Are language‐based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers?
By Léonard P. Rivard. 2004
104 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The study investigated achievement status as a factor determining the use of language-based activities for learning science. A total of 154 eighth-grade students were randomly assigned to four groups, all stratified for gender and achievement level. The treatments involved various combinations of talk and writing, and descriptive and explanatory tasks. The dependent measures included scores on multiple choice tests obtained at three times during the study. Records of student talk and writing were also analyzed to identify patterns of differences between groups of achievers. The findings suggested that low achievers complete more problems, and develop better understanding and comprehension of ecology concepts when they have engaged in peer discussions of explanatory tasks. In comparison, high achievers benefit more from writing than talking, and writing explanations enhances comprehension more than restricted writing activities. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed88:420–442, 2004; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/.sce10114
Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d52d9875ab1ba288484da7f94463c6b887e2a6a
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Developmental and Educational Psychology
In Education
Citations in the corpus
- Trends in Research on Writing as a Learning Activity (2016, unknown): “This focus on hypotheses about specific practices continued to characterize much research on WTL for the rest of the decade (e.g., Cantrell, Fusaro & Dougherty, 2000; Hand, Wallace & Yang, 2004; Klein, 2000, 2004; Rivard, 2004).”
- Decisions and Dilemmas: Using Writing to Learn Activities to Increase Ecological Literacy (2009, unknown): “Likewise, writing activities are consistent with constructivist methods because they allow students to identify their own ideas before the students are asked to delve further into a topic (Keys, 1999; Mason, 1998; Rivard, 2004; Shanahan, 2004).”
- Examining the Use of Talk and Writing for Students' Development of Scientific Conceptual Knowledge Through Constructing and Critiquing Arguments (2016, background): “That is, students use either talk or writing first in one event (e.g., small group discussion, whole class discussion), and then the other learning tool is used in a following event (e.g., individual reflection writing, individual concept mapping) (e.g., Rivard, 2004; Rivard & Straw, 2000).”
- Comparing an Inquiry‐based Approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to Traditional Science Teaching Practices: Are there differences? (2007, background): “Contrary to the work of Carter et al. (2003) but similar to that of Rivard (2004), the study of Zohar and Aharon-Kravetsky (2005) showed that the achievement level of students is an important determinant of the effects of an instructional approach on students’ science learning.”