2000
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(200001)37:1<3::aid-tea2>3.0.co;2-z
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
From Corrector to Collaborator: The Range of Instructor Roles in Writing-Based Natural and Applied Science Classes
Abstract: This study of writing-intensive (WI) undergraduate natural and applied science courses examined the relationships among instructors' course goals, instructional activities, and students' assessment of their learning of content and writing. Using multiple sources of data, investigators found that instructors held common goals but varied greatly in their instructional activities. Findings suggest that science instructors can be described along a continuum anchored by instructor as corrector on one end and instru…
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
43
4
3
1
Citation Types
3
14
0
2
Year Published
2001
2025
Publication Types
Select...
41
5
4
Relationship
0
50
Authors
Journals
Cited by 50 publications
(19 citation statements)
References 44 publications
3
14
0
2
“…The students' comments also confirm other research findings (Chinn & Hilgers, 2000;Keys, 1999;Kelly & Chen, 1999;Prain & Hand, 1996) that claim certain aspects of task design and particular classroom conditions are likely to promote learning through writing. The writing tasks should entail meaningful audiences for whom student writers recognize task demands and have strategies to address these demands.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The students' comments also confirm other research findings (Chinn & Hilgers, 2000;Keys, 1999;Kelly & Chen, 1999;Prain & Hand, 1996) that claim certain aspects of task design and particular classroom conditions are likely to promote learning through writing. The writing tasks should entail meaningful audiences for whom student writers recognize task demands and have strategies to address these demands.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…As their responses indicated, students perceived that this task required them to clarify concepts for themselves to explain them to others, and that this process focused and enhanced their learning. The students' comments also confirm Chinn and Hilgers' (2000) claim that students learn from writing when there are frequent verbal and written interaction between student and teacher, participation in a collaborative learning community, clear guidelines for writing, and opportunities to write for other audiences. In other words, as noted by Lave and Wenger (1991), classroom conditions serve learning when there is a range of meaningful communicative practices that support students in all stages of writing, including feedback on their initial and advanced efforts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…These findings also agree with others who have suggested that integrating collaborative discourse experiences, such as talk and writing, are essential supportive components in promoting students' thinking, reasoning, conceptual change, reasoning, and inquiry processes (Fellows, 1994;Keys, 1994;Mason, 1998;Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993). Thus the perceived value of these social interactions combined with writing to meaningful audiences reported by college students (Chinn & Hilgers, 2000) were also reflected in these high school students' comments (Chapter 3).…”
Section: Question Sixsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The students' comments also confirm other research findings (Chinn & Hilgers, 2000;Kelly & Chen, 1999;Prain & Hand, 1996) that claim certain aspects of task design and particular classroom conditions are likely to promote learning through writing.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…While receiving feedback from instructors is helpful, having students give feedback to each other encourages them to think more critically (Man et al., 2018). Receiving peer feedback on writing assignments in STEM courses has been found to improve students' perception of their writing quality and overall learning (Chinn & Hilgers, 2000). In addition, peer feedback has been found to give students motivation to continue to write and make them more productive writers (Gianaros, 2006).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
