Science Notebook Writing in First and Second Gradestem.gstboces.org/Shared Documents/Science...
Transcript of Science Notebook Writing in First and Second Gradestem.gstboces.org/Shared Documents/Science...
1
Science Notebook Writing in First and Second Grade
Over the past two decades, science educators have increasingly examined the role of
literacy in learning science content (Akerson, 2008; Saul, 2004). This research indicates writing-
to-learn during science instruction can enhance students’ scientific understandings. These
findings have led to recommendations that elementary students write in science notebooks to
record questions, observations, and reflections while engaging in scientific inquiry (Kotelman,
Saccani, & Gilbert, 2006). However, most research on science notebooks comes from upper
elementary and middle school classrooms. As a result, little is known about primary students’
notebook use, how science notebooks contribute to their learning, or how teachers can support
their notebook writing. The purpose of this study was to explore how first and second graders
write in science notebooks and how they use their writing to make sense of science content. The
research questions were: How did students represent their scientific understandings and
reasoning on the notebook page? How did these representations reflect and support the science
concepts the lesson was designed to teach?
Theoretical Framework
This study works from the position that science can serve as an important context for
learning to write, while writing can serve as an important context for learning science content
(McQuitty, Dotger, & Khan, 2010). Inquiry-based science instruction provides a meaningful
occasion for students to write because writing is a natural part of science experimentation.
Scientists must record the questions, procedures, and findings of their work, and children can do
the same as they conduct scientific investigations in their classrooms. At the same time, writing
about science concepts in different genres and for different audiences can improve students’
understandings of science content (Gunel, Hand, & Prain, 2007). Thus, writing and science
2
instruction can work together to improve both children’s scientific knowledge and their writing
skills.
In this study, we draw upon both cognitive and sociocultural theories of writing-to-learn
science. Cognitive theories posit that writers clarify, elaborate, and transform their
understandings as they shape their compositions for specific audiences and purposes (Klein,
1999). During writing, authors retrieve information from long-term memory and reorganize and
adapt it to fit their goals and the needs of their readers (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Organizing the
information in a new way leads writers to see previously unnoticed connections between ideas,
which facilitates their deeper conceptual understanding of the topic. When students write in their
science notebooks, they revisit the concepts they experienced during hands-on inquiry by
recording the data generated during the investigation, writing claims about the scientific
generalizations at work, and providing written evidence to support the claims they make.
Reorganizing the data into the framework of observation, claims, and evidence allows students to
connect their first-hand observations to larger scientific principles, which should lead to deeper
science learning.
From a sociocultural standpoint, writers reorganize information into genres that are
culturally constructed and culturally acceptable forms of writing (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1993).
Because genres embody cultural values and ways of thinking, writing a particular genre can
teach the writer to think like the group that utilizes the genre. Thus, writing can potentially
enhance discipline-specific ways of thinking as well as conceptual understanding of content.
Science notebooks, for example, require students to think, via their writing, in the ways valued
by scientists. In order to record data, make claims based on the data, and provide specific data
points as evidence for claims, students must engage in both the actions and thought processes of
3
scientists—conducting an investigation, systematically collecting data, identifying patterns
within the data, and presenting a well-reasoned argument about the data represents scientific
concepts at work. Writing, then, provides an opportunity for students to learn scientific ways of
being and thinking.
While writing can theoretically lead to learning, it does not always do so (Klein, 1999),
particularly for young children. This may be because writing-to-learn depends on moderately
sophisticated composing strategies that exceed those used by novice writers (Klein, 2000).
However, only a few studies have examined science notebook writing with young children, and
the paucity of research makes it difficult to determine the utility of science notebooks in first and
second grade. Shepardson (1997) and Shepardson and Britsch (2001) found that most primary
students used drawing and writing to recontextualize their scientific exploration through
imaginative worlds—that is, they represented imaginary settings and events integrated with the
science experience. Only a few children represented their prior real-world experience integrated
with the science experience or the science experience itself. The researchers argue that
recontextualizing the investigation helped children construct science understandings by linking
new ideas with their old knowledge, but it is difficult to know exactly how this writing
contributed to their learning.
In another study, Shepardson and Britsch (2000) found primary grade children used
drawing and writing to label, describe, and characterize their use of materials during the science
investigation. The children focused primarily on materials in their writing rather than on the
science concepts the materials demonstrated. For example, instead of documenting the mixing
and separating processes under investigation, many children recorded only final state of the
4
separated earth materials. The authors concluded the children were representing the science
activity in their notebooks and not their science understanding (p. 33).
Given the findings of these few studies, it difficult to discern how, or even if, science
notebook writing contributes to young children’s scientific understandings. This study addresses
this gap by examining how young children used science notebooks as a component of hands-on,
inquiry-oriented science instruction.
Method
This qualitative case study was conducted in one first grade and one second grade
classroom. In the first grade class, students conducted an investigation about air by exploring
how air interacted with different materials. The study authors, Vicki and Sharon, taught the
lesson as a part of an ongoing program of research on integrating inquiry-based science
curriculum and science notebook writing. We taught this lesson in the classroom of a teacher
participating in the research project, and several other teachers in the school attended to learn
more about inquiry science teaching.
In the second grade classroom, students used magnets, paper clips, and an index card to
explore the question, “Can magnets move an object without touching it?” This lesson was
designed and taught by a group of second grade teachers as a part of a professional development
initiative focused on inquiry science instruction and science notebook use. John was the teacher
primarily responsible for leading the lesson, but other group members contributed comments to
the class from time to time and helped individual students throughout the lesson.
Data Collection
In each class, we observed and video recorded the lesson, including students writing in
their science notebooks. In both lessons, the science notebooks consisted of preprinted pages
5
with space for students to write (see Figures 1 and 2)1. We then collected the notebook entries
and, the following day, interviewed each student (12 first graders, 12 second graders) about what
she or he wrote. The semi-structured interviews were audio recorded and began with the prompt:
“Tell me about what you wrote in your notebook and why you wrote it.” Follow up questions
asked students to (1) clarify their initial explanations and (2) explain the portions of their
notebook entry they did not discuss in response to the initial prompt. Each interview ended with
the questions: (1) Now that we’ve talked about your notebook, is there anything you remember
from the lesson that wasn’t in your notebook entry? and (2) If you were to tell a friend not in this
class about your science notebook, what would you say?
The Lessons
Because the science notebook entries were tied closely to how the lessons were taught,
the children’s writing can only be understood in relationship to what occurred during the lessons.
As a result, it necessary to describe the two lessons to provide basis for understanding what the
children wrote in their science notebooks.
The first grade lesson. The first grade lesson, which we taught ourselves, involved
children in exploring how air acted on the following materials: balloon, feather, 4x4 square of
20-lb (copy) paper, quarter-inch Styrofoam ball, cotton ball, bendable drinking straw, and
balloon pump. The objective of the investigation was for students to understand that air is matter.
The lesson began with Sharon (second author) asking the children, “What do you know about
air?” As the class generated ideas and Sharon facilitated the discussion, she recorded the
children’s comments on the chalkboard. Vicki (first author) then told them they should work to
include details about their observations in their science notebooks. She demonstrated how make
1 Due to size of the figures of the science notebook entries, they are not embedded in the paper, but are available upon request.
6
a two-column chart on the board and write the column headings “What I Did” and “What I Saw.”
The children then copied the chart onto their own notebook pages.
Sharon showed the children each material they would have and demonstrated how to
blow up the balloon with the balloon pump and then let the air out. Vicki demonstrated how to
write about “What I Did” and “What I Saw” in the chart by giving the example “I blew through
the straw on the foam ball” and writing the statement in the appropriate chart column. The
children then began to use the materials. They primarily worked on blowing up the balloons,
using the pumps, their mouths, and even the drinking straws. After about 10 minutes, Sharon
directed the children to put the balloons away so they would explore with the other materials.
During exploration, a few children spontaneously wrote in their science notebooks, but
most did not record what they did or saw unless we reminded them to do so. After about 25 of
total exploration time, we asked the children to put the materials away and write “one more
thing” they did and saw in an effort to encourage all the children to record an observation. We
further tried to encourage the notebook writing by asking a student to give an example of
something she saw and did during the exploration, and Vicki demonstrated how to write it in the
chart on the chalkboard.
The students wrote in their charts for about three minutes. Once most had finished
writing, Sharon demonstrated on the board how to make a two-column chart with the column
headings “What I Learned” and “I Know This Because.” We designed the chart as a way for the
children to write claims (What I Learned) and evidence (I Know This Because) based on the
observations they recorded about the investigation. The children copied the chart into their
science notebooks and then wrote in it for about 10 minutes. When most had finished writing,
which Sharon asked them to complete the sentence starter “I wonder what would happen if…”
7
preprinted on their notebook pages. This portion of the lesson was a little bit rushed because it
was time for the class to prepare to end the school day.
The second grade lesson. The second grade lesson on magnetism involved the children
in using magnets, paper clips, and an index card to determine how to move an object without
touching it. The objective of the lesson was for students to understand magnetism is a force that
can move objects. The lesson began with John telling the students he had a disagreement with
another teacher, Miss Smartypants. Miss Smartypants told him, “Magnets can move an object
without touching it.” He said he told Miss Smartypants it wasn’t possible to move something
without touching it, and Miss Smartypants challenged him to have his students find out if she
was correct or if he was. John showed the students the materials they would use: a magnet, two
paper clips, an index card, a pencil, a penny, and a book. He posted the question, “Can a magnet
move an object without touching it?” on the chalkboard and asked the children to write a
prediction to answer the question in their science notebooks. After students completed their
predictions, John told the class they should draw their observations during the investigation and
label them. The children then began working in groups to move one of the objects without the
magnet touching it.
The children explored with the materials, attempting different ways to move the various
objects with the magnets. After about five minutes, every group had determined that the magnet
could move an object through the index card. While a few students drew their observations while
exploring, many did not, so John specifically asked the children to now draw and label their
observations on the science notebook pages. He asked, “Because something moved, how could
you represent movement with a picture?” The class discussed drawing an object in two different
8
places on the page and using arrows to show movement. The children then began drawing and
labeling in their notebooks.
The children wrote for about six minutes, and John then asked them to look at the
sentence starter, “Draw Conclusions: Can a magnet move an object without touching it? How do
you know?” printed at the bottom of the notebook page. The class read the sentence starter aloud
together, and then the students began writing. They wrote for about 10 minutes, and then the
lesson ended.
Data Analysis
Student interviews were transcribed, and the transcripts and science notebook entries
were coded through constant comparison to identify emerging themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
First, we coded the representations in the science notebooks. As we read through the notebook
entries, we developed initial descriptors of their content: extraneous ideas, ideas related to the
lesson, materials representation, recording science exploration, recording observations, implicit
science concepts, explicit science concepts, inferred science concepts, causes, effects, claims,
evidence, personal experience and reactions, and additional information. We developed these
descriptors based on how the representations in the notebooks reflected and supported the
science concepts the lessons were designed to teach. For example, in the first grade entries about
air, we examined how the writing represented air’s effect on objects. In the second grade entries
about magnetism, we examined how the writing represented the relationship between the
magnet’s movement and the motion of the objects students explored.
As we coded the notebook entries, we occasionally struggled to interpret what a child
wrote or drew. Ally, for instance, drew a magnet, piece of paper, and paper clip (Figure 3), but it
was unclear if the drawing represented how she arranged the objects on the table during the
9
investigation. In order to clarify the drawing, we read Ally’s interview transcript. During the
interview, we had asked, “Why did you put the magnet here and the paper over here and the
paper clip over there?” and she answered, “Because I used the magnet first, then the paper clip,
then the paper.” Thus, we concluded her drawing represented only the materials she used, not
how she used them. We also read the interview transcripts of children whose handwriting we
could not read. In many cases, the children read their notebook entry during the interview, which
allowed us to identify the words they wrote.
From the categories derived through open coding, we developed an initial continuum,
from less to more sophisticated, describing how students represented their scientific
understandings and reasoning on the notebook page. We then read the notebook entries again,
attempting to place each entry into a single category. However, because the children included
different ideas in different parts of their writing, we decided to place each component of each
notebook entry into a category. In the first grade notebooks we separately coded (1) each column
of the “What I Did/What I Saw” chart, (2) each column of the “What I Learned/I Know This
Because” chart, and (3) the “I wonder what would happen if…” statement. When children
included more than one statement in a chart column, we coded each statement. In the second
grade notebooks, we separately coded (1) the labeled drawings and (2) the written conclusion. In
cases where a child wrote different ideas in different parts of their conclusion, we separately
coded each sentence or group of sentences to categorize the range of ways the student
represented their science ideas in this section.
As we placed children’s writing on the initial continuum, we collapsed, refined, added,
and reordered categories. We also described the characteristics of entries in each category. For
example, for the category Representing Materials, we developed the following description:
10
“Drawing or writing about the materials used in the investigation without describing how they
were used or the science concepts the materials demonstrated.” These descriptions guided our
ongoing analysis of the notebook entries. After each refinement of the coding categories and
descriptions, we reread and recoded all the notebook entries, making certain the new categories
accounted for the entire data set. Through this constant comparison of the science notebooks, we
developed a framework that described the representations students included in their writing.
The lesson videos were used as a reference to provide context for interpreting the science
notebook entries and students’ interview comments about their writing. For example, in the
interviews several children indicated they “didn’t have time” to complete their notebook entries.
When we watched these children writing on the video, however, we noted they wrote for only
part of the time allotted to the science notebooks. Thus, it appeared the children had time to write
but chose not to do so.
Findings
The children represented their understandings in their science notebooks in several
distinct ways. We identified ten categories of representation that fell along a continuum from
generally less to more sophisticated:
(0) No writing, in which a child did not draw or write a representation. (1) Representing extraneous ideas, in which a child drew or wrote about ideas unrelated
to the science investigation. (2) Representing commentary on the science experience, in which a child drew or wrote
about the personal experience of conducting the science investigation, such as personal reactions, feelings, and narrative accounts of the investigation.
(3) Representing claims based in personal evidence, in which a child drew or wrote
claims based on sources of evidence unrelated to the data generated in the science investigation.
11
(4) Representing static materials, in which a child drew or wrote about the materials used in the investigation without describing how the materials were used or the science concepts the materials demonstrated.
(5) Representing materials exploration, in which a child drew or wrote about how he/she
used materials in the investigation.
(a) Unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts. These representations did not reflect or support the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.
(b) Related to the lesson’s science concepts. These representations reflected and
supported the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.
(6) Representing observations, in which a child drew or wrote about what he/she observed during the investigation.
(a) Unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts. These representations did
not reflect or support the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.
(b) Related to the lesson’s science concepts. These representations reflected,
implicitly, the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.
(7) Representing materials exploration and observations, in which a child drew or wrote about both how materials were used in the investigation and about what he/she observed during the investigation.
(a) Uncoordinated representations. Representations of materials exploration and
observations did not demonstrate cause and effect. (b) Coordinated representations. Representations of materials exploration and
observations demonstrated cause and effect. (8) Representing scientific claims and evidence for those claims, in which a child drew or
wrote a claim about the lesson’s science concepts and corresponding evidence for that claim generated during the investigation. These representations explicitly describe the relationship between materials exploration and the effects of manipulating the materials.
(9) Representing an explanation of science concepts, in which a child drew or wrote
about why a scientific phenomenon was observed.
In the following sections we present examples and analysis of notebook entries in each category
of the framework.
12
No writing
A few children did not complete their science notebooks entries, leaving one or more
notebook sections without any representation of ideas. Trisha (Figures 4 and 5), for example, left
blank one column of the “What I Did/What I Saw” chart and the entire “What I Learned/I Know
This Because” chart. Similarly, both Carter (Figure 6) and Valerie (Figure 7) did not complete
the “I Know This Because” section of the “What I Learned/I Know This Because” chart.
In the interviews, children with uncompleted notebook entries uniformly stated they
“didn’t have time” to finish their writing. Evidence from the lesson videos, however, indicates
these children wrote for only a portion of science notebook writing time. This suggests students
did “have time” to write but chose not to do so. For example, Valerie wrote for less than two of
the nine minutes allocated to completing the “What I Learned/I Know This Because” chart.
During this time, she looked at her paper, looked around the room, watched other children
writing, and talked with other students sitting at her table. She wrote intermittently while
engaging in these other activities but appeared uncertain about what to put on the notebook page.
Representing Extraneous Ideas
One child, Alana, represented ideas extraneous to the science investigation. She drew a
picture of the park at top of her science notebook page (Figure 8) and on the back of it (Figure
9). When asked about these drawings in the interview, she stated, “That’s a park and a drawing
about my dad because I’m going to my daddy’s house.” This representation did not relate to the
science lesson and instead portrayed an out-of-school experience that was apparently important
to the child.
Representing extraneous ideas was more sophisticated than representing no ideas at all.
For students who leave portions of their science notebook entries blank, learning to write
13
something may be a step forward. However, extraneous ideas have limited usefulness because
those representations do not help children reflect on the science concepts under investigation in a
lesson.
Representing Commentary on the Science Experience
Several students wrote about their personal reactions to conducting the investigation or
gave a narrative account of how they conducted it. Kate, for example, wrote in her conclusion “I
just made a new discovery” and “I am proud of myself” (Figure 12), while Natalie wrote “It took
lots of work” (Figure 13). Several first graders, including Alana (Figure 8) and Bryan (Figure 11)
wrote that, “I learned to blow up a balloon.” These representations focused on students’
experiences conducting the science investigations rather than on the scientific ideas embedded in
the investigation.
Children’s commentaries on their science experience were slightly more sophisticated
than extraneous information. These representations did relate, if tangentially, to the science
investigation, which can be viewed as a step forward from writing or drawing ideas irrelevant to
science. However, narrating and commenting on the experience of conducting inquiry does not
fit the genre used by scientists. In addition, these commentaries did not address the science
concepts under investigation in the lesson, and as a result, provided limited opportunities for
students to reflect on science content. While we value giving student the opportunity to express
their feelings and reactions to their science experiences, the purpose of the science notebook, as
we have defined it, is to engage students in the genre of science writing.
Representing Claims Based in Personal Evidence
A few children based the claims they made on personal evidence rather than evidence
gathered through the science investigation. Henry made two claims: “Using the pumper gun and
14
get air in it” and “We can blow the balloon.” As evidence for these claims, in the “I Know This
Because” column of the chart, he wrote “I saw it and I did it. That’s how” (Figure 10). In his
chart, Bryan claimed, “I learned to blow up a balloon” and provided, “Teachers told me and I
never knew how to blow a balloon up” as evidence (Figure 11). Kate, a second grader, claimed
the magnet could move an object without touching it and gave as evidence, “I know this because
I was exploring and then it came up in my brain and I did it. It also worked” (Figure 12).
Each of these students gave evidence based in personal experiences rather than in data
from the inquiry conducted during the lesson. Henry had observed the pump “get air in it” and
had inflated the balloon, and his evidence for the validity of these claims was simply that he had
witnessed and participated in the events. Similarly, Kate’s evidence that magnets move objects
was based on the fact it had “worked” during the investigation. Bryan’s evidence, though also
based in personal experience, was slightly different. He argued he learned to blow up a balloon
because the “teachers told me” how to do it. The basic line of reasoning in the evidence given by
each student was “I know the claim is true because I experienced it.”
Notably, each of the claims for which the children provided personal evidence was an
observation of what occurred during the investigation. Because they restated their observations
as claims, rather than providing observations as evidence for claims about air or magnetism, the
only way to support the claim was to provide personal experience as evidence. As a result, the
argument “I know the claim is true because I experienced it” made sense with the claims the
children made. However, the genre of science notebooks requires claims and evidence based on
data gathered during experimentation. Thus, representations rooted in personal experience do not
fit the genre of the science notebook.
15
Although basing claims in personal evidence does not reflect the thinking or writing
valued by scientists, these representations were more sophisticated than representations of
extraneous ideas because, like commentary, they related to the science investigation. However,
personal evidence may be considered slightly more sophisticated than commentary because the
children used a novice form of argumentation, a genre valued by scientists, rather than simply
representing their personal reactions to the inquiry experience.
Representing Static Materials
Two students represented the materials used in the investigation without indicating how
those materials were manipulated. Ally drew the magnet, paper, and paper clip used by her
group, but she drew only the objects (Figure 3), not what the group did with them while
exploring. Similarly, Alana drew the balloon pump with the straw laying beside it (Figure 14)
rather than showing how she used the pump to blow the straw. These drawings were simply a
record of the materials students used and did not represent the inquiry process or the science
concepts under investigation. Rather than conveying materials use, interactions and relationships
between the materials, or how the materials changed during the investigation, Ally and Alana
represented the materials as static.
Although representing materials did not reflect the scientific phenomena under
investigation, it was more sophisticated than claims based in personal evidence because it was an
objective, as opposed to experiential, representation of the inquiry. Furthermore, representing
materials is a necessary component of recording a scientific investigation. Scientists document
the materials they use to conduct experiments, and Ally and Alana did the same. Unlike personal
commentary and evidence, representing materials fit the genre of the science notebook.
Representing Materials Exploration
16
A majority of students represented not only the materials they used during the lesson but
also how they used them. These representations fell into two categories: those unrelated to the
investigation’s science concepts and those related to the investigation’s science concepts.
Unrelated materials exploration was typically rooted in play rather than scientific investigation.
Valerie, for example, wrote three sentences that represented how she explored the materials in an
imaginative way: “And the feather you can pretend to make it a crown,” “The straw is the straw
of a Hi-C box,” and “You can pretend [the piece of paper] is a house” (Figure 15). Alana also
represented an imaginative exploration of the materials. At the bottom of the notebook page
(Figure 16), she drew the paper square with the straw below it and the cotton ball with the straw
and foam ball on top. In her interview, she explained the paper and straw represented “a boat that
floats” and the cotton ball, straw, and foam ball represented “a light with a feather on it.” She
also drew a squiggly line across the “What I Learned/I Knew This Because” chart and indicated
in the interview it was “a spread out cotton ball.”
Each of these representations of materials exploration was unrelated to the science
concepts the lesson was designed to teach. Valerie’s writing and Alana’s paper/straw and cotton
ball/straw/foam ball drawings represented a creative use of the materials, while Alana’s “spread
out cotton ball” represented how she used the material in a way that did not illuminate how air
moved objects. Although these representations did not reflect or support the lesson’s science
concepts, in contrast to representations of static materials, they described materials use, a
convention of scientific genres.
Many children, including Valerie and Alana, represented at least one way they explored
the materials related to the lesson’s science concepts. Valerie wrote, “I blew the balloon and then
I let the air out of the balloon,” and she drew a picture of herself blowing the balloon with the
17
pump (Figure 17). Alana drew the balloon popping and air blowing through the straw to the
foam ball and the feather (Figure 16). Marcus, a second grader, wrote “Where I had the index
card, the paper, and the paper clip, I put the paper clip on the index card, put the magnet under
the card, and moved the magnet” (Figure 18). These representations indicated how the children
used the materials to explore the scientific phenomena involved the investigation.
Representations of materials exploration related to the investigation were clearly more
sophisticated than unrelated representations. Unlike drawing and writing rooted in play, these
representations reflected and supported the science concepts the investigation was designed to
teach. They also fit the genre of science notebook writing better than unrelated representations
because they focused on the method the students used to conduct their investigations.
Representing observations
Many of the children represented the observations they made during the investigation.
Like representations of materials exploration, representations of observations fell into two
categories: those unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts and those related to the
investigation’s science concepts. Unrelated observations represented what occurred during
inquiry but focused on ideas peripheral to the science involved in the lesson. Christy, for
example, wrote “The pompom [cotton ball] was sticking to the styrofoam ball” (Figure 19) and
April wrote that when she “stretched the straw,” she “saw it getting longer and longer” (Figure
20). Both these statements represented observations the children made during the investigation
even though neither focused on air and its movement. Like representing materials and materials
exploration, observations are a necessary component of documenting scientific inquiry and
therefore fit the genre of science better than extraneous or personal ideas.
18
In both first and second grade, most children wrote at least one observation related to the
science concepts under investigation. April, who wrote one unrelated observation, also wrote
four about how air movement affected objects: She “saw it [balloon] getting bigger,” saw the
cotton ball “blow up very high,” saw the paper “blow everywhere,” and saw the feather “went
very high” (Figure 20). Nicholas, a second grader, drew how a paper clip moved across the table
while a magnet was under it (Figure 21). Similarly, Kate drew a paper clip on top of the table, a
magnet under the table, and lines extending from the magnet that she said “mean that it moves”
(Figure 12).
These observations implicitly reflected the science concepts the investigation was
designed to teach. Inherent in observations that air filled balloons is the idea that air can take up
space. When students observed air moving cotton balls, paper, and feathers, it demonstrated that
something unseen can cause a change to something seen. Implicit in observations that paper clips
move when magnets are beneath a table is the idea that magnetism is a force that extends from
the magnet, not something only within the magnet itself. While the children did not articulate
these scientific ideas in their notebook entries, representing the observations that demonstrate the
concepts is a first step toward recognizing and stating them. Thus, observations related the
science concepts in the investigation were more sophisticated representation than unrelated
observations that could not lead to statements about air as matter or magnetism as a force.
Representing materials exploration and related observations
Some children represented both how they explored materials and their observations.
There were two categories of these representations: uncoordinated and coordinated.
Uncoordinated representations occurred when students included both materials exploration and
observations but did not represent the relationship between them. Bryan, for example, stated in
19
the “What I Did” column of his chart, “I blew it [balloon] up with air” and in the corresponding
“What I Saw” column, “I saw it go down. It let it out with air” (Figure 22). These two
statements, while representing both materials exploration and observations, did not demonstrate
cause and effect. Blowing up the balloon resulted in it expanding, but Bryan did not record this
observation. “It let out the air” was a representation of materials exploration, and “go[ing]
down,” was an observation of what happened as a result, through Bryan wrote both these
statements in the “What I Saw” column. As a result, his representations of materials use and
observations did not coordinate in the way required in scientific writing.
In contrast, many children wrote coordinated statements of materials exploration and
observation. April (Figure 20) represented the relationship between each instance of her
materials use and her observations of what happened. For example, when she “blew up a
balloon” she “saw it getting bigger.” When she “blew the cotton ball” it “blew up very high.”
This writing represented the relationship between how she manipulated the materials and her
observations of what resulted from that manipulation. Coordinated representations of materials
exploration and observation demonstrated cause and effect, an important component of scientific
genres.
In general, including both representations of materials exploration and representations of
observations was more sophisticated than including only one or the other. In order to generate
explanations of scientific concepts, the goal of inquiry science and science notebook writing,
children must identify and represent both how they use materials and what they observe during
an investigation. However, these representations must coordinate to demonstrate the cause-effect
relationships occurring as children manipulate materials. Identifying cause and effect is
20
necessary for explaining how scientific phenomena occur, so coordinating these representations
is an initial step toward writing scientific explanations.
Representing scientific claims and evidence for those claims
Several second graders represented scientific claims and evidence for them. Jada, for
example, wrote, “Yes, [a magnet can move an object without touching it] because if you put the
magnet under the table and the paper clip on top the table they both attract and the magnet makes
the paper clip move” (Figure 22). Similarly, Ricky wrote that, “Yes, [a magnet can move an
object without touching it] because when I put the magnet under the table the paper clip was
moving with the magnet” (Figure 23). Mark (Figure 24) represented claims and evidence in both
his drawing and his writing. He drew the paper clip at two different points on the table and drew
an arrow demonstrating how the magnet moved below the table. He wrote, “Yes, [a magnet can
move an object without touching it] because I put the magnet under the table and the paper clip
was on top of the table then I moved the magnet and the paper clip moved too.”
Representing scientific claims and evidence differed from claims based in personal
evidence because the children grounded the support for their claims in the details of the science
investigation. Jada, Ricky, and Mark each represented the magnet attracting the paper clip
through the table and the paper clip’s movement corresponding to the magnet’s movement. This
evidence was based on data collected during the investigation and directly supported the claim “a
magnet can move an object without touching it.” In addition, scientific claims and evidence also
differed from representing coordinated materials exploration and observation because the
children explicitly articulated the relationship between the essential elements of the scientific
phenomenon. Each student explicitly stated that the magnet’s movement caused the paper clip’s
21
movement. Thus, representing scientific claims and evidence was more sophisticated than simply
coordinating representations of materials explanation with observations.
Notably, more children represented scientific claims and evidence through writing than
through drawing. This may be because representing claims and evidence in a drawing required
significant attention to detail. Nicholas, for example, drew the paper clip at four different points
on the table and labeled it as “moving,” and he drew himself holding the magnet under the table
(Figure 21). This representation functioned as claim that the paper clip moved when the magnet
was under the table. However, he did not indicate that the magnet moved, which prevented him
from representing the connection between the magnet’s movement and the paper clip’s
movement. Had Nicholas used an arrow or lines to represent the movement of the magnet, he
could have clearly communicated cause and effect, a necessary requirement to generate claims
and evidence.
Representing an explanation of science concepts
One child represented an explanation for why the magnet moved the paper clip. Sarah
drew the washer on top of the table, moving to the left, and the magnet under the table, also
moving left. She also drew wavy lines leading from the magnet to the table and labeled these
lines “the force of the magnet.” By labeling the force, Sarah provided an explanation for why the
magnet moved the washer. This relationship between observations of what happened and an
explanation of why it happened is the essence of a scientific “big idea” ("Identifying big ideas in
science,"). Sarah’s representation of this big idea is the goal of science instruction.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to describe the range of representations students drew and
wrote in their science notebooks. Through our analysis, we developed a framework that
22
explicates categories of science notebook representations and how the drawing and writing
reflects science concepts and how it conforms to scientific genres. While the framework arranges
the categories from generally less to more sophisticated representations, it not a developmental
continuum. Students’ notebook entries always contained representations from several different
categories. Alana, for example, in her single notebook entry, represented extraneous ideas,
commentary on the science experience, static materials, materials exploration unrelated to the
lesson’s science concepts, materials exploration related to the lesson’s science concepts,
observations unrelated to the lesson’s science concepts, and observations related lesson’s science
concepts. Thus, we cannot classify children as “in” a particular category of the framework.
The framework also does not predict how students’ science notebook writing will
develop. While children’s entries tended to fall within a particular area of the framework—no
child included both extraneous representations (category 1) and explanations of science concepts
(category 9)—we have no data to suggest children move from linearly from one end of the
framework to the other. Children might move from novice representations to more sophisticated
ones without moving through intermediate forms. For example, a child might never represent
personal commentary or claims based in personal evidence and instead move directly to
representing materials and observations.
In our view, the framework describes the pathways through which students can learn
more sophisticated forms of representing science concepts within the science notebook genre.
From this standpoint, the framework’s value is in its usefulness for guiding science notebook
instruction. It identifies what students can do, which may help researchers and teachers recognize
children’s skills and how to leverage them for learning more sophisticated forms of
representation. For example, if students can represent materials use unrelated to the science
23
concepts in the investigation, this suggests they have some foundational skills for representing
materials use related to those concepts. If they can represent both materials exploration and
observations, they have a foundation on which to learn to coordinate those representations.
Because the framework categories progress from less to more sophisticated forms of
representation, teachers can use them to consider how to move a child’s science notebook
drawing and writing forward. While children may not proceed through each category in
succession, moving from the first to the final category in a single lesson, or even a single science
unit, will likely prove too large a leap for most students. The framework provides information
about potential intermediate forms that might scaffold students’ notebook writing. If children are
representing static materials, for example, the teacher might consider how to help them represent
materials use before expecting them to create coordinated representations of materials use and
observations.
Notably, first graders’ notebook entries included more representations in the lower
categories of the framework, while second graders’ entries included more representations in
higher categories. This may have been due to the second graders’ greater maturity and
experience with writing. However, the structure of the science notebooks and the investigation
itself may also have influenced the representations the different groups included. The first
graders were expected to record multiple trials in the “What I Did/What I Saw” chart and to
explicitly coordinate each instance of materials exploration with an observation of what resulted.
In contrast, the second grade notebook entry required children only to record a single
observation. They did not need to represent the different ways they used the materials and each
outcome that resulted.
24
Making a scientific claim was also easier within the structure of the second grade
notebook than the first grade notebook. In the second grade entry, the claim was preprinted in the
“Draw Conclusion” section of the entry: “Can a magnet move an object without touching it?” As
a result, children could make a claim by simply agreeing or disagreeing with the statement and
writing “yes” or “no.” In contrast, the first grade notebook structure required students to generate
the claim themselves by writing “What I Learned” in the “Claim and Evidence” section. We
recognize that generating a claim without a scaffolded prompt is more challenging and thus may
have altered the claims the first graders were able to make.
These students’ science notebook entries indicate they are capable of engaging in a
variety of forms of scientific writing. Although most of the children were still learning to write—
that is, learning to spell and use capitalization and punctuation conventionally—the majority of
students wrote in ways that could be leveraged for further scientific learning and improved
representations of scientific ideas. Thus, this study provides evidence for the value of science
notebook writing with young children.
25
References
Akerson, V. L. (Ed.). (2008). Interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction in
elementary classrooms: Applying research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective.
Written Communication, 10, 475-509.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
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, 615-637.
Identifying big ideas in science. Retrieved 2011, March 18, from
http://tools#4teachingscience.org/tools/big_idea.html
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational
Psychology Review, 11, 203-270.
Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students' strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and
Instruction, 18, 317-348.
Kotelman, M., Saccani, T., & Gilbert, J. (2006). Writing to learn: Science notebooks, a valuable
tool to support nonfiction modes/genres of writing. In R. Douglas, M. P. Klentschy, K.
Worth & W. Binder (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 149-
161). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
McQuitty, V., Dotger, S., & Khan, U. (2010). One without the other isn't as good as both
together: A theoretical framework of integrated writing/science instruction in the primary
26
grades. In R. T. Jimenez, M. K. Hundley, V. J. Risko & D. W. Rowe (Eds.), 59th
Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 315-328). Oak Creek, WI: National
Reading Conference.
Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on
theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Shepardson, D. P. (1997). Of butterflies and beetles: First graders' ways of seeing and talking
about insect life cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 873-889.
Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2000). Analyzing children's science journals. Science and
Children, 38(3), 29-33.
Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children's journals in elementary school
science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 43-69.
27
Appendix (0) No writing, in which a child did not draw or write a representation. (1) Representing extraneous ideas, in which a child drew or wrote about ideas unrelated to the
science investigation. (2) Representing commentary on the science experience, in which a child drew or wrote about
the personal experience of conducting the science investigation, such as personal reactions, feelings, and narrative accounts of the investigation.
(3) Representing claims based in personal evidence, in which a child drew or wrote claims
based on sources of evidence unrelated to the data generated in the science investigation. (4) Representing static materials, in which a child drew or wrote about the materials used in
the investigation without describing how the materials were used or the science concepts the materials demonstrated.
(5) Representing materials exploration, in which a child drew or wrote about how he/she used
materials in the investigation.
(a) Unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts. These were representations that did not reflect or support the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.
(b) Related to the lesson’s science concepts. These were representations that reflected and
supported the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach. (6) Representing observations, in which a child drew or wrote about what he/she observed
during the investigation.
(a) Unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts. These were representations that did not reflect or support the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.
(b) Related to the lesson’s science concepts. These were representations that reflected,
implicitly, the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach. (7) Representing materials exploration and observations, in which a child drew or wrote
about both how materials were used in the investigation and about what he/she observed during the investigation.
(a) Uncoordinated representations. Representations of materials exploration and
observations did not demonstrate cause and effect.
(b) Coordinated representations. Representations of materials exploration and observations demonstrated cause and effect.
28
(8) Representing scientific claims and evidence for those claims, in which a child drew or wrote a claim about the lesson’s science concepts and corresponding evidence for that claim generated during the investigation. These representations explicitly describe the relationship between materials exploration and the effects of manipulating the materials.
(9) Representing an explanation of science concepts, in which a child drew or wrote about
why a scientific phenomenon was observed.