Analysis of Write = Now Student Responses

Effective=20 Prompts for Quick Writes in Science and = Mathematics

Jo=20 Cleland, Peter Rillero, and Ron Zambo

Arizona=20 State University West

Abstract

Writing=20 has been recommended as a powerful strategy to enhance students=92 = learning of=20 science and mathematics. However, content-area educators may be = reluctant to=20 include writing because of the demands imposed by traditional writing = activities=20 on both instructional and grading/feedback time. The use of prompts to = elicit=20 non-graded, selectively read, student-written =93quickwrites=94 at the = beginning of=20 a class period can eliminate those obstacles and still provide students = with the=20 opportunity to review and consolidate their learning while providing = teachers=20 with a quick assessment of the students=92 level of understanding. In = this study=20 teachers prepared prompts related to concepts addressed in the previous = class=20 session. This article describes the procedures used in the quickwrite = project as=20 it was implemented in an urban middle school in science and mathematics = classes;=20 and provides an analysis of the types of prompts that promoted rich = responses=20 from students. A content analysis found four types of responses that = were=20 categorized as rich: those that described an application of a concept, = those=20 that were imaginative, those that offered an opinion, and those that = provide=20 justification for a premise. An analysis of the prompts that elicited = those=20 responses resulted in the identification of attributes of effective = prompts.=20 Those attributes included: being open-ended, having real-world = relevance, and=20 allowing students the opportunity to state and support their own=20 ideas.

Introduction

Student=20 writing is often recommended as a tool for enhancing science and = mathematics=20 concept development (e.g., Abell, 1992; Ammon & Ammon, 1990; Butler, = 1991;=20 Koeller, 1982; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1989, = 1991,=20 1995, 2000; Sturtevant, 1994). According to Kober (1993), =93When = students are=20 asked to write about their observations, results, reasoning processes or = attitudes, they are forced to pay closer attention to details, organize = data=20 more logically, and structure their arguments in a more coherent way. In = the=20 process, they clarify their own understanding =85 and hone their = communication=20 skills=94 (p. 45). Moore (1994) = asserts that=20 =93writing is one of the most powerful tools for discovering, = organizing, and=20 communicating knowledge=94(p. 296).

Although=20 sensible and supported by many, there appears to be limited research on = the=20 effectiveness of writing-to-learn approaches on science and mathematics=20 instruction (Holliday, Yore, & = Alvermann, 1994;=20 Moore, 1993; Peasley, Rosaen, & Roth, 1992). =93The links = between=20 writing to learn and critical thinking have not received sufficient = attention.=20 Carefully designed studies, both qualitative and quantitative, are still = required to provide data from a variety of perspectives=94(Rivard, 1994, p. = 969).

Problems=20 in writing-to-learn science and math approaches include teacher = reluctance to=20 use class time for writing activities, teacher resistance to grading = stacks of=20 papers, and students=92 fears of writing (Burns, 1994; Liss & = Hanson, 1993;=20 McMillen, 1986; Moore, 1994; Powell, 1985; Sturtevant, 1992). One useful = approach to writing-to-learn that takes these concerns into account is = the=20 quickwrite. This article describes the benefits of focused quickwrites = to=20 promote science and mathematics learning.

Writing=20 to Enhance Science Instruction

From=20 earlier work that established small but positive gains for the = effectiveness of=20 writing-to-learn approaches in science (Connally & Vilardi, 1989; = Rivard=20 1994) recent studies have explored other issues from the role of talk to = writing=20 in science investigations and journals. Rivard and Straw (2000) = investigated how=20 talk and writing influenced science learning using a quasi-experimental = control=20 group design with eighth grade students. The study found that writing = alone was=20 not significantly better than talking alone or of the control group. The = combination of talking and writing was very powerful in promoting = science=20 learning. The authors suggest that talking with peers =93allowed them to = share,=20 clarify, and distribute=94 their knowledge (p. 585). The writing then = helped them=20 organize and consolidate their developing ideas into more coherent and=20 structured knowledge.

Hand,=20 Prain, and Wallace (2002) also used a quasi-experimental control group = design.=20 They investigated how writing influenced performance on science test = items in=20 ninth and tenth grade classes. Students who wrote about a topic = performed better=20 on a higher-order question about that topic that was part of their unit = exam.=20 This difference was statistically significant in their second study, but = not in=20 their first study.

A few=20 studies focused on writing in the context of inquiry science teaching. = Baxter,=20 Bass, and Glasser (2001) analyzed inquiry teaching and the notebook = records=20 fifth grade students kept. The notebook records were judged to = accurately=20 reflect areas of teacher focus. The synthesis of ideas was not a focus = and was=20 generally absent from student notebooks.

Keys=20 (1999) found that middle school students=92 writings generally contained = few=20 inferences. Students could list facts and observations they made but = they did=20 not relate the facts or observations to new hypotheses or knowledge = claims. This=20 finding was supported by Warwick, Linfield, and Stephenson (1999) who = found=20 little in students writing about investigations to show understanding of = concepts of evidence. Within their conclusions they suggest that writing = prompts=20 may help students to focus on these areas.

The=20 question of what students are thinking as they write was addressed by = Keys=20 (2000). She used a think-aloud protocol in studying students writing = process in=20 science classrooms after doing a science investigation. Five of 16 = eighth grade=20 students engaged in more than 90% verbal dictation, which means that = they wrote=20 as they remembered what they did and there was no evidence to support = that they=20 were doing problem solving or other analyses about what they had been = doing.=20 There was evidence that some students =93deliberated and reflected on = science=20 content as part of the writing process itself=94 (Keys, 2000, p.=20 687).

In an=20 action research study, Woolnough (1999) reported questionnaire results = that=20 suggest year nine students reported that active modes of writing, such = as=20 writing in their own words and summarizing their thinking, were more = enjoyable=20 and better for their learning. Hanrahan (1999) in a journal writing = study, used=20 prompts to get students to respond. They generally wrote only one to two = sentences in response. Students generally liked the approach, although = some=20 criticized it because they had a hard time thinking about what to write. = Most=20 students found this type of writing preferable to what they normally did = in=20 class.

Writing=20 in an interactive-constructivist science classroom has great potential = to=20 enhance learning. Writing in science is conceptualized as a process that = develops reasoning, inducts students into the discourse of science, and = promotes=20 personal meaning making in relation to scientific explanations. Writing = in=20 science can serve to engage students=92 prior knowledge, facilitate = explorations=20 of alternative ideas or reveal new possibilities, consolidate new = concepts into=20 prior understanding or integrate divergent concepts, and assess = understanding,=20 reasoning, and argumentation. (Hand, Prain, Lawrence, & Yore, 1999, = p.=20 1028).

Writing=20 to Enhance Mathematics Instruction

Teachers=20 understand the importance of writing in the content areas, and = integrating=20 writing into mathematics class need not be a complicated process. Having = students write gets them engaged in the learning process and can be as = simple as=20 having them respond to a prompt for the first five minutes of class. = This=20 enables them to take an active role in explaining, discussing, = summarizing, and=20 evaluating mathematics concepts and their mathematical performance = (Countryman,=20 1992). Short, well-defined writing

tasks=20 are one form of writing that helps students to develop a deeper = understanding of=20 mathematical topics (House, 1996).

Research=20 has verified the effects of writing on learning mathematics. Jurdak and = Zein=20 (1998) investigated the effects of writing on achievement and attitudes = toward=20 math at the intermediate level (ages 11-13). During a 12-week period, = students=20 were allowed to write in their journals, in response to a prompt = provided by the=20 teacher, for 7-10 minutes, three times a week. Two types of prompts were = employed, cognitive prompts that were

math=20 oriented and affective prompts that asked students to express their = goals,=20 feelings, and attitudes. Posttest scores indicated that the students who = had=20 journal writing out-scored students who did not in; conceptual = understanding,=20 procedural knowledge, and mathematical communication. There were no = differences=20 for problem solving, attitudes toward math, or school math achievement. = In a=20 study involving High School Geometry students, Thayer and Giebelhaus = (2001),=20 investigated the effects of journal writing. During the four-week study = the=20 experimental group wrote summaries of instruction, step-by-step = directions of a=20 process, or analyses of why they had missed a homework problem. The = researchers=20 found that students who received instruction in Geometry that included = summary,=20 process, and analytical writing did significantly better than the = students who=20 received the same instruction without the writing component (p=20 < .05).

Writing=20 in math class can have additional benefits for teachers and can = potentially lead=20 to more effective instruction. Miller (1992) studied the effects of = timed,=20 in-class, writing prompts on H S Algebra teachers' ability to assess = students=20 understanding and on their instructional practices. Students were = allowed five=20 minutes to respond to a prompt. Teachers read the responses to = themselves=20 outside of class and wrote their responses to the students' writing. = Analysis of=20 the teachers' writing indicated that the student responses provided = teachers=20 with an increase ability to assess the learning of their students and = provided=20 them with information that affected their instruction, for example,=20 misconceptions students had about a given topic.

Purpose=20 of Quickwrites

=20 A quickwrite, as its name suggests, is an opportunity for = students to=20 write quickly, while thinking deeply. Writing mechanics are not graded, = because=20 the students are concentrating solely on expression of ideas. Students = must=20 capture their thoughts on paper in a succinct, articulate, and = meaning-filled=20 manner (Tompkins, 2001). The purpose for using a focused quickwrite as = the=20 opening of the class period is to link the previous day=92s learning to = new=20 coverage. This requires that the teacher construct a prompt that helps = students=20 make relevant connections.

=20 The operational definition of a prompt used for this study is = based on=20 Brand=92s (1991) summary of criteria for constructing writing tasks used = for=20 assessments. It reads as follows: A prompt is the setting of = expectations=20 regarding the content and structure of a written response. The purpose = of posing=20 a prompt is to focus the students=92 attention, provide the general = approach to be=20 taken, and specify the form of the response (Moore, Moore, Cunningham, = &=20 Cunningham, 1998). The prompt may be so narrow that students need only = restate=20 learned content verbatim; or it may be designed to stimulate critical = thinking.=20 The approach to the writing task may require supplying memorized = information; or=20 it may elicit generative responses. The form of the writing may be = highly=20 prescriptive or open-ended. The teacher therefore bears responsibility = for=20 careful thought about each of these three aspects of the prompt.=20

According=20 to Hanrahan (1999), =93often, writing in secondary science classrooms is = close-ended and prescribed, so that many students have not had the = opportunity=20 to learn from their writing=94(p. 678). Carefully designed prompts open = these=20 learning opportunities. =93Questions that ask students to explain or = make explicit=20 the subtle relationship between and among concepts, as well as to make=20 connections between classroom events and daily, should enhance = learning=94 (Rivard=20 & Straw, 2000, p. 569). Based on a review of research on = content-area=20 writing, Maxwell (1996) contends that writing can be a powerful means of = evoking=20 the types of critical thinking necessary for success in real-world = situations;=20 however, only those that allow for frequent, individual internalization = and=20 application of concepts activate this result.

Benefits=20 of Quickwrites

=20 Prompted quickwrites are time-efficient means for promoting daily = critical thinking. If carefully designed, they provide opportunities for = eliciting students=92 ideas about concepts being studied, clarifying=20 misunderstandings, anchoring learning in long-term memory, and building=20 content-specific vocabulary. Oral sharing of quickwrites offers not only = an=20 exchange of thoughts among students, but also a check for the teacher, = who can=20 instantly determine how to begin the day=92s = instruction.

Maximizing=20 Time

=20 The benefits of=20 writing-to-learn are widely accepted, but middle school science and = mathematics=20 teachers appear to have difficulty finding both instructional and = grading time=20 to fold writing into the curriculum (Rillero, Cleland, & Zambo, = 1995). In=20 fact, Liss & Hanson (1993) assert that = =93the=20 potential value of writing-to-learn is offset by the additional burden = placed on=20 the instructor in terms of evaluating students=92 efforts=94 (p. = 342). Quickwrites, however, do not require this = grading=20 =93burden.=94 They focus not on how well students write, but on how well = they=20 reason.

Quickwrites=20 may be shared orally with peers immediately afterward or simply = collected by the=20 teacher as a means of gauging students=92 grasp of on-going instruction. = Either=20 way, classroom and grading time is minimal, but the minutes spent in = this=20 activity have high instructional impact.

Concept=20 Development, Clarification, and Retention

=20 During this short time students are asked, not simply to recall, = but to=20 crystallize and extend their thinking. Writing during problem-solving=20 experiences increases students=92 reasoning processes and creativity. = Kliman and=20 Kleiman (1992) state, =93As students write =85 they learn to organize = their=20 thoughts, refine and clarify their understandings, and communicate what = they=20 know and imagine, and provide examples that are meaningful to others=94 = (pp.=20 128-9).

Observations=20 are at the heart of scientific concept development, and the ability to=20 communicate these observations is essential to internalization. Concepts = become=20 clearer when students independently note discoveries from hands-on = experiences=20 in science: and sharing their findings increases retention (Glynn and = Muth,=20 1994). Similarly, time devoted to individual reflections and = conversations about=20 mathematical concepts provides broad benefits. =93Students who have = opportunities,=20 encouragement, and support for speaking, writing, reading, and listening = in=20 mathematics classes reap dual benefits: they communicate to learn = mathematics,=20 and they learn to communicate mathematically=94 (NCTM, 2000, p. 60). The = socialization of sharing enhances both construction and retention of = meaning=20 during concept development (Jensen, 1998).

Vocabulary=20 Development

Each=20 discipline has a specialized vocabulary. As students compose = quickwrites, they=20 apply these vocabularies in the context of their own learning (Tompkins, = 1994,=20 Nevin, 1992).=20 As students share orally they internalize concepts and content-specific = words=20 become part of their daily language.

Formative=20 Assessments

=20 By using review questions as prompts = for=20 student quickwrites the teacher can better determine the pace at which = she can=20 proceed with new material. When students write out descriptions = of their=20 reasoning processes, misperceptions become apparent (McIntosh, 1991), = and=20 students=92 progress in critical thinking can be documented (Micklo, = 1997).=20 Tompkins (2001) states that content-area writing experiences =93provide = a good way=20 of checking on what students are learning and an opportunity to clarify=20 misconceptions=94 (p. 470). Writing can be a rich source of information = for=20 teachers who wish to take their students=92 present understandings into = account as=20 they plan and carry out instruction=94 (Ammon & Ammon, 1990, p. 1). = Since some research suggests that students do = poorly on=20 science questions requiring written responses (Manitoba Education and = Training,=20 1993; Bransky & Qualter, 1993), it seems particularly appropriate to = incorporate frequent focused writing experiences within content-area=20 courses.

The=20 Write Now Approach

=B7 = ;=20 The=20 Write Now Approach was developed by the researchers as a time-efficient = method=20 to promote daily writing in science and mathematics classrooms without = extensive=20 grading on the part of the teacher (Rillero, Zambo, Cleland, & Ryan, = 1996;=20 Zambo, Cleland, Rillero, & Ryan, 1998). The process uses prompted=20 quickwrites at the start of a lesson to review and extend learning from = a=20 previous class. Although low in time-consumption, it satisfies the = following=20 four guidelines Haggerty and Wolf (1991) recommend for eliciting = effective=20 student writing: (a) require students to write daily; (b) encourage them = to=20 write in complete sentences; (c) provide opportunity for them to share = their=20 written ideas; and (d) make them feel good about their writing.=20

The=20 Write Now Approach maximizes instructional time. As students enter the = room they=20 see a prompt that requires them to revisit a previously learned concept. = While=20 the teacher handles routine matters that often delay the beginning of=20 instruction, students silently bridge the learning gap between yesterday = and=20 today in a refocusing experience. They are personally engaged in = deepening their=20 understandings of the information absorbed in the preceding class, if = the=20 questions are appropriately designed (Rillero, Zambo, Cleland & = Ryan, &=20 Zambo, 19956), i.e., if the teacher has posed =93provocative = questions=94 (Dobyns=20 & Lewis, 2001, p. 14).

In the=20 Write Now classroom, students begin each class by writing responses to = an=20 open-ended question that focuses on learning from the previous day. = Students are=20 reminded to write briefly but in complete sentences. After approximately = five=20 minutes, selected students read their answers aloud to the class. = Teachers call=20 on volunteers, drawing out divergent viewpoints with questions such as, = =93Does=20 anyone have a different idea?=94 or =93Did anyone come up with another = way of=20 thinking about it?=94 Teachers also require responses from = non-volunteers with=20 encouraging comments such as, =93You look puzzled. Do you have a = different idea?=94=20 Students are instructed to read exactly what they have written; this = requires=20 quick organization of thoughts and prevents rambling oral replies. Since = the=20 teacher has designed the quick-write question to stimulate students=92 = higher=20 order thinking about a concept from the previous day, he is now ready to = link=20 this newly anchored understanding to the content of the upcoming=20 class.

Procedure

The=20 purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between = teacher-generated=20 quickwrite prompts and types of student responses in a naturalistic = setting. The=20 driving research question was: What types of prompts elicit =93rich=94 = responses=20 from students during review questions in science and mathematics? = =93Rich=94=20 responses are operationally defined here as written response that show=20 thoughtfulness beyond obvious factual recall.

Sampling

The sample population for this=20 investigation consisted of two eighth- grade classes, one science and = one=20 mathematics, in a middle school comprised of students with diverse = multicultural=20 backgrounds; twelve primary home languages were spoken within the = student=20 population. Sixty percent of the students were eligible for free or = reduced-cost=20 lunches.

The=20 two classes were chosen from among four in which the Write Now Approach = was used=20 for three months. The classes selected were those of the two teachers = (one=20 science and one mathematics) who were consistent in preparing their own = daily=20 Write Now questions. Each class had 21 students (N =3D 42) who were in = attendance=20 at least 75% of the days; those who were absent more than 25% of the = time were=20 eliminated from the sample population.

Content=20 Analysis

Prompt=20 questions and responses from a five-week period with a relatively = regular class=20 schedule (i.e., no holidays, limited interruptions to daily instruction) = were=20 used for analysis. All questions and responses from this time interval = were=20 included for the two classes. A content analysis of the students=92 = writings was=20 conducted in an effort to find generalizations about the nature of = student=20 responses to the Write Now questions. The initial analysis was = predetermined. It=20 labeled responses as rich or not rich. The not-rich responses were = literal=20 responses that merely restated content from the previous class. Rich = responses=20 were judged to demonstrate thinking about and around the concept in a = generative=20 manner.

The=20 second content analysis proceeded on the rich responses to identify = features=20 that characterized a higher level of thoughtfulness. No a priori = categories were=20 assigned for the grouping of responses; rather clusters of responses = were=20 allowed to emerge during the analysis. The data were analyzed using this = question: What has the student provided in his/her response that makes = it appear=20 generative? From the answers to this question, four clusters emerged as=20 indicators of these =93rich=94 responses and they were given the = following labels:=20 application, imagination, opinion, and justification of opinion.=20

It was=20 decided that each response would be given a rating from 0 to 3, low to = high, in=20 each of the four =93richness=94 categories. A =930=94 was included as a = possible rating=20 to indicate that a given student turned in a paper, but merely wrote the = question or jotted an unintelligible entry.

To=20 establish inter-rater reliability, three investigators independently = analyzed=20 student responses from these two classes, but not from the targeted time = interval. Twenty-five entries, fourteen science and eleven mathematics, = were=20 analyzed for each of the four =93richness=94 traits. Inter-rater = reliability was 86%=20 on the 100 cells of data from these practice items. Once inter-rater = reliability=20 was established, the researchers began analysis of all 42 responses to = each of=20 the 43 questions within the targeted five-week time frame, rating each = response=20 for the four categories: Application, Imagination, Opinion and=20 Justification.

Results

Once=20 the written responses of the 42 students to all 43 questions were coded, = means=20 were calculated for each question on each of the four =93richness=94 = categories:=20 Application, Imagination, Opinion, and Justification. The data were = separated by=20 subject area (science and mathematics), sorted by category, and = rank-ordered=20 within each discipline.

The=20 following chart shows the range of mean scores by category and subject = area,=20 based on 0-3 (low to high) ratings.

Table=20 1

Mean=20 Scores on Student Responses to Science and Mathematics Prompts

Application

Imagination

Opinion

Justification

Mathematics

1.45-2.71

1.00-2.15

0.68-2.42

0.32-2.32

Science

1.61-2.64

0.65-2.29

1.47-2.60

0.09-2.64

From=20 within these results, each question with a category mean score of two or = higher=20 in one or more of the last four categories was analyzed to determine = whether=20 specific word choices had prompted these =93richer=94 student responses. = Following=20 are examples of questions with means scores of two or higher, separated = by=20 response category and discipline. (See Appendix for full list of=20 prompts.)

Application=20

High=20 scores for responses showing Application were prompted by the = following=20 science questions, provided in rank order beginning with the one = resulting in=20 the highest mean score.

1.=20 What do you think is the = single=20 most important discovery in the world of science and = WHY?

2.=20 If someone invented a=20 matter-transmitter (like the transporter room in Star Trek) what kind of = changes=20 do you think you would see in the world?

3.=20 What do you think the = =93edge of=20 space=94 looks like?

4.=20 Name at least two uses = for the=20 polymer used in yesterday=92s lab. (Sample Student Response: It = would do=20 good [sic] in mops, in oil spills, in lakes that are flooding, and in = diapers.=20 Because polymers absorb.)

5.=20 What is the ONE thing = YOU=20 can do that would have the biggest impact on reducing pollution = (air,=20 water, etc.)?

6.=20 Describe (in detail) your = favorite=20 solution.

7.=20 If you could go back in = time to any=20 period and place in history, when and where would you go and=20 WHY?

8.=20 What invention or = discovery would=20 you like to be known for?

9.=20 If you could send a = message out to=20 space, what message would it be or what kind of message would it=20 be?

High=20 scores for responses showing Application were prompted by the = following=20 mathematics questions, provided in rank order beginning with the one = resulting=20 in the highest mean score.

1.=20 What is=20 the easiest way to determine whether a problem solution (in = multiplication) will=20 be a positive or negative?

2.=20 Which is easier to use, = percentage=20 or ratio? Why?

3.=20 Describe a real-life use = for what=20 you have learned over the past 2 weeks.

4.=20 How would you go about = finding the=20 area of a circle?

5.=20 Describe one similarity = and one=20 difference between ratio and percentage.

6.=20 Explain how pi (π) = is used in=20 geometry and describe one fact about it.

7.=20 What might cause a = fluctuation in=20 the price of stocks on the stock market?

8.=20 What are the = relationships among=20 radius, chord, diameter, and circumference?

9.=20 Which would be better to = use in=20 planning purchasing of food for use in a restaurant, ratio or=20 percentage?

It=20 appears that questions asking students to solve specific problems = elicited=20 Application of concepts or procedures, especially those that = incorporate=20 real-world situations (e.g., stock market, restaurant orders, use of = polymers).=20 Application appeared to increase following prompts containing = terms like=20 describe, explain, plan, and phrases like =93What are the = relationships...=94=20 and =93Which would be better....=94

Imagination

High=20 scores for responses showing Imagination were prompted by these = two=20 science questions, the first having the higher mean = score.

1.=20 What do you think is the = single=20 most abundant element in the universe?What do you think is the reason = for this?=20

2.=20 If you could send a = message out to=20 space, what message would it be or what kind of message would it=20 be?

A high=20 mean score for responses showing Imagination was prompted by the=20 following mathematics question.

1. Describe with examples = the=20 connection between =93is/of=94 and =93part of the whole.=94 (Sample = Student=20 Response: In the fraction 42/86, we say 42 is to 86 and mean 42 is = what part=20 of 86? Just like your nose is part of your face.)

It=20 appears that students used Imagination when they responded to = questions=20 that a) presented a hypothetical scenario outside the realm of present = reality,=20 or b) posed a query with a wide possibility of=20 explanations.

Opinion

High=20 scores for responses showing Opinion were prompted by the = following=20 science questions, provided in rank order beginning with the one = resulting in=20 the highest mean score.

1.=20 If someone invented a=20 matter-transmitter (like the transporter room in Star Trek) what kind of = changes=20 do you think you would see in the world?

2.=20 What do you think is the = single=20 most important discovery in the world of science and = WHY?

3.=20 Describe (in detail) your = favorite=20 solution.

4.=20 What do you think the = =93edge of=20 space=94 looks like?

5.=20 If you could go back in = time to any=20 period and place in history, when and where would you go and=20 WHY?

6.=20 If you were a farmer and = could grow=20 any one crop, what would it be and WHY?

7.=20 What is the ONE thing = YOU=20 can do that would have the biggest impact on reducing pollution = (air,=20 water, etc.)?

8.=20 Name at least two uses = for the=20 polymer used in yesterday=92s lab.

9. If you could send a = message out to=20 space, what message would it be or what kind of message would it=20 be?

10. What invention or discovery = would you=20 like to be known for?

11. If you were stuck on an island, = what=20 solution would you want a lot of and WHY?

12. How is the electromagnetic = spectrum=20 similar to the periodic table? (Sample Student Response: The ES = and the=20 PT are both arranged in order and they both describe things that are=20 invisible.)

High=20 scores for responses showing Opinion were prompted by the = following=20 mathematics questions, provided in rank order beginning with the one = resulting=20 in the highest mean score.

1.=20 Which is easier to use, = percentage=20 or ratio? Why? (See Justification.)

2.=20 Which would be better to = use in=20 planning purchasing of food for use in a restaurant, ratio or=20 percentage?

3.=20 Describe one similarity = and one=20 difference between ratio and percentage.

4.=20 Describe the differences = between=20 these problems:

1/4 X=20 3/12 and 1/4 =3D 3/12

5.=20 What might cause a = fluctuation in=20 the price of stocks on the stock market?

It=20 appears that questions containing words requiring comparisons and = contrasts=20 (e.g., similar, difference, easier, better, most, biggest, = favorite)=20 elicit strong Opinion statements. Questions that prompt = individual=20 choice, with allowance for a variety of correct responses, also seem to = enhance=20 clear Opinion statements, for example:

What=20 do you think=85?

=93Describe=85=94

=93If=85,=20 what would you=85?

=93What=20 might cause=85?

=93What=20 can YOU do=85?

=93Name=20 at least one=85 (from among many).

Justification

High=20 scores for responses showing Justification were prompted by the = following=20 science questions, provided in rank order beginning with the one = resulting in=20 the highest mean score.

1. =20 What=20 do you think is the single most important discovery in the world of = science and=20 WHY?

2. =20 If you=20 could go back in time to any period and place in history, when and where = would=20 you go and WHY?

3. =20 If=20 someone invented a matter-transmitter (like the transporter room in Star = Trek)=20 what kind of changes do you think you would see in the=20 world?

4. =20 If you=20 were stuck on an island, what solution would you want a lot of = and=20 WHY?

High=20 scores for responses showing Justification were prompted by the = following=20 mathematics questions, provided in rank order beginning with the one = resulting=20 in the highest mean score.

1. =20 Which=20 is easier to use, percentage or ratio? Why?

(Sample=20 Student Response:=20 Percentage is easier cause you can picture better if it is the majority = or not=20 when you are thinking =91out of a hundred.=92 If you think like it is = part of a=20 dollar it is easy.)

2. =20 Which=20 would be better to use in planning purchasing of food for use in a = restaurant,=20 ratio or percentage?

3. =20 What=20 might cause a fluctuation in the price of stocks on the stock=20 market?

4. =20 Describe=20 one similarity and one difference between ratio and=20 percentage.

It=20 seems that the word =93Why=94 is likely to elicit = Justification=20 statements. It should be noted that several questions with tags of = =93Why?=94 did=20 not receive high Justification scores (2.0 or higher); analysis = of the=20 individual responses shows that, in these cases, students omitted this = part of=20 the question completely.

Additionally=20 it appears that open-ended questions, i.e., those that allowed for a = wide range=20 of responses, caused students to include Justification=20 statements.

Occurrences of = =93Richness=94=20 Traits

From=20 the total of 43 questions (20 mathematics and 23 science) included in = the=20 five-week sample 22 had mean scores of 2.0 or higher in at least one = category.=20 Within these 22 are subsets of responses with multiple =93richness=94 = indicators,=20 specifically:

2 had=20 means scores of 2.0 or higher in 4 categories,

8 had=20 means scores of 2.0 or higher in 3 categories, and

6 had=20 means scores of 2.0 or higher in 2 categories.

A=20 review of the prompts listed above by separate categories suggests a=20 relationship between the nature of the parameters set forth by the = teacher and=20 the students=92 multiple =93richness=94 indicators. That is, the = teacher=92s wording=20 appears to stimulate these =93richness=94 = overlaps.

In=20 contrast, from the total of 43 questions, 21 had means scores of 2.0 or = higher=20 in no categories. Following are several examples of prompts that seem to = have=20 required only literal responses, i.e., prompts that did not stimulate = generative=20 thinking. Entries in response to these items received less than a mean = score of=20 two (on the 0-3 scale) on an aggregate of the four =93richness=94 = indicators.=20

1. =20 Describe=20 the relationship between wavelength and frequency.

2. =20 How=20 would you go about finding the area of a circle?

To=20 these and similar questions, student writings were nearly identical in = wording.=20 These verbatim responses appear an indicator that the answers came from = rote=20 learning.

=20 All 43 prompts provided by these teachers re-focused attention on = concepts currently being studied, as students used quickwrites and a = sharing=20 process which involved a small amount of time. Approximately half of the = prompts=20 appear to have stimulated higher-order thinking, and nearly = three-fourths of=20 these contained multiple =93richness=94 = characteristics.

Discussion=20 and Recommendations

The=20 purpose of this study was to examine conditions for success in using = writing to=20 develop science and mathematics literacy. Results of the data from the = two=20 classrooms in which the Write Now approach were implemented are = consistent with=20 previous studies that have identified the importance of teachers=92 = knowledge of=20 the interconnected dimensions of literacy and classroom strategies, and = their=20 ability to explicitly focus on and link these dimensions. Classroom = examples=20 indicate that a sequence of different writing tasks, with contrasting = contexts,=20 purposes, and readerships, is needed to develop the cluster of = attitudes,=20 knowledge, epistemological commitments, and reasoning capabilities = needed to=20 achieve science literacy (Hand, Prain, Lawrence, & Yore, 1999, p. = 1033).=20 Similarly, mathematical understandings are = enhanced=20 when students are given opportunity to explain, discuss, summarize, and = evaluate=20 concepts (Countryman, 1992). The ultimate result is improved performance = on=20 science and mathematics tasks.

In=20 this study, particular attention has been paid to the importance of the=20 teacher=92s role, to the awareness that a teacher=92s behavior strongly = influences=20 students=92 learning patterns. While there is variability in the rates = of=20 intellectual growth within any population, it appears that these = teachers=92=20 competence in posing prompts that stimulate higher order thinking was a = critical=20 factor. Analysis of the prompt-response relationships from this sampling = show a=20 clear similarity to the view of Moore, et al. (1998) that an effective = prompt=20 focuses attention on the concept to be addressed, provides the approach = to be=20 taken, and specifies the form of the response. Each response identified = as=20 =93rich=94 (mean score of two or higher on the 0-3 scale) was stimulated = by a prompt=20 that stated the concept to be addressed, specified the higher-order = thinking=20 approach to be used, and limited the scope of the response by using the=20 quickwrite mode.

Of the=20 categories that emerged as indicators of =93rich=94 responses, = imagination appeared=20 least stimulated, even when prompts implied the need for imaginative = thinking.=20 This seems counterintuitive, but may be the result of students=92 = previous=20 experience in science and mathematics classrooms where the focus has = been on=20 providing the correct answer.

Analysis=20 of student responses led the investigators to recognize the contrast = between=20 these effective prompts and questions that evoked mere reiteration of = learned=20 material. Teachers in this study acknowledged that it was more difficult = to=20 design items that elicit deep thinking than to frame questions that = required=20 mere repetition of the content knowledge taught. The data show that = students=92=20 thoughtfulness in responding to quickwrite questions increased when the = teachers=20 made this extra effort. That is, prompts elicited =93richer=94 responses = when the=20 teacher incorporated the following characteristics: =

a)=20 open-ended questions allowing for a variety of possible=20 answers;

b) = questions=20 with real-world relevance;

c)=20 scenarios that require students to compare and contrast, or identify=20 cause-effect relationships;

d) = chances=20 for students to =93think outside the box;=94

e) = opportunities=20 for students to state their own ideas and support = them;

f) =20 opportunities=20 for choice, e.g., selection of the best, most important, most valuable = from many=20 examples or possibilities;

g) = =93you=94=20 questions, i.e., ones that ask the student to think personally; and use = of words=20 like explain, describe, plan, might, would, if, and=20 why.

It=20 appears that =93rich=94 questions, i.e., open-ended questions that = require higher=20 order thinking skills, may elicit multiple traits of =93rich=94 = responses. In=20 creating powerful questions, teachers can address multiple aspects of = reasoning=20 simultaneously. Since powerful thinking is the goal, it seems questions = that=20 stimulate rich responses in several domains are not only efficient, but = more=20 provocative.

Conclusion

Our=20 initial analysis of this writing-to-learn approach suggested that it fit = well=20 into classroom procedures; it helped students focus on prior learning; = and it=20 brought more writing into science and mathematics classrooms (Rillero, = Zambo,=20 Cleland, & Ryan, 1996). An examination of how teacher prompts = influenced=20 student responses shows how writing can promote deep thinking in science = and=20 mathematics classrooms.

Integration=20 for the sake of integration has value. Better reasons to integrate = writing with=20 science and mathematics is that writing with effective prompts can be a = tool to=20 elicit clear articulation of and deep thinking about key concepts. By = requiring=20 students to write their ideas, we can help them learn to communicate = accurately.=20 By promoting in-depth conceptualization, we encourage thoughtfulness = that=20 transcends subject-specific parameters. Cross-curricular integration can = be=20 enhanced by teachers=92 awareness that expectations of deep thinking, no = matter=20 what the topic, help students develop fluid thinking abilities that can = be=20 applied across disciplines and contexts.

=20 We have identified four features of =93rich=94 responses, those = that show=20 students=92 ability to apply content knowledge to interesting scenarios, = use their=20 imaginations, state their opinions, and justify their viewpoints. They = are not=20 so much discrete skills, however, as they are symptoms of overall = expressions of=20 thoughtfulness, in which these thinking processes overlap. By = stimulating=20 transferable thinking processes and providing subject-specific content = within=20 engaging situations, teachers can promote integrative modes of = operation. In=20 this era of rapid change, few can accurately predict the future world in = which=20 today=92s students will live and work. Nevertheless, we feel comfortable = in=20 suggesting that abilities and knowledge in science, mathematics, and = writing=20 will be beneficial. Of one thing we are certain: thinking skills will be = essential.

References

Abell,=20 S. (1992). Helping science methods students construct meaning from text. = Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(1), = 11-15.

Ammon,=20 P. & Ammon, M. S. (1990). Using student writing to assess and = promote=20 understanding in science. Berkeley: Center for the Study of=20 Writing.

Baxter,=20 G. P., Bass, K. M., Glasser, R. (2001). Notebook writing in three = fifth-grade=20 science classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102(2),=20 123-40.

Brand,=20 A. (1991). Constructing tasks for direct writing assessment: A frontier=20 revisited. Viewpoints. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.=20 340037.)

Bransky,=20 J., & Qualter, A. (1993). Applying physics concepts - Uncovering the = gender=20 differences in Assessment of Performance Unit results. Research in = Science=20 and Technological Education, 11(2), 141-56.

Burns,=20 Roxanne H. (1994). Helping students succeed in a creative writing = assignment in=20 the biological sciences. American Biology Teacher 35:=20 364-66.

Butler,=20 G. (1991). Science and thinking: The Write Connection. Journal of = Science=20 Teacher Education, 2(4), 106-110.

Connally,=20 P., & Vilardi T. (1989). Writing to learn mathematics and science. = New York:=20 Teachers College Press.

Countryman,=20 J. (1992). Writing to learn mathematics. Portsmouth, NH,=20 Heineman.

Dobyns,=20 S.. & Lewis, G. (2001). Using provocative questions to stimulate = creative=20 thinking. Reading, Writing, Thinking, 2(3), 14-16. =

Glynn,=20 S. & Muth, K. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science. = Journal of=20 Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057-1073.

Haggerty,=20 D. J. & Wolf, S. E. (1991). Writing in the Middle School Classroom.=20 School Science and Mathematics. 91(6), = 245-246.

Hand,=20 B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science = framework=20 designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of = Science=20 Education, 21(10), 1021-35.

Hand,=20 B., Prain, V, Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on = students=92=20 answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science=20 Education, 32(1), 19-34.

Hanrahan,=20 M. (1999). Rethinking science literacy: Enhancing communication and=20 participation in school science through affirmational dialogue journal = writing.=20 Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 366),=20 699-717.

Holliday,=20 W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science=20 learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises.=20

Journal=20 of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9),=20 877-893. House, P.A. (1996). Try a little of the write stuff. In 1996=20 yearbook:

Communications=20 and mathematics K-12 and beyond. Reston, VA, National Council of = Teachers of=20 Mathematics.

Jensen,=20 E. (1998). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: = Association=20 for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jurdak,=20 J. & Abu Zein, R. (1999). The effect of journal writing on = achievement and=20 attitude toward mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 98(8),=20 412-419.