G.,&Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–368.
Gunel, M., Akkus, R., Hohenshell, L.,&Hand, B. (2004, April). Improving student performance on higher order cognitive questions through the use of the science writing heuristic. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
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.
Hackling, M.,&Prain, V. (2005). Primary connections. Stage 2 trial: Research report. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
Halliday, M. A. K.,&Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.
Hand, B. (Ed.). (2007). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing Heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L.,&Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186–210.
Hand, B., Lawrence, C.,&Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035.
Hand, B.,&Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 101–107.
Hand, B.,&Prain, V. (Eds.). (1995). Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom. Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace.
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.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
International Centre for Classroom Research. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/ict/iccr/index.html
Jewitt, C. (2007). A multimodal perspective on textuality and contexts. Pedagogy, Culture&Society, 15(3), 275–289.
Kelly, G. J. (2004, April). Epistemological dimensions of science literacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kelly, G. J.,&Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.
Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 143–178.
Kress, G. R.,&Leeuwen, T., van. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.
Lee, O., Luykx, A., Buxton, C.,&Shaver, A. (2007). The challenge of altering elementary school teachers' beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(9), 1269–1291.
Lee, S.,&Roth, W.-M. (2003). Science and the “good citizen”: Community-based scientific literacy. Science, Technology&Human Values, 28(3), 403–424.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin&R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Sàenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger,&V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Legas.
Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association&National Science Teachers Association.
Levin, T.,&Wagner, T. (2006). In their own words: Understanding student conceptions of writing through their spontaneous metaphors in the science classroom. Instructional Science, 34(3), 227–278.
Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Dual review of the books: Scientific research in education&Evidence matters. Academe, 90, 110–115.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Design and practice: Enacting functional linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 116–126.
Martin, J. R.,&Rothery, J. (1986). What a functional approach to the writing task can show teachers about ‘good writing’. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp. 241–262). London: Frances Pinter.
Martin, J. R.,&Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Chapter 1: Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1–44.
Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R.,&Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.
Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C.,&Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Explaining explanations. In D. S. Strickland&D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap, grades 4–12 (pp. 227–251). New York: Teachers College Press.
Newman, D.,&Cole, M. (2004). Can scientific research from the laboratory be of any use to teachers? Theory into Practice, 43(4), 260–267.
Norris, S. P.,&Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S.,&Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(10), 994–1020.
Parkinson, J.,&Adendorff, R. (2004). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 379–396.
Parnafes, O. (2005, August). Constructing coherent understanding of physical concepts through the interpretations of multiple representations. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Phillips, D. C. (2005). The contested nature of empirical educational research (and why philosophy of education offers little help). Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(4), 577–597.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 179–201.
Prain, V.,&Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609–626.
Primary Connections – Linking science with literacy (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.science.org.au/primaryconnections/
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.
Rowell, P. M. (1997). Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30(1), 19–56.
Ryan, K. E.,&Hood, L. K. (2004). Guarding the castle and opening the gates. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 79–95.
Scheppegrell, M. J. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Teaching of English, 32(2), 67–96.
Schnotz, W.,&Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156.
Schwartz, D. L.,&Heiser, J. (2006). Spatial representations and imagery in learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 283–298). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L.,&Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28.
Stadler, H., Benke, G.,&Duit, R. (2001). How do boys and girls use language in physics classes? In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross&P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education – Past, present, and future (pp. 283–286). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Teddlie, C. B.,&Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In C. B. Teddlie&A. Tashakkori (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tytler, R., Prain, V.,&Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 313–331.
United States Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Available from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/evidence_based/evidence_based.asp
United States Institute of Education Sciences. (n.d.). What Works Clearinghouse overview: Standards. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/overview/review.asp?ag=pi
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean — scientifically speaking. In F. Christie&J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London: Cassell.
Waldrip, B.,&Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 52(4), 17–21.
Waldrip, B., Prain, V.,&Carolan, J. (2006). Learning junior secondary science through multi-modal representation. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(1), 86–105. Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu/volumes/v11n1/articles/art06_waldrip.pdf
Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the “Third Space”. Science Education, 88(6), 901–914.
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B.,&Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B.,&Yang, E.-M. (2004). The science writing heuristic: Using writing as a tool for learning in the laboratory. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. (pp. 355–368). Newark, DE: International Reading Association&National Science Teachers Association.
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 in theory and practice (pp. 71–94). Newark, DE: International Reading Association&National Science Teachers Association.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Prain, V. (2009). Researching Effective Pedagogies for Developing the Literacies of Science: Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations. In: Shelley, M.C., Yore, L.D., Hand, B. (eds) Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8426-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8427-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)