Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effectiveness of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach on Academic Achievement in Turkey

  • Received : 2021.01.15
  • Accepted : 2021.08.23
  • Published : 2021.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach is described as an immersive argument-based science inquiry focusing particularly on learning through epistemic practices. In the literature, several previous studies indicate how academic achievement is positively influenced by the SWH. In addition to these previous studies, several meta-syntheses of qualitative data have been conducted on this particular topic. With these literatures in mind, a quantitative meta-analysis was conducted with ten studies (N = 724) to examine the effectiveness of the SWH on student achievement in Turkey. To present a thoroughly detailed report, this study also examined the following moderators: grade level, subject area, school location, intervention length, and report source. Overall, this study found that in Turkey, the SWH classrooms performed better in academic achievement tests than traditional lecture-based classrooms. Additionally, the SWH is more likely to be effective regardless of grade levels, subject areas, and school locations.

Keywords

References

  1. Ardasheva, Y., Norton-Meier, L., & Hand, B. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2015.1078019
  2. Arli, E., E. (2014). The impacts of argumentation based science inquiry approach on seasonal agricultural worker students' academic achievement and thinking skills (Argumantasyon Tabanli Bilim Ogrenme Yaklasiminin (ATBO) Mevsimlik Tarim Iscisi Konumundaki Dezavantajli Ogrencilerin Akademik Basarilari ve Dusunme Becerilerine Etkisi). (Master Thesis). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  3. Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
  4. Bae, Y., Fulmer, G., Hand, B., & Hansen, W. (2018, March 10-13). Rasch analysis of measuring students' epistemic language practices in science learning [Conference presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Atlanta, GA, United States.
  5. Bae, Y., Fulmer, G. W., & Hand, B. M. (2021). Developing latent constructs of dialogic interaction to examine the epistemic climate: Rasch modeling. School Science and Mathematics, 121(3), 164-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12460
  6. Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
  7. Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(2), 182-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00591.x
  8. Bayraktar, S. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 173-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782344
  9. Bendixen, L. D., & Feucht, F. C. (2010). Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Bergstrom, J. C., & Taylor, L. O. (2006). Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 60(2), 351-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.015
  11. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  12. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). Washington, DC: National academy press.
  13. Brod, G. (2020). Generative learning: Which strategies for what age? Educational Psychology Review, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9.
  14. Buehl, M. M., & Fives, H. (2016). The role of epistemic cognition in teacher learning and praxis. In J. A. Greene, W. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 247-264). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Inc.
  15. Burr, J. E., & Hofer, B. K. (2002). Personal epistemology and theory of mind: Deciphering young children's beliefs about knowledge and knowing. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2-3), 199-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00010-7
  16. Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, R. M., Adesope, O. O. & Paas, F. (2021). Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9.
  17. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
  18. Ceylan, C. (2010). Implementing the science writing heuristic approach in science laboratory activities (Fen laboratuvar etkinliklerinde argumantasyon tabanli bilim ogrenme-ATBO yaklasiminin kullanimi) (Master thesis). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  19. Chanlen, N. (2013). Longitudinal analysis of standardized test scores of students in the science writing heuristic approach (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.wyhaht63).
  20. Chen, Y.-C. (2011). Examining the integration of talk and writing for student knowledge construction through argumentation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.85rfjnr9).
  21. Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students' development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education. 25, 277-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0
  22. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. Crombie, I. K., & Davies, H. T. (2009). What is meta-analysis?, Hayward Medical Communications, Retrieved from https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Meta-An.pdf
  24. Dickersin, K. (2005). Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 75-98). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  25. Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M. and Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629-634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
  26. Engin, M. (2017). Contributions and silence in academic talk: Exploring learner experiences of dialogic interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 12, 78-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.11.001
  27. Erkol, M. (2011). Investigation the effects of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach on science teacher candidates' physics laboratory achievements (Yaparak yazarak bilim ogrenme yaklasiminin fen bilgisi ogretmen adaylarinin fizik laboratuari basarilarina etkisinin arastirilmasi) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  28. Erkol, M., Kisoglu, M., & Buyukkasap, E. (2010). The effect of implementation of science writing heuristic on students' achievement and attitudes toward laboratory in introductory physics laboratory. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2310-2314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.327
  29. Erol, G. (2010). An evaluation based on exercising the science writing heuristic method and multiple writing activities on the subject of acid and bases (Asit baz konusunun coklu yazma etkinlikleri ve yaparak yazarak bilim ogrenme metodu kullanilarak ogretilmesinin degerlendirilmesi) (Master thesis). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  30. Feucht, F. C. (2010). Epistemic climate in elementary classrooms. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 55-93). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Fulmer, G. W., Hwang, J., Ding, C., Hand, B., Suh, J. K., & Hansen, W. (2021). Development of a questionnaire on teachers' knowledge of language as an epistemic tool. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(4), 459-490. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.2166
  32. Gencoglan, D. M. (2017). The effects of argumentation based science learning approach based on authentic case studies on the success, attitude and scientific process skills of 8th grade students in the "acids and bases" Lesson (Otantik ornek olay destekli argumantasyon tabanli bilim ogrenme yaklasiminin 8. sinif ogrencilerininin "asitler ve bazlar" konusundaki basarilarina, tutum ve bilimsel surec becerilerine etkisi) (Master thesis). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  33. Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057-1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310915
  34. Guler, C. (2016). The effect of "argumentation based science learning approach" on academic success of science teacher candidates and their opinions about the approach (Fen laboratuvari derslerinde kullanilan "argumantasyon tabanli bilim ogrenme" yaklasiminin, fen bilgisi ogretmen adaylarinin akademik basarilarina etkisi ve yaklasim hakkindaki gorusleri) (Master thesis). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  35. Gunel, M., Kingir, S., & Geban, O. (2012). Analysis of argumentation and questioning patterns in argument-based inquiry classrooms (Argumantasyon tabanli bilim ogrenme (ATBO) yaklasiminin kullanildigi siniflarda argumantasyon ve soru yapilarinin incelenmesi). Egitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 316-330.
  36. Hand, B. M. (2007). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  37. Hand, B. (2017). Exploring the role of writing in science: A25-year journey. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 25(3), 16.
  38. Hand, B., Chen, Y.-C., & Suh, J. K. (2020). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the Science Writing Heuristic Approach. Educational Psychology Review, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0.
  39. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10128
  40. Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.
  41. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2016). Aligning teaching to learning: A 3-year study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 847-863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9622-9
  42. Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., & Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized controlled trial using the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Science Education, 102(4), 693-710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21341
  43. Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  44. Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
  45. Hoaglin, D. C. (2016). Misunderstandings about Q and 'Cochran's Q test'in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 35(4), 485-495. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6632
  46. Hosseini, V. M., Nazarzadeh, M., & Jahanfar, S. (2018). Interventions for reducing fear of childbirth: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Women and Birth, 31(4), 254-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.10.007
  47. Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sanchez-Meca, F., Marin-Martinez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q Statistic or I2 index? Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193
  48. Huerta, M., & Garza, T. (2019). Writing in science: Why, how, and for whom? A systematic literature review of 20 years of intervention research (1996-2016). Educational Psychology Review, 1-38.
  49. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. J., & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K.S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp. 69-80). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  50. Karaca, D. (2011). Effect of the use of Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in general physics laboratory-I lesson on teacher candidates' achievement and scientific process skills (Yaparak yazarak bilim ogrenmenin (YYBO) genel fizik laboratuari-I dersinde ogretmen adaylarinin akademik basarilarina ve bilimsel surec becerilerine etkisi) (Master thesis). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  51. Kelly, G. J. (2011). Scientific literacy, discourse, and epistemic practices. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Ericksen, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 61-73). New York, NY: Routledge.
  52. Kingir, S. (2011). Using the science writing heuristic approach to promote student understanding in chemical changes and mixtures (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  53. Kingir, S., Geban, O. & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43, 1645-1663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9326-x
  54. Kucuk Demir, B. (2014). The effect of the argumentation based science learning approach on students' mathematical achievement and skills of creative thinking (Argumantasyon Tabanli Bilim Ogrenme Yaklasiminin Ogrencilerin Matematik Basarilarina ve Yaratici Dusunme Becerilerine Etkisi). (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  55. Lamb, R., Hand, B., & Kavner, A. (2020). Computational modeling of the effects of the science writing heuristic on student critical thinking in science using machine learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-15.
  56. Manz, E. (2015). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 553-590. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314558490
  57. McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2010). A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non-traditional writing tasks over a ten year period. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 518-539. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20350
  58. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2013). Fen bilimleri dersi ogretim programi (Ilkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Siniflar) [Science curriculum (Elementary and Middle School Grade 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)]. Ankara: MoNE Publishing.
  59. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi ogretim programi (Ilkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Siniflar) [Science curriculum (Elementary and Middle School Grade 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)]. Ankara: MoNE Publishing.
  60. Morris, S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059
  61. Muis, K. R., & Duffy, M. C. (2013). Epistemic climate and epistemic change: Instruction designed to change students' beliefs and learning strategies and improve achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029690
  62. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  63. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  64. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Education at a glance 2017: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  65. R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
  66. Rees, E. L., Quinn, P. J., Davies, B., & Fotheringham, V. (2016). How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical teacher, 38(8), 829-837. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2015.1112888
  67. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  68. Sahin, E. (2016). The effect of argumentation based science learning approach (ABSL) on academic success, metacognition and critical thinking skills of gifted students (Argumantasyon Tabanli Bilim Ogrenme Yaklasiminin (ATBO) ustun Yetenekli Ogrencilerin Akademik Basarilarina, ustbilis ve Elestirel Dusunme Becerilerine Etkisi). (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  69. Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Rucker, G. (2015). Meta-analysis with R. Switzerland: Springer.
  70. Sedgwick, P., & Marston, L. (2015). How to read a funnel plot in a meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 351. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4718
  71. Sterne, J. A., Becker, B. J., & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 75-98). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  72. Tucel, S. T. (2016). Exploring the effects of science writing heuristic (SWH) approach on the eight grade students' achievement, metacognition and epistemological beliefs (Master thesis). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  73. Ulu, C., & Bayram, H. (2015). Effects of the argumentation based inquiry approach on students' concept learning levels (Argumantasyon Tabanli Bilim Ogrenme Yaklasimina Dayali Laboratuvar Etkinliklerinin 7. Sinif Ogrencilerinin Kavram Ogrenmelerine Etkisi: Yasamimizdaki Elektrik unitesi). Pamukkale universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 37 (37), 61-75. Retrieved from http://dergipark.org.tr/pauefd/issue/33862/374978
  74. Unal, S, (2016). The effect of case study and science writing heuristic based method of learning science about life based approach on teaching environmental subjects in biology course (Biyoloji dersi cevre konularinin ogretiminde yasam temelli yaklasima dair ornek olay inceleme ve arastirma sorgulama temelli bilim ogrenme yontemlerinin etkisi) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Databases of National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education.
  75. Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2), 215-247. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609346961
  76. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
  77. Villanueva, M. G., Taylor, J., Therrien, W., & Hand, B. (2012). Science education for students with special needs. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 187-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.737117
  78. Voutilainen, A., Saaranen, T., & Sormunen, M. (2017). Conventional vs. e-learning in nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 50, 97-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.12.020
  79. Yaman, F. (2018). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the quality of prospective science teachers' argumentative writing and their understanding of scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 421-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9788-9