A comparison of primary school pupils' ability to express procedural understanding in science through speech and writing

Abstract

Pupils reaching the end of their primary schooling in the UK have some grasp of the relevance of their process activities in terms of evidential value. The majority find it easier to express this understanding verbally rather than in writing. One reason for this is the facility that pupils have for using the two modes of expression, yet it is clear that other factors are in play. Both pupils and teachers have different agendas for what it is appropriate to address in speech and in writing, and thus the two modes of expression often serve different purposes. This paper concludes that there is much that might be done to improve the critical nature of the dialogue pupils enter into in their written work, thus exposing more clearly their level of procedural understanding.

Developing pupils' written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a case study approach

“…In marked contrast to the findings of Warwick et al (1999), where understanding was rarely expressed in a written form, Appendices 4a-c reflect high levels of understanding with respect to concepts of evidence in both the spoken and written responses of the pupils. The responses are, as perhaps might be expected, somewhat different in nature, and it will not be a surprise to find that the spoken responses to questioning are usually fuller than the written responses.…”

“…Here, the work of Wray and Lewis (1997) develops the arguments with reference to a range of non-fiction writing and indicates the possible relevance for pupil communication in science, especially with respect to the expression of procedural understanding. Their work can be seen as providing support to the concluding remarks made in the study by Warwick et al (1999), who suggest that much might be done to improve the critical nature of the dialogue based upon investigative procedures that pupils enter into in their written work. Wray and Lewis (1997) argue strongly that the use of writing frames, in particular, can develop the understanding expressed in non-fiction writing, and put forward the proposition that this is due at least partly to the fact that writing frames provide a vehicle for learning as a social process (Lave andWenger 1991, Light andLittleton 1999).…”

“…A recent study by Warwick et al (1999) reveals that pupils reaching the end of their primary schooling in the UK (at about 11 years) have some grasp of the relevance of their process activities in terms of evidential value, but that the majority express this understanding more fully in speech rather than in writing. The study uses the work of Duggan (1995a, b, 1996) by employing their concepts of evidence, characterized as the 'building blocks' of procedural understanding, as items for analysis of levels of pupil understanding in their written and spoken responses (see Appendices 1 and 2).…”

In their Own Words: Understanding Student Conceptions of Writing Through their Spontaneous Metaphors in the Science Classroom

“…Studies have also explored the processes of writing to learn by examining the cognitive processes and strategies that produce a more in-depth understanding (Keys, 1999a(Keys, , b, 2000Prain & Hand, 1998;Warwick et al, 1999Warwick et al, , 2003. Writing however may have little effect if students dismiss it as unimportant, if they lack confidence or motivation to write, or if they have a poor approach to learning (Taylor et al, 2002).…”

Scaffolding speech and writing in the primary classroom: a consideration of work with literature and science pupil groups in the USA and UK

“…The work of Warwick et al (2003) sprang from an earlier study that looked at the differences in pupils' expressed understanding in science when talking and writing (Warwick, Sparks‐Linfield and Stephenson, 1999). Acknowledging that “developing scientific literacy involves adopting the thought processes, interpretations of experience, behaviours, and language of scientists” (Wollman‐Bonilla, 2000, p. 36), the later study examined the use of writing frames as a device for structuring pupils' expression of understanding of the processes of science.…”