A Study of Year 9 Students’ Developing Scientific Literacy through …eprints.qut.edu.au/34404/1/Louisa_Tomas_Thesis.pdf · 2010-09-08 · the project influenced their attitudes

Merging Fact with Fiction:

A Study of Year 9 Students’ Developing

Scientific Literacy through the Writing of

Hybridised Scientific Narratives on a

Socioscientific Issue

Thesis submitted by

Louisa Tomas, B.Ed./B.Sc. (Hons)

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,

Centre for Learning and Innovation in Education, Queensland University of Technology.

February 2010

i

KEYWORDS

Scientific literacy Writing-to-learn Socioscientific issues Mixed methods Conceptual understanding Interest

ii

ABSTRACT

International assessments of student science achievement, and growing evidence of

students’ waning interest in school science, have ensured that the development of

scientific literacy continues to remain an important educational priority.

Furthermore, researchers have called for teaching and learning strategies to engage

students in the learning of science, particularly in the middle years of schooling. This

study extends previous national and international research that has established a link

between writing and learning science. Specifically, it investigates the learning

experiences of eight intact Year 9 science classes as they engage in the writing of

short stories that merge scientific and narrative genres (i.e., hybridised scientific

narratives) about the socioscientific issue of biosecurity.

This study employed a triangulation mixed methods research design, generating both

quantitative and qualitative data, in order to investigate three research questions that

examined the extent to which the students’ participation in the study enhanced their

scientific literacy; the extent to which the students demonstrated conceptual

understanding of related scientific concepts through their written artefacts and in

interviews about the artefacts; and the extent to which the students’ participation in

the project influenced their attitudes toward science and science learning.

Three aspects of scientific literacy were investigated in this study: conceptual science

understandings (a derived sense of scientific literacy), the students’ transformation of

scientific information in written stories about biosecurity (simple and expanded

fundamental senses of scientific literacy), and attitudes toward science and science

learning. The stories written by students in a selected case study class (N=26) were

analysed quantitatively using a series of specifically-designed matrices that produce

numerical scores that reflect students’ developing fundamental and derived senses of

scientific literacy. All students (N=152) also completed a Likert-style instrument

(i.e., BioQuiz), pretest and posttest, that examined their interest in learning science,

science self-efficacy, their perceived personal and general value of science, their

familiarity with biosecurity issues, and their attitudes toward biosecurity.

iii

Socioscientific issues (SSI) education served as a theoretical framework for this

study. It sought to investigate an alternative discourse with which students can

engage in the context of SSI education, and the role of positive attitudes in engaging

students in the negotiation of socioscientific issues.

Results of the study have revealed that writing BioStories enhanced selected aspects

of the participants’ attitudes toward science and science learning, and their awareness

and conceptual understanding of issues relating to biosecurity. Furthermore, the

students’ written artefacts alone did not provide an accurate representation of the

level of their conceptual science understandings. An examination of these artefacts in

combination with interviews about the students’ written work provided a more

comprehensive assessment of their developing scientific literacy.

These findings support extensive calls for the utilisation of diversified writing-to-

learn strategies in the science classroom, and therefore make a significant

contribution to the writing-to-learn science literature, particularly in relation to the

use of hybridised scientific genres. At the same time, this study presents the

argument that the writing of hybridised scientific narratives such as BioStories can be

used to complement the types of written discourse with which students engage in the

negotiation of socioscientific issues, namely, argumentation, as the development of

positive attitudes toward science and science learning can encourage students’

participation in the discourse of science. The implications of this study for curricular

design and implementation, and for further research, are also discussed.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Keywords ...................................................................................................................... i Abstract ........................................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ iv List of Tables and Figures ......................................................................................... viii Statement of Original Authorship ............................................................................... xi Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1: Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Pursuit of Scientific Literacy in a Changing Society ........................... 1 1.2 Defining Scientific Literacy ........................................................................ 5 1.3 The Relevance of Scientific Literacy in Contemporary Society ................. 9 1.4 View of Scientific Literacy Adopted in the Current Study ....................... 10 1.5 The Problem ............................................................................................... 13 1.6 Significance of the Study ........................................................................... 16 1.7 Aims of the Study ...................................................................................... 17 1.8 Overview of Thesis .................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 2: Developing Scientific Literacy through Writing about

Socioscientific Issues ......................................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 19 2.2 Putting the “Literacy” back in Scientific Literacy ..................................... 19 2.2.1 Writing in Science.......................................................................... 22 2.2.2 Writing-to-Learn Science: Beyond Traditional Scientific Genres ............................................................................................ 24 2.2.3 The Science Writing Heuristic ....................................................... 28 2.2.4 Scientific Storytelling: The New Frontier? .................................... 31 2.2.5 Research in Writing-to-Learn Science: An Integrated Approach ................................................................. 36 2.3 Assessing Scientific Literacy ..................................................................... 39 2.3.1 The Challenges of Assessing Scientific Literacy ........................... 40 2.3.2 Purposes of Assessment in the Science Classroom ....................... 42 2.3.3 Assessing Attitudes toward Science, an Aspect of Scientific Literacy .......................................................................... 44 2.4 Technology in the Science Classroom ....................................................... 47 2.4.1 Digital Resources versus Cognitive Tools ..................................... 48 2.5 Theoretical Framework: Developing Scientific Literacy through

Engagement with Socioscientific Issues .................................................... 50 2.5.1 Science-Technology-Society (STS) Education .............................. 51 2.5.2 Beyond STS: Socioscientific Issues (SSI) Education .................... 53 2.5.2.1 A Framework for SSI Education ..................................... 54 2.6 Implications for the Current Study ............................................................ 62 2.7 Summary .................................................................................................... 67

v

CHAPTER 3: Research Design and Procedures ....................................................... 69 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 69 3.2 Research Design ........................................................................................ 69 3.3 Research Procedures .................................................................................. 71 3.3.1 Organisation of the Study .............................................................. 71 3.3.2 The School Context ....................................................................... 73 3.3.3 Class Case Study ............................................................................ 74 3.3.4 Methods of Data Generation .......................................................... 76 3.3.4.1 Student Questionnaire...................................................... 76 3.3.4.2 Student Artefacts ............................................................. 77 3.3.4.3 Semi-structured In-depth Interviews ............................... 77 3.3.4.4 Field Journal .................................................................... 79 3.3.4.5 Summary of Methods of Data Generation ....................... 79 3.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 79 3.4.1 Quantitative Approach to Data Analysis ....................................... 80 3.4.1.1 Analysis of Student Artefacts .......................................... 80 3.4.1.2 Analysis of Student Questionnaire .................................. 81 3.4.2 Qualitative Approach to Data Analysis ......................................... 82 3.4.2.1 Analysis of Interview Data .............................................. 83 3.4.2.2 Transcription Procedures ................................................. 84 3.4.2.3 Coding the Data ............................................................... 85 3.5 Summary .................................................................................................... 86 CHAPTER 4: Instrumentation ................................................................................... 89 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 89 4.2 Student Questionnaire................................................................................ 89 4.2.1 Conceptual Origin .......................................................................... 89 4.2.2 Instrument Reliability and Validity ............................................... 92 4.2.2.1 BioQuiz Administration ................................................... 96 4.2.2.2 Summary of Factor Analyses .......................................... 96 4.3 Assessment of Conceptual Understanding: Analysis of BioStories .......... 98 4.3.1 Preliminary Instrumentation .......................................................... 98 4.3.2 The BioStories’ Matrices ............................................................... 99 4.3.2.1 Development of the Matrices ........................................ 100 4.3.2.2 Examination of Students’ Writing Prior to the BioStories’ Project ......................................................... 103 4.3.3 Instrument Reliability and Validity ............................................. 105 4.3.4 Summary of Matrices Instrumentation ........................................ 106 CHAPTER 5: Quantitative Results .......................................................................... 107 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 107 5.2 Overview of BioQuiz Analysis and Summary of Results........................ 107 5.2.1 Exploring Interaction Effects: Multivariate Analyses of

Variance ....................................................................................... 109 5.2.2 Follow-up Univariate Analyses of Variance ............................... 110 5.2.3 Paired- and Independent-Samples t tests ..................................... 111

vi

5.2.3.1 Were there Differences in the Ways in which Girls and Boys Responded to the BioQuiz? ................... 111 5.2.3.2 Were there Class Differences in the Ways in

which Students Responded to the BioQuiz? .................. 112 5.2.3.3 Did BioQuiz Scores Overall Change from Pretest

to Posttest? ..................................................................... 112 5.2.3.4 Did BioQuiz Scores for Each Subscale Improve

from Pretest to Posttest? ................................................ 113 5.2.4 Summary of BioQuiz Analysis..................................................... 114 5.3 Overview of BioStories’ Analysis and Summary of Results ................... 115 5.3.1 Summary of Students’ BioStories’ Scores ................................... 117 5.3.2 Dependent-Samples t tests ........................................................... 119 5.3.2.1 Were there Significant Improvements in

Students’ Derived Scientific Literacy Scores across Parts A, B and C of their BioStories? ................. 119

5.3.2.2 Were there Significant Improvements in Students’ Derived Scientific Literacy Scores from their Pre-writing Sample, to Parts A, B and C of their BioStories? ............................................................. 121

5.3.2.3 Were there Significant Improvements in Students’ Fundamental Scientific Literacy across Parts A, B and C of their BioStories? ............................ 122

5.3.3 Summary of BioStories’ Analysis ................................................ 123 CHAPTER 6: Qualitative Results ............................................................................ 125 6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 125 6.2 Overview of the Interview Process and Analysis .................................... 125 6.3 To what Extent is the Scientific Literacy of the Year 9 Students enhanced through their Participation in the BioStories’ Project? ............ 127 6.3.1 Evidence of Comparable Understanding ..................................... 129 6.3.2 Evidence of Deeper Conceptual Understanding .......................... 132 6.3.3 Evidence of Superficial or Problematic Conceptual Understanding .............................................................................. 137 6.3.4 Summary of Analysis of Students’ Conceptual

Understanding .............................................................................. 144 6.4 Participants’ Perceptions of their Experiences in the Project .................. 145

6.4.1 Interest and Enjoyment Generated in the Project ........................ 146 6.4.1.1 Writing Differently in Science ....................................... 147 6.4.1.2 Stimulating Imagination ................................................ 152 6.4.1.3 Student-centred Pedagogy ............................................. 154 6.4.1.4 Engaging Diverse Learners ............................................ 159 6.4.1.5 Accessing Information Technologies ............................ 161 6.4.2 Issues Arising from Project Design and Implementation ............ 163 6.4.3 Summary of Participants’ Perceptions of their Experiences

in the Project ................................................................................ 168 CHAPTER 7: Discussion ........................................................................................... 169 7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 169 7.2 Review of Aims, Research Methodology and Research Questions ........ 169

vii

7.3 Claim 1: Students’ Awareness and Conceptual Understanding of Issues Relating to Biosecurity were enhanced through their Participation in the BioStories’ Project ................................................... 171

7.4 Claim 2: Students’ Attitudes toward Science and Science Learning (Specifically, their Interest in Learning Science, Science Self-efficacy, and their Perceived Personal and General Value of Science) Improved through their Participation in the BioStories’ Project ..................................................................................................... 176

7.4.1 Students’ Science Self-Efficacy, and Perceived Personal and General Value of Science ................................................................. 178

7.4.2 Students’ Attitudes toward Biosecurity ....................................... 181 7.4.3 Students’ Perceptions of Learning Science through the

BioStories’ Project ....................................................................... 182 7.4.3.1 Aspects of the Project that Enhanced Students’

Interest and Enjoyment of Learning Science ................. 182 7.4.3.2 Students’ Perceptions of Challenges Presented by

the Project ...................................................................... 186 7.5 Limitations of the Study .......................................................................... 192 7.6 Implications of the Study ......................................................................... 194 7.6.1 Implications for Curricular Design and Implementation ............. 195 7.6.2 Implications for Educational Theory ........................................... 200 7.7 Summary .................................................................................................. 204 CHAPTER 8: Conclusions ........................................................................................ 207 References ............................................................................................................... 215 Appendices ............................................................................................................... 231 Appendix A. The short story template for Part A of the BioStories’

tasks, as it appeared on the BioStories’ website ........................ 232 Appendix B. The BioStories’ information pack and consent form

distributed to the Year 9 students and their parents/guardians ....................................................................... 233

Appendix C. Interview excerpts that serve as examples to illustrate coding decisions ........................................................................ 236

Appendix D. Results of principle component and confirmatory factor analyses of the BioQuiz ............................................................. 238

Appendix E. The derived scientific literacy matrices for Parts A, B and C of the BioStories’ tasks ................................................... 254

Appendix F. The writing matrix for Parts A, B and C of the BioStories’ tasks ........................................................................ 257

Appendix G. The derived scientific literacy matrices for the students’ scientific writing sample prior to their participation in the BioStories’ Project ..................................................................... 258

viii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables Table 1.1. A comparison between the ways of knowing traditionally valued

by schools, and the Knowledge Society (Fensham, 2007) ......................... 5 Table 2.1. Five ways in which digital technologies can be applied in the

classroom (Barab & Leuhmann, 2003, p. 458) ........................................ 48 Table 3.1. A summary of data generation methods employed in the study .............. 80 Table 3.2. A summary of the key phases of the study, their timing, and the

relevant procedures employed .................................................................. 86 Table 4.1. Subscales and items of the BioQuiz ......................................................... 91 Table 4.2. A summary of the characteristics of the BioQuiz subscales from

the preliminary study (Ritchie et al., 2008b) ............................................ 93 Table 4.3. Descriptive statistics for each subscale (N=152) ...................................... 97 Table 4.4. An interpretation of the derived scientific literacy score as

applied to students’ BioStories ............................................................... 102 Table 4.5. An interpretation of the fundamental scientific literacy score as

applied to students’ BioStories ............................................................... 104 Table 5.1. Results of the paired-samples t tests, which examined mean

BioQuiz scores for girls and boys, pretest to posttest. Non-significant results are not shown ............................................................ 111

Table 5.2. Significant results of the paired-samples t tests, which examined

changes in students’ mean BioQuiz scores, pretest to posttest. Results for attitudes toward biosecurity are not shown, as no significant change was observed for this subscale ................................. 114

Table 5.3. A summary of the descriptive statistics for each of the variables

explored via dependent samples t tests. .................................................. 117 Table 5.4. An interpretation of the derived scientific literacy score as

applied to students’ BioStories ............................................................... 118 Table 5.5. An interpretation of the fundamental scientific literacy score as

applied to students’ BioStories ............................................................... 119 Table 5.6. Significant results of the dependent-samples t tests, which

examined changes in students’ derived scientific literacy scores across the three BioStories’ tasks ........................................................... 120

ix

Table 5.7. Significant results of the dependent-samples t tests, which examined changes in students’ derived scientific literacy scores across the pre-writing and BioStories’ tasks. The results for pre-writing to Part A are not shown, as they were not significant ............... 121

Table 5.8. Significant results of the dependent-samples t tests, which

examined changes in students’ fundamental scientific literacy scores across the three BioStories’ tasks ................................................ 123

Table 6.1. A summary of students’ conceptual science understandings

expressed at interview ............................................................................ 128 Table 6.2. A summary of students’ responses at interview, regarding

aspects of the project they did and did not enjoy. Frequency represents the number of times particular aspects were cited ................ 146

Table 7.1. A comparison of the case study students’ science results for

Semester 1 and their fundamental scientific literacy scores for Part B of their BioStories ....................................................................... 179

Table 7.2. A comparison of percentages of positive responses to items

shared by the PISA 2006 testing, and the BioQuiz ................................ 180 Table D.1. Correlation matrix for the BioQuiz ........................................................ 239 Table D.2. Pretest item reliability analysis of the BioQuiz. The correlations

between the items and factor onto which they load are highlighted .............................................................................................. 240

Table D.3. Posttest item reliability analysis of the BioQuiz. The correlations

between the items and factor onto which they load are highlighted .............................................................................................. 242

Table D.4. Factor loadings from the PCA ................................................................ 244 Table D.5. Reliability statistics for each component, pretest and posttest ............... 246 Table D.6. Squared multiple correlations for the 6-factor model, pretest and

posttest .................................................................................................... 250 Table D.7. Large standardised residuals observed pretest and posttest ................... 251 Table D.8. Confirmatory factor analysis indices of fit test results ........................... 252

x

Figures Figure 2.1. The Science Writing Heuristic (Keys et al., 1999, pp. 1068-

1069) ......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 2.2. The steps involved in converting a digital resource to a cognitive

tool, via the Cognitive Tools Framework (Songer 2007, p. 480) ............. 49 Figure 2.3. Socioscientific elements of functional scientific literacy (Zeidler et al., 2005, p. 361) ..................................................................... 55 Figure 3.1. An example of a student’s Part A BioStory, uploaded to the

BioStories’ website ................................................................................... 77 Figure 4.1. The scoring of student responses applied in the analysis of the

BioQuiz ..................................................................................................... 90 Figure 4.2. The scale presented to a panel of experts to evaluate the face

validity of Subscale 6, Attitudes toward biosecurity. Items c and e represent additional items that did belong to the original scale ............ 95

Figure D.1. Output of confirmatory factor analysis of BioQuiz data at pretest ......... 248 Figure D.2. Output of confirmatory factor analysis of BioQuiz data at

posttest .................................................................................................... 249

xi

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date: 22nd January, 2010.

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have contributed in various ways to this thesis. Firstly, I would like to

gratefully acknowledge the enthusiastic supervision of Professor Stephen Ritchie.

Since my undergraduate studies at James Cook University, Steve has been incredibly

encouraging, firstly, in pursuing a Ph.D. candidature during my initial years of

classroom teaching, and secondly, in seeing me through what has been a wonderful

journey of learning. I have always appreciated learning as much as I possibly can

from such an accomplished science educator. Thank you for your guidance, advice

and suggestions throughout the project, and I look forward to continuing our

colleagueship as I take the next step into academia.

I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my associate supervisor,

Professor Kar-Tin Lee, for her comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the

manuscript.

Thank you to fellow Ph.D. candidate, Megan Tones, for her helpful guidance and

assistance with the statistical analyses. It was a tremendous learning curve. Gratitude

must also be extended to Nicole Donaldson for graciously offering her time and

expertise in the validation of the matrices. A special thank you to Nyree Buchanan

for her assistance in the transcription of interview manuscripts. Your patience,

persistence and generosity of time are warmly appreciated.

Thank you to my family, Mum, Dad and my brother, Christopher, for being so proud

and supportive of my accomplishments so far. To Mum and Dad, you have always

encouraged and provided me with every opportunity to be all that I can be. I couldn’t

have done it without you. Thank you to my husband, Trent, for your love, patience

and encouragement over the past few years. It’s been wonderful to share this journey

with you. I know that you have also enjoyed accompanying me on various study-

related trips and conferences, so it really hasn’t been that tough for you at all!

I would like to sincerely thank the school at which my study was conducted,

including the Principal, various members of the Administration team, and the

Science Department. Without their cooperation, resources and willingness to

xiii

participate, this project would not have been a success. Thank you to the seven

participating science teachers, including the Mr. Peters (a pseudonym), the Middle

School Science Coordinator, for your enthusiasm and cooperation, and finding time

to meet with me to ensure that the project ran smoothly, in between your busy

schedules. Thank you for taking the BioStories’ project onboard in your classrooms,

and ensuring its successful implementation, and for your gracious participation in the

end-of-project interviews. I would also like to acknowledge the Year 9 students who

participated in the project, and, in particular, Mr. Peters’s class, for your honest,

insightful, and sometimes, entertaining, comments at interview.

Finally, gratitude must be extended to the agencies that provided financial support

throughout the project. Thank you to the auDA Foundation for funding that

supported the development and maintenance of the BioStories’ website, and enabled

me to present some of my early research findings at the annual Australasian Science

Education Research Association (ASERA) conference in Brisbane, 2008. Thanks

also to the Queensland College of Teachers for the provision of a grant to present

some of my research at ASERA, Geelong, in 2009.

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Pursuit of Scientific Literacy in a Changing Society

International testing of scientific literacy undertaken by TIMSS (Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study) and PISA (Programme for

International Student Assessment) has sought to determine the degree to which

students are prepared with the skills and knowledge they need to participate fully in

society, upon completion of compulsory education. In recent years, the goal of

science education in schools has broadened to encompass more than simply doing

science (i.e., creating or recalling scientific knowledge). Millar and Osborne (1998)

reported that students should demonstrate the ability to assess the significance of

scientific and technical information; to evaluate evidence, distinguish theories from

observations, and critically evaluate the validity of scientific claims. It can be said,

therefore, that a (if not the) key goal of science education should be the development

of scientific literacy (Sadler, 2004b) (see also, Section 1.3).

Recently, scientific literacy has been a fundamental issue for science education

reform in Australian schools. A study commissioned by the Commonwealth

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs sought to investigate the status

and quality of teaching and learning of science in both primary and secondary

Australian schools (Hackling, Goodrum, & Rennie, 2001). The study found that the

development of scientific literacy was crucial to teachers’ ideal picture of what

science education should be like.

Although the development of scientific literacy is viewed as a high priority in

science education, Hackling et al. (2001) found that overall, science teaching and

learning in Australian schools is disappointing. While curriculum statements are

focused on scientific literacy, and helping students to attain intended outcomes, the

actual curriculum being implemented in most schools falls short of these aims. The

report also found that students are generally disappointed by the science that they

experience in secondary schools, as it is frequently neither relevant nor engaging,

and does not connect with their prior experiences and interests. More specifically,

they argued:

2

Traditional chalk-and-talk teaching, copying notes, and ‘cookbook’

practical lessons offer little challenge or excitement for students.

Disenchantment with science is reflected in the declining numbers of

students who take science subjects in the post-compulsory years of

schooling … Reform of science education in Australia must focus on …

supporting teachers to develop teaching, learning and assessment

practices that engage students and enhance students’ development of

scientific literacy, and national collaboration in the development of

world-class curriculum resources. (Hackling et al., 2001, pp. 15-16)

Although this report detailed a number of recommendations for science education

reform in Australia, in the six years since it was published, very little has changed. A

more recent review by Tytler (2007) has suggested that Australian science education

must be ‘re-imagined’, as it is failing both our students, and society as a whole. He

asserted that science education is in a state of ‘crisis’; however, in the context of

Australian students’ relative performances on international tests such as TIMSS and

PISA, this claim is somewhat overstated. Nonetheless, it is clear that science

education, both locally and internationally, is not engaging students in the desired

manner, as indicated by a number of trends (Tytler, 2007). Firstly, there is growing

evidence of students developing negative attitudes, and a deep-seated

disenchantment towards secondary school science (both curriculum and pedagogy),

particularly across Years 7-10, in Australia and overseas. Secondly, there is a

shortage of science-qualified people in the skilled workforce. This is of concern as

science and technology-based professionals are required to carry the nation in a

technologically driven future. Thirdly, the numbers of qualified science teachers is

inadequate. Finally, the traditional science curriculum saw its beginnings in the 19th

century, when science itself was evolving. It was underpinned by traditional

ideologies of pre-professional scientific training, mental training, and screening for

college entrance (Aikenhead, 2007). Ironically, inadequacies in the traditional

science curriculum undermine its primary goal; that is, to supply the workforce with

skilled professionals in science and technology.

According to Tytler (2007), current short-falls in science education may be partly

attributed to the mismatch between the nature of school science, and changing trends

3

in society that have been observed over the past 50 years, which implies a need to

rethink the nature of science education considerably. First, the practice of scientific

research and technological development has changed significantly. Science is

increasingly funded and practiced on a large scale, and scientists work in teams on

projects that can be global, commercial and multi-disciplinary. Technology is

increasingly implicated, and the results of such work often affect communities.

Second, the nature of public engagement with science has changed. Society is

becoming increasingly technological, and at the same time, the public must engage

with, and respond to, science, with resource management and the effects of

development at the forefront.

Third, science has faced a number of public challenges in recent decades. This

include post-modern, feminist and post-colonial critiques; the pressure to

accommodate indigenous perspectives in the science curriculum; and perspectives

from a variety of religions.

Fourth, knowledge in science and technology has expanded dramatically. Access to

this knowledge has also grown, through popular media and the World Wide Web.

Fifth, the nature of schooling has changed as a consequence of how knowledge is

accessed. The traditional role of the science teacher as expert knower is now

challenged: the major aim of science education should not be one of knowledge

acquisition, but rather, the capacity to learn.

Finally, the population of students, and the nature of youth, has changed. Young

people have developed new life patterns that are different to those presumed in a pre-

industrial society, and multimedia literacies are increasingly important. Over the last

half of the 20th century, secondary education has also expanded rapidly.

In addition to the final point above, Roberts (2007) also asserted that secondary

science education could no longer be viewed as pre-professional preparation for

careers in science and technology; it must broaden its purposes to cater for a student

population with a wide range of interests.

4

Another change can also be observed in the world of work. The economies of

developed countries may be described as ‘knowledge-based’ as the production,

distribution and use of knowledge and information are central to growth and

productivity (OECD, 1996). The nature of work in these countries is changing in

three ways: the kinds of work accounting for employment, performance

requirements, and job permanency (Bayliss, 1998). The rapid expansion of

information and communication technologies, and the development of new

knowledge relating to innovations in products and processes are largely responsible

for these changes (OECD, 1996). Collectively, these changes are known as the

“Knowledge Society” (Gilbert, 2005).

Education systems have long been responsible for providing the workforce with

skilled workers, therefore, the proliferation of a knowledge-based economy will have

implications for schools, as they are driven to respond to a changing society, and

changing knowledge demands. A number of differences may be observed between

the ways of knowing traditionally valued by schools, and those valued by the

Knowledge Society (Table 1.1).

It has been argued that change is an essential part of modern society, and that

students should therefore be able to adapt to change, generate new knowledge and

continually improve their performance (Fraser & Greenhalgh, 2001). However,

despite societal changes and numerous recommendations for change, the nature of

school science has remained relatively unaffected. The delivery of conceptual

knowledge presented in distinct disciplinary strands continues to form the basis of

the science curriculum. Within these strands, key abstract concepts are used to

interpret and explain everyday phenomena and standard problems. Real contexts

often come second to the concepts, and cookbook practicals are used simply to

illustrate the principles and practices previously learnt (Tytler, 2007). In spite of

these concerns, the continuing high status of the traditional science curriculum may

be attributed to its political success (see Aikenhead, 2007).

5

Table 1.1. A comparison between the ways of knowing traditionally valued by schools, and the Knowledge Society (Fensham, 2007).

Schools The Knowledge Society

Knowing content relating to a subject. Knowing how to learn and keep learning throughout one’s life.

Accumulating knowledge individually. Knowing how to learn collaboratively.

Knowing the correct answer or solution to a problem.

Seeing possibilities for solutions.

Retaining knowledge. Acquiring skills and competencies to apply knowledge in relevant contexts.

According to Roth and Barton (2004), an obvious paradox exists between the need

for scientific literacy, and what is actually taught in schools:

[Science] educators appear to accept it as perfectly normal that we do not

learn about the principles underlying the functioning of a small engine …

or how to fix it, they insist that we acquire specialised knowledge about

the world that is simply inaccessible to our experience. These things are

not only inaccessible but also irrelevant to most of our lives. On the other

hand, we do frequently encounter a broken small engine, bicycle, or

appliance. (pp. 4-5)

The need to make school science more relevant to students underpinned the ‘Science

for All’ movement that emerged in the 1980s (Fensham, 1985). In the 1990s,

scientific literacy became the centre of the reconceptualisation of school science,

which continues to prevail today (Goodrum et al., 2001; McCrae, 2006). Ironically,

scientific literacy became associated with an excessive amount of content for

learning in many countries, which, by the late 1990s, had been blamed for a critical

decline of interest in school science and science-based careers (Fensham, 2007).

1.2 Defining Scientific Literacy

Definitions of scientific literacy are somewhat variable, and no consensus exists in

the literature as to what its constituent parts should be; however, most interpretations

tend to focus on scientific processes, knowledge and attitudes (Jenkins, 1997). Tytler

(2007) also identified a number of themes that are common to most definitions:

nurturing and promoting students’ orientation and disposition towards science;

6

encouraging the ability to understand and apply scientific ideas; and educating for

future citizens, as opposed to disciplinary experts. Furthermore, definitions of

scientific literacy generally seek to identify what skills or knowledge will be of value

to all students over their lifetime, regardless of their career choices (Roberts, 2007).

“[I]t seems outlandish to expect student scientific literacy to eclipse that of practicing

scientists” (Sadler, 2004b, p. 41), particularly when the expertise of professional

scientists rarely extends beyond their own disciplinary specialties (Pool, 1991).

DeBoer (2000) argued that researchers and educators should not seek to define

scientific literacy in terms of specific learning outcomes, rather, it should be broadly

conceptualised to allow individual schools to pursue goals that are appropriate for

their particular context or situation.

A definition of scientific literacy that is commonly cited is that of PISA. It embodies

many of the characteristics generally associated with a scientifically literate person

(OECD, 2006):

Scientific knowledge and use of that knowledge to identify questions,

acquire new knowledge, explain scientific phenomena and draw

evidence-based conclusions about science-related issues.

Understanding of the characteristic features of science as a form of

human knowledge and enquiry.

Awareness of how science and technology shape our material,

intellectual, and cultural environments.

Willingness to engage in science-related issues and with the ideas of

science, as a reflective citizen. (p. 23)

In his extensive review of scientific literacy and its role in science education, Roberts

(2007) highlighted two “potentially conflicting” (p. 729) visions of scientific literacy

that have very different implications for curriculum planning and assessment: Vision

I is focused on the importance of science subject matter (i.e., scientific literacy as

viewed from a scientists’ perspective); and Vision II, which acknowledges the ways

in which science plays a role in human affairs (i.e., the socioscientific role of

scientific literacy). Vision II may be described as a humanistic approach to school

science, which, according to Aikenhead (2007), is “the most pervasive alternative”

7

(p. 881) to the traditional curriculum. This approach “is intended to prepare future

citizens to critically and rationally assess science and technology. This goal views

science as a human endeavour embedded within a social milieu of society and

carried out by various social communities of scientists” (p. 881).

Roberts argued that there are dangers in over-emphasising either Vision I or II in any

science curriculum. Vision I would have students view the world through the eyes of

a scientist, which is problematic, as it would narrow “the student’s experience with

the breadth of science as a human endeavour” (p. 767). Furthermore, it is concerning

that Vision II material may only be included as a means of motivating students in

lessons. Eisenhart, Finkel and Marion (1996) argued that there is also an implicit

assumption that teaching students scientific knowledge and methods of inquiry will

result in the socially responsible use of science, or a citizenry that will involve

themselves in scientific discussions and debates. Conversely, Vision II programs

may not focus sufficiently on scientific content (Roberts, 2007).

These concerns appear to pose the greatest hindrance to science education programs

guided by Vision II. Overall, it can be argued that the science curriculum serves two

main purposes: (1) to develop basic scientific and technological literacy (a goal for

the majority of students), and (2) to provide initial training in science for science-

and technology-bound students (a goal for a much smaller minority of students). The

traditional science curriculum, with the view of providing academic students with a

science training, is clearly guided by Vision I; however, if the curriculum underwent

reform in order to embody broader definitions of scientific literacy, in line with

Vision II, one could ask: “Can science be taught so that it connects with attitudes,

personal values, and political issues? This would indeed make science a part of

popular culture. But would it still be science?” (Solomon, 1998, pp. 170-171). This

tension between Vision I and II was also identified by Millar (1996), in asking:

“What would a science curriculum designed to promote scientific literacy for the

majority look like?” and “would such a curriculum also be a reasonable preparation

for further study in science for the minority who so chose?” (p. 742).

Egan (1996) proposed that these profoundly different ideas about the purpose of the

science curriculum are two irreconcilable voices. One voice (cf. Vision II) views the

8

development of students’ individual potential as being favourable over the

accumulation of academic knowledge. The second voice (cf. Vision I) sees the

inclusion of privileged academic knowledge in the curriculum, as its primary role is

to prepare future scientists for the world of work. Egan described how students will

amass knowledge in such a way that their thinking conforms to reality. An academic

curriculum can therefore develop a privileged and rational view of the world in

students. He argued that the inclusion of both voices within a curriculum is

responsible for the ‘dysfunctionality’ that is causing failure within today’s schools,

and that the theoretical incompatibility between the two must be resolved in order for

any reform in science education to be successful.

In response to this argument, several authors (e.g., Aikenhead, 2003; Fensham, 1996;

Tobias, 1990; Yager & Krajcik, 1989) have defended the omission of privileged

academic knowledge in the science curriculum, as “talented students, with an interest

in the sciences, can succeed in university and science-related programmes

irrespective of their experiences in school science” (Aikenhead, 2003, p. 69). It has

also been shown that the transmission of such knowledge can have a negative impact

on talented students interested in science, as they may not pursue science-based

careers upon graduating (Bond, 1985; Majumdar, Rosenfeld, Rubba, Miller, &

Schmalz, 1991; Oxford University, 1989).

From a curriculum planning perspective, it would be easy to look to Vision I to

inform a curriculum developed for science-bound students, and to Vision II to inform

a curriculum for the “general” or non-science student; however, Shamos (1995)

declared that Vision I is important for every student, irrespective of their professional

goals: “Every science curriculum … should at least make clear to students what

science is and how it is practiced” (p. 224). Similarly, he recognised that Vision II is

of importance to the science-bound student in promoting scientific awareness.

While Shamos (1995) defined different types and levels of scientific literacy

appropriate to science- and non-science-bound students, he also acknowledged that it

is an “impossible task” (p. 216) to achieve scientific literacy for all citizens,

particularly to the point where they can make independent judgments about scientific

issues. Bybee (1977) expressed a similar idea, claiming that it’s impossible for any

9

individual to achieve full scientific and technological literacy, and the extent to

which they do so will depend on their motivation, interests and experiences.

1.3 The Relevance of Scientific Literacy in Contemporary Society

Despite a lack of consensus regarding what should constitute scientific literacy,

common themes continue to appear when justifying why scientific literacy is

important. Firstly, as preparation for the world of work, for both future science and

non-science professionals (an economic argument); secondly, for cultural purposes,

to appreciate science as a significant human achievement, particularly as science and

technology “are themselves important cultural activities” (Jenkins, 1997, p. 17);

thirdly, science is essential for mastery of daily life, and in solving practical

problems, such as those relating to health and survival; and finally, to prepare future

citizens for democratic participation in society, and making individual and collective

decisions on socioscientific issues (Christensen, 2001; Ryder, 2001; Shen, 1975;

Sjberg, 1997).

The education of science and technology professionals is frequently viewed as

crucial to a country’s economic prosperity. Yet, Garrison and Lawwill (1992) argued

that educating for scientific literacy with the goal of enhancing human capital (i.e.,

the accumulation of skills and knowledge embodied in labour) is immoral:

Frequently educational reform, especially in mathematics and science

education, is intended to improve human capital. There is something very

chilling about describing human beings … in such an exclusively

quantitative and reductionistic way … Chaining science and science

education to the goal of maximising the economic production function …

is immoral … because it treats students as means to the pecuniary ends of

others. (p. 343)

Despite this moral tension, there is an obvious economic concern that arises from the

current trends in science education in Australia (as described earlier), particularly as

the need for a general scientific and technological literacy is seen as necessary for an

effective workforce.

10

Social power and justice may also be viewed as a goal of scientific literacy. Roth and

Barton (2004) argued that science education continues to play a role in an inequitable

and unjust society, in which top-ranked students have greater access to future

learning resources and opportunities than those who rank lower. They also described

how traditional approaches to science teaching and learning marginalise minority

groups:

Students opt out of science or are counseled out of science because

success in that field of study means acting white or masculine or because

a science trajectory is incommensurate with their life goals or current

needs. Science class has become a mechanism for controlling what it

means to “know and do science” rather than an empowerment zone

where students are valued for their abilities to contribute to, critique, and

partake in a just society. (Roth & Barton, p. 5)

This marginalisation is problematic if scientific literacy is considered one of the

many goals of an education necessary for meaningful participation in a democratic

society. According to Hodson (1999), the principal goal of scientific literacy should

be to produce activists who strive to shape a more socially just world, while acting in

the best interests of the biosphere.

1.4 View of Scientific Literacy Adopted in the Current Study

For the purposes of this study, a view of scientific literacy that draws upon Visions I

and II has been adopted (Roberts, 2007). Scientific literacy as citizen preparation is

viewed as the primary goal of the project, as students engage with a socioscientific

issue as a means of developing positive attitudes toward science and science learning

(Vision II); however, there is also an emphasis on the development of conceptual

science understandings (Vision I). Although science is traditionally perceived as a

“coherent, objective, and unproblematic body of knowledge and practices … [i]n

everyday situations, citizen thinking may offer a more comprehensive and effective

basis for action than scientific thinking” (Roth & Barton, 2004, p. 7).

If citizen preparation is viewed as the primary goal of scientific literacy, Tytler

(2007) identified a number of questions that arise. For instance, “What type of

11

citizen are we thinking of, and in what set of circumstances? What sort of

knowledge would best serve the future needs of students as citizens? How do we

balance issues of current and future relevance for students?” (Tytler, 2007, p. 21).

Underlying the current study is the belief that a science curriculum which aims to

develop scientifically literate students cannot predict the circumstances in which our

children will one day find themselves, nor what knowledge they should learn now

that will prove valuable in their future lives. As such, it is important to teach students

how to learn: “scientific literacy in everyday community life means to be competent

in finding whatever one needs to know at the moment one needs to know it” (Roth &

Barton, 2004, p. 10). One way in which this may be achieved is to situate science

learning in the context of socioscientific issues; that is, important social issues and

problems with conceptual or technological links to science (Kolstø, 2001; Sadler,

Barab, & Scott, 2007) (see Section 2.3.2).

As articulated in this chapter, scientifically literate and reflective citizens should

demonstrate a willingness to engage with scientific ideas and issues, in order to make

informed individual and collective decisions; therefore, the ability to negotiate

socioscientific issues in making informed decisions may be considered an important

component of scientific literacy (see Section 2.5) (Bingle & Gaskell, 1994;

Christensen, 2001; Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Kolstø, 2001; OECD, 2006;

Sadler, 2004b). The negotiation of socioscientific issues can develop students’

understanding of scientific phenomena, develop the skills necessary to make

informed decisions about topical issues and information; and develop an appreciation

of the role that science and technology plays in both the local, wider and global

communities. Students, then, should be provided with opportunities to negotiate such

issues, if they are to develop this aspect of their scientific literacy.

It has been suggested that no single writing task can be used to engage all the

dimensions of scientific literacy (Hand et al., 1999) (see Section 2.2.1); therefore,

three important aspects have been explored in the current study: conceptual science

understandings, the students’ ability to transform scientific information and write

stories about biosecurity, and attitudes toward science and science learning. Norris

and Phillips’s (2003) notions of scientific literacy, and the definition adopted by

PISA (OECD, 2006) guided the selection of these aspects for investigation.

12

In exploring notions of scientific literacy, Norris and Phillips (2003) argued that

coming to know science requires competency in two notions of scientific literacy.

They made a distinction between the fundamental sense of scientific literacy (reading

and writing science content), and the derived sense (being knowledgeable, learned

and educated in science). They argue that “conceptions of scientific literacy typically

attend to the derived sense of literacy and not to the fundamental sense” (p. 224). A

distinction has also been made between a simple and expanded sense of fundamental

scientific literacy (i.e., decoding texts, and inferring meaning from text, respectively)

(Norris & Phillips, 1994, 2003). The investigation of students’ conceptual science

understandings in the current study represent a derived sense of scientific literacy,

while their ability to write stories about biosecurity through the transformation of

scientific information is indicative of their simple and expanded fundamental senses

of scientific literacy, respectively. In-keeping with the view of scientific literacy as

citizen preparation adopted by this study, students engaged with conceptual science

understandings at a level that was appropriate in the context of everyday

conversations about science (and thus in the context of their hybridised narratives

about biosecurity). In other words, their depth of understanding was not intended to

eclipse that of practicing scientists (an unreasonable expectation, argued by some)

(Sadler, 2004b).

In addition to these aspects of scientific literacy, attitudes toward science and science

learning were also selected for investigation, as this study sought to determine

whether middle school students’ participation in an alternative writing-to-learn

science strategy would improve their disposition toward science. This aspect of

scientific literacy has been acknowledged by PISA, in that a scientifically literate

person should demonstrate an “awareness of how science and technology shape our

material, intellectual, and cultural environments; and willingness to engage in

science-related issues and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen” (OECD,

2006, p. 23).

Although traditional science curricula privilege the development of scientific

knowledge, students’ attitudes toward science and science learning are important

determinants of their engagement with science. Teaching students in the context of

socioscientific issues that are relevant to their lives and interests can serve to engage

13

them in the learning of science, and perhaps overcome the barriers in which students

perceive science to be too difficult, boring or irrelevant. For most students, the

attainment of scientific literacy would not be a cumbersome task if the “principal

role” of school science, according to Ryder (2001), remains at the forefront when

developing any curricular programme: “[t]o instill in students a positive attitude

towards engaging with science [and] to provide all students with a sense that science

is a subject that they are capable of interacting with later in life” (p. 39).

1.5 The Problem

It is well-known that disengagement is a common and widespread problem in

secondary science classrooms, which is reflected in students’ disenchantment with

the science curriculum, and declining enrolments in science classes beyond

compulsory schooling (Dekkers & De Laeter, 2001; Hackling et. al, 2001; Lyons,

2006; Osborne & Collins, 2000; Woolnough, 1994). In light of the review of science

education presented in this chapter, a need has been clearly identified for teaching

and learning strategies that promote the development of scientific literacy, and

engage students in the learning of science, particularly in the middle years of

schooling.

A number of studies have shown that diverse writing tasks that include imaginative

or creative writing can have strong motivational effects on students (Hildebrand,

2004; Negrette, 2004; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003) (see Chapter 2). In addition,

Prain (2006) identified “emerging evidence [within the literature] of enhanced

conceptual learning gains when students are required to elaborate their

understandings and reasoning processes in writing that goes beyond brief technical

vocabulary, are provided with rich scaffolding for planning and reviewing their

emerging texts … and construct texts for diverse readerships” (p. 196). At the same

time, he called for further research “in conceptualising and implementing effective

teaching and learning strategies to develop students’ science literacy” (p. 196).

Furthermore, Fensham (2007) recognised the need “to find how contexts, content

and pedagogies, will make [scientific competencies] learnable by large numbers of

students” (p. 4).

14

The current study extends previous national and international research that has

established a link between writing and learning science, with particular emphasis on

scientific literacy, the examination of students’ written artefacts to ascertain

conceptual understanding, and student engagement throughout their participation in

the project. A recent study by Ritchie, Rigano, Tomas and Yeh (2008b) required

Year 6 and 7 children to write a series of three BioStories (i.e., short stories with a

biosecurity theme) guided by the Cognitive Tools Framework (Songer, 2007). In

accordance with the framework, the learning goals (i.e., scientific attitudes, literacy

and conceptual understanding of biosecurity), learning activities (i.e., a sequence of

BioStories to be completed and composed by the students), and specific learning

outcomes (i.e., enhanced scientific literacy, conceptual understanding and positive

attitudes toward science) were articulated (Ritchie et al., 2008b).

The students’ learning was supported by a dedicated BioStories’ website that

presented scenarios that required them to complete two unfinished stories. The

scenarios enabled students to construct a fictional story that included dialogue

between key characters, which incorporated scientific information. The stories

introduced the students to exotic species (fire ants, chytrid fungus, silverleaf

whitefly, tilapia and avian influenza) that threaten native Australian ecosystems

and/or agricultural industries. According to Prain (2006), if socioscientific issues

form the subject of students’ diversified writing tasks, their scientific literacy can be

enhanced by “developing their interest in and capacity to apply scientific thinking to

social issues for the purposes of informed action and critique … students learn to

cross borders between specialist and more popular genres and readerships” (p. 190).

Biosecurity is a topical socioscientific issue that is not particularly suited to scientific

inquiry approaches, thus it can be difficult to teach in such a way that engages

students. In addition, it situates the students’ learning within a real-world context,

thereby enhancing its relevance and fostering engagement with the topic. For these

reasons, biosecurity is an ideal theme for this type of instruction.

The students worked collaboratively with a partner to compose their stories;

however, each student was required to submit their own individual pieces of work in

the culminating writing activity. The website also provided links to digital resources

15

on government websites to assist the students in locating scientific information for

inclusion in their stories.

In the preliminary study (Ritchie et al., 2008b), the students were required to upload

their stories to the BioStories’ website, so they could be read and reviewed by their

peers, both at their own school, and at other schools. Students had an opportunity to

read and respond to such feedback before composing a unique third and final story

that incorporated elements and information from their preceding work.

According to Barab and Leuhmann (2003),

A core challenge facing science educators is how to develop and support

the implementation of project-based, technology-rich science curricula

that is consistent with international calls for a “new approach” to science

education while at the same time meeting the everyday needs of

classroom teachers. (p. 454)

More recently, Prain (2006) called for research to examine how computer-based

learning environments contribute to learning science, and the role of writing in these

learning environments. This preliminary BioStories’ project illustrated how a

learning intervention that engages students in the learning of science through writing,

with the support of digital and information technologies, offers one way of meeting

these challenges. Furthermore, it utilised these technologies in a writing-to-learn

science context. As of now, similar work has not been carried out with secondary

students. This project will seek to determine whether or not the benefits

demonstrated by the study, such as enhanced student engagement and the

development of conceptual science understandings (see Section 2.2.5), can be

replicated in a secondary setting, in order to enhance simultaneously student

engagement and scientific literacy. A number of other unique features of the study

are detailed in the following section. By understanding better students’ experiences

as they engage with the project, and the learning that takes place, it is intended that

this type of instruction could be more widely integrated into secondary classrooms.

16

1.6 Significance of the Study

In the face of students’ disenchantment with the science curriculum, and falling

enrolments in school science, the development of scientific literacy continues to be a

key goal of science education. A need exists to engage students in the learning of

science, while preparing them to be informed citizens capable of participation in a

society increasingly shaped by science and technology. This study is significant

because it explores a way of responding to this need by extending previous research

in the field, and addressing a number of gaps identified within the literature. While

these issues are introduced below, they are explored further in Chapter 2.

This research extends the body of knowledge regarding the implementation and

usefulness of creative writing-to-learn activities in the science classroom. In

particular, research regarding the utilisation of hybridised imaginative genres in the

science classroom, and its role in the development of scientific literacy, remains thin

(see Section 2.2.5).

With reference to the preliminary study conducted by Ritchie et al. (2008b), the

current study extends this research in a number of ways. Firstly, it was conducted in

Year 9 science classes. As highlighted earlier in this chapter, disengagement with

school science is a common problem in the middle school. One of the research

questions that were investigated (presented in Section 1.7) examined the extent to

which students’ participation in the BioStories’ project influenced their attitudes

toward science and science learning. The preliminary BioStories’ study was

conducted with Year 6 and 7 classes.

Secondly, Socioscientific Issues (SSI) education served as a theoretical framework in

a writing-to-learn study (refer Section 2.4). While the role or argumentation features

heavily in the SSI literature, this research explored the utility of an alternative

discourse (i.e., hybridised scientific narratives) in the negotiation of a socioscientific

issue, as a means of developing students’ scientific literacy.

Thirdly, this study uniquely addresses problems encountered by the preliminary

study (Ritchie et al., 2008b) in the assessment of scientific literacy, as demonstrated

by the students’ written artefacts. A number of matrices have been developed, which

17

produce numerical scores that assist in making judgments about the students’

developing scientific literacy, as demonstrated by their BioStories. The development

of the matrices is elaborated in Chapter 4.

1.7 Aims of the Study

The general aim of this research project was to investigate the development of Year 9

students’ scientific literacy through the creation of hybridised scientific narratives

about biosecurity, with the support of online resources. The features outlined in the

preceding section uniquely define this study, thereby extending the research

undertaken in the preliminary BioStories’ project (Ritchie et al., 2008b). In doing so,

a number of research questions were addressed:

1. To what extent is the scientific literacy of the Year 9 students enhanced

through the construction of hybridised scientific narratives about biosecurity?

2. To what extent do students who author hybridised scientific narratives about

biosecurity demonstrate conceptual understanding of related scientific concepts

through their written artefacts and in interviews about the artefacts?

3. To what extent does students’ participation in the BioStories’ project influence

their attitudes toward science and science learning?

These research questions were informed by a review of the literature undertaken in

Chapter 2.

1.8 Overview of Thesis

The current chapter has introduced the study by presenting a review of scientific

literacy and its relevance in contemporary society, before articulating the view of

scientific literacy adopted in this study. This chapter also outlined the problem that

the current study sought to address, as well as the significance of the study, and the

research questions that were investigated. Chapter 2 offers a critical review of the

relevant literature that both justifies and informs the design of the current study, as a

way of addressing the problem outlined in Section 1.5. A description of the research

design and procedures that were used to address the research questions previously

identified, including methods of data generation and analysis is presented in Chapter

18

3. Chapter 4 describes the development and validation of the instrumentation

employed by the study, namely, a student questionnaire, and the BioStories’

matrices. The quantitative analyses of results produced by these instruments is

presented in Chapter 5, which, in part, answers questions regarding the students’

conceptual science understandings and attitudes toward science and science learning.

Chapter 6 presents the results of qualitative analyses of student and teacher

interviews, and classroom observations, to facilitate a deeper understanding of the

quantitative results. A discussion of the quantitative and qualitative results of the

study is presented in Chapter 7. This chapter discusses two claims that arose from the

analysis of the data, which relate to the students’ awareness and conceptual

understanding of issues associated with biosecurity, and their attitudes toward

science and science learning. The limitations and implications of the study are also

discussed. Finally, Chapter 8 presents the concluding remarks, and recommendations

for further research.

19

Chapter 2

DEVELOPING SCIENTIFIC LITERACY THROUGH WRITING ABOUT

SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES

2.1 Introduction

As the goals of contemporary science education and definitions of scientific literacy

have evolved, so too has the need for innovative pedagogical approaches that seek to

fulfill these objectives. “To achieve these new goals for science learners, the science

curriculum needs to include projects that require students to combine their science,

language, and technology capabilities and make sense of a new topic” (Linn, 2003, p.

754). The aim of this project was to investigate the development of Year 9 students’

scientific literacy through the creation of hybridised scientific narratives with the

support of online resources. This chapter reviews the relevant literature that informed

the design of the current study. Section 2.2 examines the writing-to-learn science

literature, including the role of non-traditional scientific genres, such as narratives, in

the science classroom. Section 2.3 reviews the challenges of assessing scientific

literacy, the purposes of assessment in the science classroom, and the ways in which

attitudes toward science may be assessed. Section 2.4 examines the role of digital

technologies in the science classroom, and the importance of cognitive tools in

realising the learning potential of web-based resources, which informed the design of

the study. Section 2.5 explores socioscientific issues (SSI) education as a theoretical

framework for this study, in light of its utility in the development of scientific

literacy. Finally, Section 2.6 discusses the implications of the literature review for

the design of the current study.

2.2 Putting the “Literacy” back in Scientific Literacy

Traditionally, definitions of ‘literacy’ involve proficiency in reading and writing;

however, as described by Hackling and Prain (2005), “there is growing acceptance

by the literacy education community that ‘literacy’ should be conceptualised as a

range of different types of social practices rather than as one universal attribute or

individual learner capacity” (p. 19). Nonetheless, the role of reading and writing, and

of course, language, remains fundamental to scientific literacy (Yore et al., 2003):

20

Language is an integral part of science and science literacy – language is

a means to doing science and to constructing science understanding;

language is also an end in that it is used to communicate about inquiries,

procedures, and science understandings … The over-emphasis on

formulae in school science suggests to most people that mathematics is

the language of science … Rather, spoken and written language is the

symbol system most often used by scientists to construct, describe, and

present science claims and arguments. (p. 691)

The Primary Connections project has sought to improve science and literacy

outcomes for Australian primary students, in recognising that “there are a number of

science-specific, as well as general, literacies required by children to engage

effectively with science … Primary Connections provides opportunities for children

to develop the literacies needed to learn science and to represent their developing

science understandings and processes” (Hackling, 2006, p. 75). One of these

literacies is participation in spoken and written scientific discourse. In any classroom

or learning environment, students must come to learn how to use specialised

language within particular social configurations and cultural practices (Kelly, 2007).

As articulated in Section 1.4, Norris and Phillips (2003) asserted that coming to

know science requires competency in two notions of scientific literacy: a

fundamental sense of scientific literacy (reading and writing science content), and a

derived sense (being knowledgeable, learned and educated in science). A distinction

has also been made between a simple and expanded sense of fundamental scientific

literacy (i.e., decoding texts, and inferring meaning from text, respectively) (Norris

& Phillips, 1994, 2003). Pressley and Wharton-McDonald (1997) claimed that text

comprehension is not necessarily a given, because students can successfully decode

the words within it. Similarly, ‘good’ readers who can recognise words and read

fluently often paraphrase, summarise or retell information when asked to analyse,

criticise or interpret a piece of text (Haas & Flower, 1988). Norris and Phillips’s

notion of fundamental and derived senses of scientific literacy have been adopted in

the current study, in identifying aspects of students’ developing scientific literacy for

investigation (refer Section 2.6).

21

Sadler (2007) presents two competing perspectives of the derived sense of scientific

literacy: cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. The cognitive perspective

prioritises the development of cognitive attributes through science education, such as

conceptual understandings and scientific processes. These attributes may be

transmitted or constructed. According to Sadler (2007), “the role and significance of

language are minimised” (p. 86) in this context. A cognitive perspective of the

derived sense of scientific literacy encourages a simple fundamental sense of

scientific literacy, as language is simply a medium through which knowledge can be

communicated.

In contrast to this position, a sociocultural perspective of the derived sense of

scientific literacy prioritises context, enculturation and practice (Sadler, 2007). In

other words, engaging students in the practices of the scientific community is crucial,

as the goal here is not the development of cognitive attributes, but rather, becoming

members of the scientific community. From this perspective, the role of language as

scientific practice is consistent with an expanded fundamental sense of scientific

literacy, as science is negotiated through written and spoken language in a social

context. Sadler argues that in this way, the boundaries between the fundamental and

derived senses of scientific literacy become blurred, as the ability to infer meaning

from written and spoken language and being knowledgeable in science are closely

intertwined.

Scientific literacy in its derived sense is unique to other forms of literacy due to its

substantive content; however, in its fundamental sense, it is not unique at all, as the

“comprehension, interpretive, analytical, and critical capacities required to deal with

science text are largely, if not entirely, the same as those required for texts with

different substantive contents” (Norris & Phillips, 2003, p. 233). Literacy instruction

in the science curriculum does not enjoy the same primacy as scientific

knowledgeability, and yet, various interpretations of what it means to be

scientifically literate include an ability to read about, and understand, socioscientific

issues portrayed by popular media (e.g., Millar & Osborne, 1998; National Research

Council, 1996). Scientific literacy in its fundamental sense, therefore, shares a

common goal with literacy instruction in other content areas, and opportunities

should be made available in the science classroom for students to develop this aspect

22

of their scientific literacy. As will be highlighted in the following section, the

utilisation of writing-to-learn science activities can develop simultaneously students’

fundamental and derived senses of scientific literacy.

2.2.1 Writing in Science

Writing, talking and reading about science are desirable goals of scientific literacy;

however, they also hold great potential as ways of achieving scientific literacy

(Hand, Prain, & Yore, 2001). A number of researchers have advocated the use of

writing tasks to develop scientific literacy, and call for science educators to take heed

of the relevant research on language and science learning to improve students’

chances of achieving scientific literacy (Hand & Prain, 2002; Hand et al., 2003;

Wellington & Osborne, 2001). For example, research has shown that when students

construct scientific texts, they must interpret their own constructions, evaluate the

extent to which they are representative of their ideas and intentions, and make sense

to others, and whether or not they follow particular writing or representational

conventions (Prain, Waldrip, & Carolan, 2007). Unlike traditional views of the role

of writing in the classroom, whereby writing is seen as a means of displaying

scientific knowledge or understanding (e.g., Langer & Applebee, 1987; Wallace,

1996), contemporary perspectives view writing as interactive, constructive and

transformative, and as a tool or resource for learning and clarification. Writing can

therefore be used to develop students’ fundamental and derived senses of scientific

literacy.

Writing-to-learn is being increasingly explored as a viable instructional strategy in

the science classroom. Two primary rationales exist in support of writing-to-learn

activities. The first, the authority rationale, conceives writing as a way of learning

about, or mastering, a topic by engaging with it through writing (Nelson, 2001). The

second, the authenticity rationale, suggests that writers benefit from learning how to

write according to the conventions of a particular discipline, as they gain knowledge

of a subject (Nelson, 2001).

The writing-to-learn movement views writing as a resource, a way of discovering

knowledge and generating new meanings. In science, it can provide an authentic

context in which to develop vocabulary, grammar, spelling, punctuation,

23

argumentation and technical writing that are pertinent to both science and technology

professions, and the development of a fundamental sense of scientific literacy

(Connolly, 1989; Keys, 1999b; Norris & Phillips, 2003; Yore et al., 2003). Writing

in science gives students opportunities to clarify understanding, develop critical

perspectives, consolidate and express their emerging understandings, and connect

new knowledge and scientific vocabulary to their own, everyday language and past

experiences (Gunstone, 1995; Prain, 2006; Rowell, 1997). The literature on writing-

to-learn in science has also shown that such activities enhance students’ conceptual

knowledge, develop scientific literacy, and foster positive attitudes toward being a

writer on scientific issues (Hand & Prain, 2002).

In addition to mastering scientific terminology and discourse, broader definitions of

scientific literacy also require students to practice writing about science for non-

expert readerships: “[s]cientific literacy emphasises the centrality of communication

skills and a commitment to informed and accessible contributions to public debate of

the uses of science” (Hand, Prain, Lawrence, & Yore, 1999, p. 1023). Furthermore,

an understanding of the different ways in which language can be used must be

viewed as a legitimate component of scientific literacy, and used to empower

learning (Hand et al., 2003).

According to Yore et al. (2003), the development and implementation of writing-to-

learn science tasks should:

Keep science content central in the writing process; help students

structure and synthesise their knowledge; provide a real audience for

student writers; spend time pre-writing, collecting information from

various sources, sharpening focus, and strategic planning; provide on-

going teacher support, guidance, and explicit instruction; encourage

revisions and re-drafts based on supportive criticism; and clarify the

differences between revising and editing. (p. 710)

In addition, Langer and Applebee (1987) also noted that writing which requires

students to manipulate new and unfamiliar content is most valuable for learning, and

24

writing tasks should be perceived by students as being authentic and meaningful

(Pearson & Fielding, 1991).

Despite the apparent advantages of writing-to-learn in science, there is little

consensus as to what writing practices should be advocated (Holliday, Yore, &

Alvermann, 1994; Prain, 2006); however, it has been suggested that no single writing

task can be used to engage all the dimensions of scientific literacy (Hand et al.,

1999). In his review of writing-to-learn in science, Rivard (1994) concluded that

there is a considerable need for more research in authentic classroom environments

to understand the writing-learning connection. There is also concern that a major

barrier to the widespread implementation of writing-to-learn strategies in science

classrooms is teachers’ perceived lack of preparation in employing such practices,

and a lack of understanding regarding their effectiveness (Hildebrand, 2002; Prain &

Hand, 1996a; Rivard, 1994).

2.2.2 Writing-to-Learn Science: Beyond Traditional Scientific Genres

Over the past 20 years, there has been growing recognition amongst educators that

there is value in writing to learn science, beyond the traditional scientific genres

taught in schools. Written language can be a valuable resource for developing

scientific literacy and learning science; therefore, students should be exposed to a

more diverse range of formal and informal writing in the classroom (Prain, 2006).

An extensive review of the literature on writing for learning science conducted by

Prain (2006) found that educational theorists:

[H]ave emphasised the value of expanding the purposes, writing types,

and readerships for writing in science beyond education into traditional

school genres. Writing here is viewed as a resource to enable learners to

understand science concepts, scientific methods, and practices beyond

the classroom. Educators … have asserted that students, in striving to

clarify networks of concepts in science topics, should be encouraged to

write in diverse forms for different purposes. (p. 184)

Despite extensive research and widespread support for writing-to-learn in the science

classroom (e.g., Barber, Catz, & Arya, 2006; Hand, Wallace, & Yang, 2004;

25

Hildebrand, 1998; Keys, 1999a; Rivard, 1994; Warwick, Stephenson, Webster, &

Bourne, 2003; Wellington & Osborne, 2001), the literature is inconclusive as to the

effects of different types of writing-to-learn activities, which kinds of writing should

be advocated, and the methods by which they should be taught (Hand & Prain,

2002).

There are two broad groups of educators that advocate different purposes for writing

in science. Educators in the first group espouse an epistemic orientation to writing

that emphasises aspects of language and writing that are subject-specific, such as

structural and functional features of scientific writing, and scientific vocabulary

(Baker & McLoughlin, 1994; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Martin & Veel, 1998;

Schibeci & Kissane, 1994; Sturgiss, 1994; Unsworth, 1997, 1999). Knowledge of

these aspects of language is required in order for students to understand and

reproduce scientific genres. This orientation assumes that science learning is best

achieved through the reproduction of the exact meanings of scientific concepts, and

the utilisation of technical-writing genres that feature in scientific publications.

The second group of educators supports a diversified approach in which the

purposes, writing types and readerships for writing in science are broadened,

particularly as students seek to elucidate networks of scientific concepts (El Hindi,

2003; Hand & Prain, 2002; Hildebrand, 1998, 1999, 2002; Prain, 2006; Prain &

Hand, 1999; Varelas, Becker, Luster, & Wenzel, 2002). This research is guided by a

pedagogical perspective of the development of the literacies of science that draws on

cognitive theories of knowledge production (Prain, 2008). A pedagogical perspective

seeks to identify cognitive and communicative conditions that support science

knowledge construction through a diversified range of writing types.

Proponents of a diversified approach argue that sole emphasis on scientific genres in

the classroom can be problematic, as teaching “in a technical manner not only

constrains students’ thinking, but also turns them off science more than it facilitates

their participation in the discourse of science” (Hildebrand, 2002, p. 4). In addition,

generic approaches to learning science mislead students about the ways in which

science is conducted or reported (Baker, 1994; Prain, 2008). Wellington and

Osborne (2001) argued that students often encounter difficulties writing in the

26

passive, or third person style typical of scientific genres, which can discourage

children from writing in science. Others have warned that emphasis on any single

genre in the classroom is constraining (Coe, 1994), and that genres should be viewed

as a resource, rather than a “straightjacket” (Medway, 1988, p. 93). A diversified

approach to writing does not diminish the value of canonically accurate scientific

discourse; rather, such an approach can “promote students’ scientific literacy by

developing their interest in and capacity to apply scientific thinking to social issues

for the purposes of informed action, where the students can learn to cross borders

between specialist and more popular genres and readerships” (Hand & Prain, 2002,

p. 742).

A number of studies that have investigated the learning potential of diversified

writing tasks, including more imaginative writing, have found that such tasks assist

students’ learning processes, improve learning outcomes, have strong motivating

effects, and impact positively on students’ attitudes and engagement, in comparison

to undertaking only traditional writing tasks (Hand & Prain, 1995; Hanrahan, 1999;

Hildebrand, 1998, 1999, 2004; Prain & Hand, 1996a, 1999). For example, a three-

year research project conducted by Prain and Hand (1999), involving 11 classes in

Years 7-12 investigated any potential changes in secondary students’ perceptions of

writing in science through their participation in expanded writing-to-learn tasks.

These tasks included brochures, letters, creative stories, poetry, rap songs, newspaper

articles, posters, concept and story maps, and computer slideshow presentations. The

students’ reactions to these tasks were overwhelmingly positive, and they were

perceived by the majority of them as having a positive effect on the quality of their

science learning. Students also commented on their increased sense of ownership and

control over learning, as they were required to think about the tasks and use their

own imagination. This sense of ownership proved to be an important factor in the

students’ positive attitudes toward the writing tasks. The study also found that the

diversified writing tasks enhanced opportunities for students to develop

metacognitive awareness, and, overall, the introduction of the tasks enhanced

students’ views of science lessons due to the active role they played in their learning.

While the results of this study suggest that diversified writing-to-learn strategies can

impact positively on students’ perceptions of writing in science, the quality of their

learning in science, and their views about science lessons, the study did not examine

27

the impact of such tasks on students’ more general attitudes toward science. In

addition, the learning potential of diversified writing-to-learn tasks, such as the

development of conceptual science understandings, for example, was not a focus of

the study.

An earlier study conducted by Prain and Hand (1996) reported on four teachers’

perceptions of an in-service program that sought to develop teachers’ knowledge and

pedagogical understandings of a broader range of writing-to-learn tasks. During the

program, samples of work from 50 students (out of approximately 500) were

examined and evaluated with the participant teachers. These samples comprised of

concept maps, scripts of rap songs and radio plays, interviews, narratives, dialogues

and recipes. While teachers’ perceptions of the project were grouped into three main

categories (i.e., their perceptions of their role and sense of science as subject; the

impact of diverse writing types on students’ attitudes and learning; and implications

for school contexts and future teaching), only the results that pertain to students’

attitudes and learning are reported here, as they are of direct relevance to the current

study.

The teachers who participated in the program perceived that employing diverse

writing-to-learn strategies in the science classroom impacted positively on student

learning and attitudes toward the subject. Teachers commented at interview that their

students found the tasks enjoyable, and an accessible way to demonstrate their

learning. Low-achieving students, for example, found that they could demonstrate

their new understandings in ways that were not facilitated by traditional report

writing. One teacher stated that exploratory writing tasks “enhanced the learners’

engagement with, and the quality of thinking about, science concepts” (Prain &

Hand, 1996, p. 125). The tasks also enabled students to be factual, but creative and

interesting at the same time, and one of the teachers perceived that the conceptual

understandings expressed by his students in narrative form were far more

sophisticated than the knowledge they could display through scientific reports.

Students who experienced difficulty with the fluency of their writing were given

opportunities to demonstrate their understandings verbally, or through an agreed-

upon set of symbols. Although this study reported that diversified writing-to-learn

tasks were perceived by the teachers to have had positive effects on their students’

28

learning and attitudes toward the subject, it did not report on what or how the

students’ learned, or their perceptions of their participation in the writing tasks.

Studies such as those by Prain and Hand (1996, 1999) indicate that diversified

writing-to-learn science strategies can impact positively on students’ perceptions of

the subject, their writing in science, and the quality of their learning, as they perceive

such tasks to be enjoyable, student-centred and accessible, particularly in comparison

to more traditional forms of writing, such as scientific reports. Lemke (1990)

suggested that stressing the rules of formal scientific language would only serve to

disengage students, as it is “a recipe for dull, alienating language” (p. 1999). Hand et

al. (2003) noted that students’ vernacular language, along with their culture and lived

experiences, are foundational resources that need to be respected and mobilised to

support learning science, and that “there is no problem with starting with vernacular

language … no problem with returning to it time and time again to anchor our sense

of self to our scientific activities” (p. 612). A pedagogical perspective of knowledge

production assumes that employing students’ vernacular language is essential for

effectively engaging with and learning the literacies of science (Prain, 2008).

2.2.3 The Science Writing Heuristic

The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) (Figure 2.1) was developed in response to the

genre debate in writing-to-learn science. It sought to provide a ‘fresh format’ for

reporting scientific investigations that combine personal and socially constructed

meaning, while critically evaluating the evidence to support one’s claims and those

of others (Keys, Hand, Prain, & Collins, 1999). The SWH supports an inquiry-based

approach to science learning, which respects the scientific enterprise of gathering

data, evaluating evidence, and formulating hypotheses and theories (Akkus, Gunel,

& Hand, 2007). The SWH is based on research evidence that explicit writing

instruction is necessary for students to gain the greatest benefit from writing for

learning (Hand et al., 2004).

29

Part A: A template for teacher-designed activities to promote understanding from laboratory investigations.

1. Exploration of pre-instruction understanding through individual or group concept mapping.

2. Pre-laboratory activities, including informal writing, making observations, brainstorming, and posing questions.

3. Participation in laboratory activity.

4. Negotiation phase I – writing personal meanings for laboratory activity (For example, writing journals).

5. Negotiation phase II – sharing and comparing data interpretations in small groups (For example, making a group chart).

6. Negotiation phase III – comparing science ideas to textbooks or other printed resources (For example, writing group notes in response to focus questions).

7. Negotiation phase IV – individual reflection and writing (For example, creating a presentation such as a poster or report for a larger audience).

8. Exploration of post-instruction understanding through concept mapping. Part B: A template for student thinking.

1. Beginning Ideas – What are my questions?

2. Tests – What did I do?

3. Observations – What did I see?

4. Claims – What can I claim?

5. Evidence – How do I know? Why am I making these claims?

6. Reading – How do my ideas compare with other ideas?

7. Reflection – How have my ideas changed?

Figure 2.1. The Science Writing Heuristic (Keys et al., 1999, pp. 1068-1069).

A quasi-experimental study of 93 Year 7 students enrolled in an introductory biology

course in the United Stated examined the use of the SWH in a unit on cells (Hand et

al., 2004). Two groups of students used the SWH to guide their written work for

laboratory activities, and submitted a research paper summarising the results of the

practical activities as final assessment. A control group of students wrote a

traditional laboratory report following their lab activities, and completed the same

final assessment as the first two groups. The final two groups of students also used

the SWH for their lab activities; however, for their final assessment, they were

required to write a summary in the form of a textbook explanation for their peers.

The results of the study found that the students who used the SWH significantly

outperformed those who did not on the multiple-choice posttest, which comprised of

30

34 questions. In addition to the multiple-choice questions, three extended response

questions were offered to test conceptual understanding. While the four SWH test

groups also performed significantly better on the first of these questions, the two

groups of students who used the SWH and wrote a textbook summary for their peers

also performed better on all of the conceptual essay questions. The study therefore

showed that the use of the SWH in combination with textbook writing tasks to be

most effectual in developing students’ conceptual understandings about the cell.

An interpretative study in the United States of two Year 8 classes examined the use

of the SWH during an eight-week unit that examined the water quality of a local

stream (Keys et al., 1999). Most noteably, the study found that the students’

understandings about the nature of science became more detailed, rich, specific and

personalised, than they were at the beginning of the unit, although large changes to

conceptual understanding were not observed. The students generated new meaning

from the data and developed their metacognitive processes, while making links

between methods, data, evidence and claims (Keys et al., 1999).

A study in the United Kingdom showed that the use of writing frames (cf. SWH)

helped Years 4, 6 and 7 students develop and express their procedural science

understandings (Warwick et al., 2003). The students whose work was guided by a

writing frame produced focused writing that appeared to display an understanding of

the concept of evidence to support claims. At the same time, the children’s

metacognitive processes were developed. The researchers acknowledged the

important role played by the teachers in the study, who encouraged and promoted

learning as a social process, by fostering group discussion and collaboration in

accordance with the writing frame.

Other studies using writing frames such as the SWH have produced similar outcomes

when promoting learning from inquiry, although some findings have been unclear.

For example, a study by Keys (2000) examined 16 Year 8 science students who

wrote a laboratory report using the SWH and think-aloud strategies. It found that

“some students generated new knowledge and explanations specifically from the act

of writing and some did not” (p. 687).

31

Studies such as those previously examined (e.g., Keys et al., 1999; Hand et al., 2004;

Warwick et al., 2003) have provided evidence that the use of writing heuristics or

frames in science are useful tools for developing students’ metacognitive process and

conceptual understanding, while providing opportunities to develop and express their

procedural science understandings. While there is evidence that they are useful for

participating in inquiry-based science, the nature and structure of these tools deem

them inappropriate for learning about non-inquiry based science or scientific issues.

For example, the SWH would be unsuitable for science that cannot be learnt by

undertaking laboratory investigations, such as the effects of exotic species on local

ecosystems, or food chains. Such topics lend themselves to more traditional, and

perhaps less engaging teaching strategies, such as simulated computer models, role

plays, as well as ‘talk and chalk’, whereby students copy notes and answer related

questions. Writing-to-learn activities that use a heuristic or writing frame as

described in these studies would require modification for work in different science

content areas.

Another concern that arises from the use of writing heuristics or frames is the

balance between scaffolding and restricting students’ learning. A heuristic may

constrict students’ imagination or thinking, and elicit formulaic responses that do not

extend far beyond the prompts or guiding questions provided (Warwick et al., 2003).

This may disguise or conceal students’ understanding, rather than expose it.

2.2.4 Scientific Storytelling: The New Frontier?

A number of studies have shown that narratives, including personal anecdotes, are a

valuable way of creating meaning, shaping students’ explanatory views, and

demonstrating the connections between science and their lives (e.g., Bostrom, 2006;

Darby, 2005; Hellden, 2005). Although studies such as these suggest that students’

experiences are grounded in narrative and aesthetic discourses, such discourses are

generally excluded from science textbooks in favour of decontextualised facts and

theories. “The story of science, from its inception, has seen the progressive exclusion

of aesthetic or contextual statements from the scientific paper, with decontextualised

abstraction established as the predominant mode of public scientific discourse”

(Tytler, 2007, p. 39). The de-humanising of science encountered in many science

32

textbooks may be, in part, responsible for students’ disengagement with school

science.

Stories can be a powerful tool in science instruction, as they engage students by

humanising science (Fensham, 2001), and importantly, “Stories are fun! Everyone

loves a good story” (Roach & Wandersee, 1995, p. 365). Narratives are a valuable

tool for developing students’ conceptual understanding of science, and helping to

integrate information into their conceptual ecology, as they can present scientific

information in an accurate, attractive, imaginative and memorable way (Negrette,

2004; Roach & Wandersee, 1995; Yore et al., 2003). For students who find it

difficult to write scientifically or engage with the scientific genre, narratives offer

opportunities to connect personal experiences with science ideas (Hand et al., 2001).

Stories are also a useful medium for including the nature of science in science

courses, an understanding of which is important to notions of scientific literacy

(Roach & Wandersee, 1995).

Trade books (i.e., books intended for sale to the general public) are often used to

support young children’s science education in the early years, as they can foster

positive attitudes toward science and enhance science achievements (Ebbers, 2002;

Haury, 2000; Lamartino, 1995; Maria & Junge, 1993; Shanahan, 2004). A number of

studies, however, have raised concern regarding the large amount of variation in their

representation of science. A study of the contribution of trade books to the scientific

literacy of young children in Kindergarten to Year 3, examined a selection of books

across four topics (dinosaurs, space, genetic inheritance, and the properties of living

things) and three genres (information/expository, narratives and combination of

each) (Schroeder, Mckeough, Graham, Stock, & Bisanz, 2009). The results of the

study revealed that the trade books were inconsistent in their coverage of desired

learning outcomes, and elements of scientific literacy (i.e., science concepts, science

processes, the nature of science, and identification with the scientific community),

particularly as there was a mismatch between the curricular goals of educators, and

those of book publishers.

These findings support earlier studies that reviewed the use of trade books in the

science classroom. Ford (2004, 2006) acknowledged that scientific storytelling could

33

foster children’s interest in science and encourage them to think creatively about

nature; however, the effective use of narrative books in science instruction can be

challenging for teachers, as they can bypass deep scientific issues in a bid to appeal

to children, and do not contain structures such as indexes and headers that make

them useful reference materials.

Narratives are often used in reading instruction, as their predictable structure renders

them easier to comprehend than other forms of text. Narratives can therefore be used

to develop students’ literacy skills in science, which, according to Kamil and

Bernhardt (2004), are crucial in order to access and comprehend the accumulation of

scientific knowledge and data. Notwithstanding the aforementioned concerns

regarding the use of trade books in the science classroom, teachers and students need

not be limited to reading narrative science books, as writing narratives with a

scientific storyline offers great learning potential, and requires the integration of both

reading and writing skills.

Narrative writing is not traditionally associated with learning science, as science is

generally portrayed as a source of objective knowledge. Conversely, narratives are

subjective accounts of human experience, and, unlike writing in science, the genre

with which most students are familiar (Wellington & Osborne, 2001). Narratives can

therefore be used to “initiate writing in science in a manner which is enjoyable.

Using a familiar genre [such as narrative] at least begins the process of helping

children express their thoughts in written language through being personally

engaged” (Wellington & Osborne, 2001, p. 76).

Bruner (1985) described the notion of narrative cognition, in which meaning is

created by stories that are entrenched in human action and intention. By comparison,

paradigmatic or logico-scientific cognition consists of formal knowledge structures.

Together, both types of cognition are used to establish truth; however, by linking

human experiences to science ideas, narrative cognition can be useful in engaging

students in meaningful learning (Bruner, 1985).

Stories have been used to communicate successfully modern physics for many years.

George Glamow, a Russian-born physicist, wrote his best-selling book, Mr.

34

Tompkins (Glamow, 1965), it proved popular amongst the general public and

physicists alike. More than 30 years after its last revision prior to Glamow’s death,

the book was updated by Russell Stannard, who himself has published a series of

story books with the aim of exposing physics to a wider readership (i.e., Stannard,

1989, 1992, 1994a, 1994b). Developmental testing of the books prior to publication

showed that children enjoyed the story format, and learned a “considerable amount”

of physics from them (Stannard, 2001, p. 32). Stannard (2001) cited a number of

reasons why communicating physics through story is advantageous for students

(particularly a younger audience), which can be applied to other science disciplines.

Firstly, stories greatly enhance the accessibility of abstract or difficult scientific

concepts, as they can be used to present abstract science concepts in concrete,

experiential ways, which is important for students who are not yet at the formal

operations stage of development (at 16 years of age, only 30% of girls and 35% of

boys have undergone the transition from concrete to formal operational thinking).

Secondly, children should be exposed to scientific concepts at a young age to avoid

deep-seated establishment of misconceptions. Thirdly, exposing young children to

science topics early may be effective in attracting young people to take a serious

interest in science.

While stories can be used to present scientific content, engaging students in the

writing of stories themselves, can be a useful instructional strategy. Hildebrand

(1998, 2004) supports the use of hybrid imaginative genres (i.e., genres that ‘blend’

scientific and/or factual genres with imaginative or fictional genres) in secondary

school science, in order to disrupt hegemonic pedagogy. She also suggested that such

writing tasks are valuable as they can serve to motivate students, cater for a broad

range of abilities in science, and promote a sense of ownership over students’

writing, while improving learning outcomes. Despite the apparent benefits of using

hybrid imaginative genres in the science classroom, an examination of teachers’ and

students’ attitudes regarding the use of such genres found that they met with

resistance from students, and fear from teachers who thought they were “risking

failure”, as innovate teaching practices such as these break the “pedagogic contract”

(i.e., the prevailing classroom norms) (Hildebrand, 1999).

35

Despite widespread support for creative writing opportunities in science, some

researchers are sceptical. Keys (1999a), for example, asserted that creative writing

detracts the learner’s focus from science understandings, and fails to develop the

skills necessary to engage with the reading or writing of “mainstream scientific

texts” that students will encounter in higher education (p. 124). In addition, she also

claimed that:

Creative writing not only takes precious time away from other kinds of

science learning, but it may actively work against many of the goals for

reasoning, learning about the nature of science, and communication

recognised by the majority of science educators … Second, teaching

creative writing rather than scientific writing reinforces the idea that

scientific writing is inaccessible to most people and is inherently boring.

Rather than capitalising on the excitement of discovery and curiosity in

science, creative writing assignments communicate to students that

science is not intrinsically interesting, but must be infused with artificial

excitement. (p.124)

While this could possibly be the case if creative writing is taught at the expense of

scientific writing, the utilisation of contrasting genres and different kinds of writing

tasks in science will eventuate in different kinds of learning, and achieve very

different agendas (Prain & Hand, 1996b; Schumacher & Nash, 1991) (see Section

2.2.2). Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding the teaching of traditional

school science genre, at the expense of alternative writing-to-learn strategies. This

approach does not support expanded notions of scientific literacy whereby students

are required to communicate to diverse audiences for diverse purposes (Hand et al.,

1999). New information technologies also engage students in the learning of science

by writing in alternative genres (Scheppegrell, 1998), and a sole reliance on scientific

genres does not lend itself to criticism of the limitations of modernist representations

of scientific methods and knowledge (Roth & McRobbie, 1999). Furthermore, there

is a concern that teaching students the scientific method (i.e., the principles of

scientific experimentation and research, and writing laboratory reports) “conveys and

unrealistic and unappealing view of science” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2009).

Diversified writing tasks that engage students with alternative genres in the science

36

classroom might therefore be used to complement scientific writing for particular

learning outcomes, in order to enhance student engagement and the accessibility of

science for a broader audience.

2.2.5 Research in Writing-to-Learn Science: An Integrated Approach

It has been suggested that outcomes in science could be improved by integrating

language arts with science, as it provides a context in which reading and writing are

used purposefully (Santa & Alvermann, 1991). A study by Morrow, Pressley, Smith

and Smith (1997) explored this connection by implementing a literature-based

program that integrated science and literacy instruction, with six Year 3 classes,

comprising of 128 students from diverse backgrounds. It examined the students’

abilities to use literature, comprehend narratives, and write narratives about science

topics, as well as their knowledge of science facts and vocabulary. Both standardised

and informal written and oral tests were used to determine students’ growth in

literacy and science. Specifically, a science textbook test comprising of 24 questions

was used to examine scientific facts and vocabulary. In addition, the students’ ability

to use learned science concepts and transform knowledge to narrative prose was

tested by requiring them to select a topic from four studied during the year (space,

plants, animals and changing Earth), and write a story that included as many

scientific facts as possible.

Overall, the study showed that the students in the literacy/science group

outperformed the literacy-only and control groups on all literacy measures, although

no differences were observed between the groups on the number of scientific facts

used in their science stories. Integrating literacy instruction with science content

appeared to enhance literacy learning. It was also found that the students experienced

difficulties writing about science in a narrative format, as most reverted to an

expository style of writing. Those who did write narratives were unable to integrate

science concepts into their storylines. Interview data revealed that an integrated

science/literacy approach was motivating for the students, as they found it interesting

and felt that their understanding of science increased.

This study produced experimentally-controlled data that showed that integrating

literature-based programs in literacy and content areas enhanced literacy learning, as

reported by a range of measures, including free-recall story retelling and rewriting

37

tests, probed recall comprehension tests, language and reading subtests, written

original stories, science stories about science themes, and a science textbook test.

These measures focused on literacy acquisition, and information regarding science

learning was limited to the recall of scientific facts and vocabulary, and the number

of facts students could include in an original story. The study did not explore how the

intervention affected the students’ conceptual science understandings, or whether or

not meaningful connections were made between new knowledge and prior learning,

or between related concepts and ideas.

A combined science/literacy approach was also investigated in a quasi-experimental

study by Barber et al. (2006), which sought to improve science content acquisition.

Three curriculum units were developed and taught to Year 2 and 3 students in the

United States: Terrarium Investigations, Shoreline Science, and Designing Mixtures.

Each unit comprised of 40 lessons, spanning over an eight-week period, and included

approximately 40% inquiry science, 40% reading and writing about science, and

20% reflection and assessment. Learning outcomes for students who took part in the

combined science/literacy approach were compared to those for students who

participated in comparison classrooms; that is, inquiry science-only, literacy-only

(using science books) and no treatment (regular science and literacy programs).

Various formative and summative measures were used to gather evidence of student

learning, and gains in science acquisition were tested using specifically designed

pretests and posttests that examined knowledge in appropriate content domains (e.g.,

properties of soil, erosion, human impact on the environment, and adaptations). To

cater for the young children in the study, the tests utilised a read-aloud, narrative

format.

The students who participated in the Terrarium Investigations and Shoreline Science

units performed significantly better than the students in all comparison groups. The

students who undertook the Designing Mixtures unit (which had no comparison

groups) made a statistically significant improvement between the pretest and

posttests. Unlike Morrow et al. (1997), this study provided evidence to support

existing literature that a combined science/literacy approach helps to develop literacy

38

skills while enhancing children’s acquisition of science content, compared to similar

science- or literacy-only treatments.

In addition to the reported benefits to children’s literacy skills and conceptual science

understandings, a combined science/literacy approach has been shown to improve

attitudes toward science. One hundred and sixty-two Kindergarten children across

three schools participated in a mixed methods study that investigated their

motivation for science (i.e., their beliefs about their competence in science processes

and skills; their liking of science; and their views of what learning science is about)

(Patrick, Mantzicopoulos, & Samarapungavan, 2009). A conceptually coherent

sequence of integrated science inquiry and literacy activities (taught over a five- or

10-week program that examined the nature of science, properties of living things, life

cycle of the butterfly, and marine life) was found to enhance the children’s

motivation for science, compared to children who received regular science

instruction.

Like Morrow et al. (1997), a recent study by Ritchie, Rigano and Duane (2008a) also

required students to write an original science story; however, rather than simply

including as many scientific facts as possible, the students were engaged in the co-

creation of a substantive story that interweaved scientific information in a

meaningful way. The study examined the learning potential of creating an ecological

mystery – a mystery storybook that features ecological storylines – in a Year 4 class.

The book, which was intended for a primary audience, was formally published. The

study reported that the children’s engagement and interest in the writing tasks were

sustained across narrative and scientific genres, and that they demonstrated both

written and spoken fluency in their use of canonically accurate scientific knowledge.

At the same time, the students also developed their literacy skills using narrative and

factual genres.

The outcomes from this study support Prain’s (2006) assertion that learning is

enhanced when diversified writing tasks require students to communicate to actual

readerships for meaningful and varied purposes. The co-creation of an eco-mystery,

which requires students to “paraphrase, reword, elaborate, unpack, and re-represent

meanings, express uncertainties, analyse comparisons, and reconstruct

39

understandings” (Prain, 2006, p. 185) is an effective way of helping students develop

meaningful understanding of subject matter, and making “systematic connections”

(Boscolo & Mason, 2001, p. 85). In addition, Perrone (1994) suggested that learning

can, and is likely to, occur when teachers encourage different forms of expression,

and require students to create original and public products that enable them to be

‘experts’.

Research such as this, regarding the utilisation of hybridised imaginative genres in

the science classroom, remains thin. Studies by Hildebrand (1998, 2004) have

examined the writing of hybrid creative/scientific poetry in the science classroom,

which utilise anthropomorphic language (i.e., scientific terms to which human

attributes have been ascribed), as a way of humanising science. The study by Ritchie

et al. (2008a) engaged students in the writing of a hybridised scientific narrative, an

eco-mystery. This particular project spanned over a one-year period, and the

researchers and a dedicated teacher with a strong interest in science and literacy

instruction, and environmental issues, provided significant support. Whether or not

the outcomes of the study could be replicated in classrooms where teachers have less

time, expertise and resources at their disposal remained an important question. The

preliminary BioStories’ study (Ritchie et al., 2008b) adapted this initial concept into

an online project, in order to facilitate more widespread implementation of the

writing activities in science classrooms. In addition to the limited research regarding

hybridised scientific narratives, prior studies that have adopted a combined

science/literacy approach, including those by Barber et al. (2006), Morrow et al.

(1997), and Ritchie et al. (2008a, 2008b) have examined young children in primary

settings. Would secondary students engage with similar interventions as effectively?

As identified in Section 1.6, this study examined this question by conducting the

project with Year 9 students.

2.3 Assessing Scientific Literacy

The previous sections of this chapter described writing-to-learn as an approach to

teaching for scientific literacy. Equally important is the employment of effective

assessment strategies in order to evaluate whether this aim has been met. Innovative

approaches to science education must be matched by equally innovative assessment

practices that have the support and confidence of teachers, and in addition, these

40

practices must be informed by a clear understanding of the skills and knowledge

being developed in order to produce scientifically literate future citizens.

2.3.1 The Challenges of Assessing Scientific Literacy

Orpwood (2007) asserted that, for the past 35 years, visions of scientific literacy

have grown richer and more profound; however, such visions are under threat due to

lack of creativity on the part of researchers to develop new approaches to assessing

scientific literacy. He argued that “politically high-profile assessments” such as

TIMSS and PISA encourage “teaching to the test” (p. 2), following poor national

results.

Roberts (2007) also argued that it is difficult to assess fairly notions of scientific

literacy according to Vision II, as students’ own experiences and personal contexts

are unique. This is problematic for tests such as TIMSS and PISA, and other

assessment programs that seek to make national and cross-national comparisons.

Such comparisons will be inevitably complicated by the fact that Vision II does not

emphasise formal knowledge structures.

Miller (1983, 1997) has designed and conducted a number of national studies polled

by the National Science Board in the United States, for ascertaining levels of

scientific literacy in both adults and children. Beginning in the mid-1960s, the (US)

National Assessment of Educational Progress sought to investigate scientific literacy

by systematically measuring understanding of science processes and cognitive

content. Miller (1983) later added an additional aspect for examination, an

“awareness of the impact of science and technology on society and the policy

choices that must inevitably emerge” (p. 31), which added a distinct Vision II flavour

to the testing. However, in later cross-national studies of civic scientific literacy,

Miller (1997) admitted that this extra dimension was omitted from analysis, as it was

“difficult to construct accurate cross-national measures of this dimension because

science and technology may be experienced differently, depending on the emergence

of public policy issues in a given country” (p. 124). He later argued that it could be

assumed that if a person has a sound grasp of scientific knowledge and inquiry, they

will appreciate the impact of science and technology on society (Miller, 2000). This

notion conflicts with the viewpoint of Eisenhart et al. (1996) described earlier, who

41

argued that an emphasis on Vision I in any science program will not teach students

aspects of scientific literacy pertinent to Vision II.

A misalignment exists between the goals of scientific literacy, as discussed in

Chapter 1, and the way in which success in science learning has been traditionally

defined and assessed at school. For example, the need for accountability by

governments often means that high-order outcomes are overlooked in favour of low-

level outcomes that are further narrowed by specific indicators, or descriptive

statements, that inexorably drive assessment and practice (Tytler, 2007). The

alignment of innovative teaching and learning strategies and subsequent assessment

can also be problematic for teachers. If traditional pen-and-paper assessment follows

such learning activities, for instance, students can be confused by the misalignment

as it disrupts their understanding of teacher expectations. Rather than examining how

students use and produce science knowledge to respond to a need or concern

pertinent to their individual or community’s future, “success [in school science] takes

the form of a predetermined response to a cooked-up problem, an abstract set of

ideals, predicated upon an imposed ideology” (Roth & Barton, 2004, p. 8).

According to Tytler (2007), a re-imagined science curriculum should promote

student engagement by including assessment practices that utilise meaningful

activities.

An approach to assessing scientific literacy was developed by the Ministerial

Council of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs to assess the

scientific literacy of Year 6 students, as part of a national program (MCEETYA,

2005). The program assessed scientific literacy across three domains:

Domain A: formulating or identifying investigable questions and

hypotheses, planning investigations and collecting evidence.

Domain B: interpreting evidence and drawing conclusions, critiquing the

trustworthiness of evidence and claims made by others and

communicating findings.

Domain C: using science understandings for describing and explaining

natural phenomena, interpreting reports and making decisions.

42

(MCEETYA, 2005, p. 4)

These domains encompass the five elements of scientific literacy used in the PISA

2000 and 2006 testing (OECD, 1999, 2006). Each was assessed according a six-level

hierarchy, articulated in the Scientific Literacy Progress Map, that describes skills

and understanding pertaining to scientific literacy, in increasing complexity (concrete

to abstract) (MCEETYA, 2005).

The progress map was to be used in the preliminary BioStories’ project for assessing

scientific literacy; however, its use was deemed inappropriate in the context of the

study as it assesses different aspects of scientific literacy than those developed by the

students’ participation in the project (see Chapter 4). Consequently, matrices were

developed in this study for assessing the students’ scientific literacy, as evidenced by

their BioStories. The development and application of the matrices is discussed in

detail in Chapter 4.

2.3.2 Purposes of Assessment in the Science Classroom

In recent years, the general purpose of assessment in education has experienced a

shift from proving learning to improving learning (Gipps, 1994a, 1994b). National

and cross-national comparisons of scientific literacy, such as TIMSS and PISA,

clearly seek to prove students’ science learning, which in turn informs subsequent

changes to curriculum policies that seek to improve future performances on such

tests. At the classroom level, summative assessment may be used to prove students’

learning to parents, caregivers, and other stakeholders within the community, once

teaching is complete (i.e., it summarises student learning). On the other hand,

formative assessment is used to improve learning, by providing teachers and students

with feedback during the learning process, as it is taking place. Such assessment has

been shown to enhance student learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998a, 1998b; Crooks,

2002; Gipps & James; 1998).

Traditionally, the recall and recognition of scientific knowledge is frequently

assessed in the science classroom via pen-and-paper tests. In the past, this type of

assessment has severely restricted the range of science goals that are assessed in the

classroom, which has impacted negatively on curriculum, pedagogy, learning, and

43

learners themselves (Crooks, 1988). In their review of assessment of science

learning, Doran, Lawrenz and Helgeson (1993) found that the goals of science

learning that are frequently assessed are knowledge of scientific facts and concepts;

science process skills; higher order science thinking skills; problem-solving skills;

manipulation of laboratory equipment; and attitudes toward science. While scientific

concepts are easy to test for, it has been recognised that a much wider range of

learning goals need to be assessed, which include students’ views of the nature of

science; science knowledge and skills that are important within particular disciplines

(e.g., investigation procedures employed by scientists; the acquisition of new

knowledge arising from investigations; rules of practice; and relevant background

knowledge and meanings); knowing that science is contextualised, and embedded in

culture and history; and learning dispositions and learning skills (Bell, 2007).

Fusco and Barton (2001) argue that the pen-and-paper tests traditionally favoured in

the science classroom do not validly assess student learning of some goals of science

education. A wider range of learning goals in science requires a wider range of

assessment task formats (often referred to as ‘alternative assessments’), such as

performance assessments, concepts maps, portfolios of student work, interviews that

utilise think-aloud protocols, learning stories, classroom observations, and self-

assessment (Dori, 2003). Although alternative assessment tasks may be used to

assess a broader range of learning goals in science, concerns about their use have

been raised in terms of their quality (in relation to validity and reliability); time and

financial constraints; teacher and student knowledge of assessment; difficulties in

creating authentic tasks; and the need for professional development (Bell, 2007).

Calls for new approaches to assessment have resulted in two major theoretical

considerations: conceptions of validity (i.e., “the appropriateness of assessment tasks

as indicators of intended learning outcomes, and … the appropriateness of the

interpretation of assessment outcomes as indicators of learning” [Cumming &

Maxwell, 1999, p. 177]), and the need for learning and assessment to be

contextualised and made meaningful for students (Cumming & Maxwell, 1999). The

latter is considered important as motivational benefits and learning outcomes can

both be enhanced when students deem learning and assessment activities relevant.

44

The development and implementation of new teaching strategies that promote

scientific literacy, as with any change in curriculum or pedagogy, will inevitably

affect assessment practices. Research on the development of high-quality assessment

procedures continues to be a pertinent issue in science education (Bell, 2007).

2.3.3 Assessing Attitudes toward Science, an Aspect of Scientific Literacy

The majority of interpretations of scientific literacy include reference to one’s

attitudes toward science. This is evident in the PISA definition presented in Chapter

1: “Awareness of how science and technology shape our material, intellectual, and

cultural environments; and willingness to engage in science-related issues and with

the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen” (OECD, 2006, p. 23). Attitudes toward

science, therefore, present a legitimate aspect of scientific literacy that may be

assessed.

Attitudes are evaluated beliefs, feelings and values, which predispose the individual

to respond preferentially (either positively or negatively) to some social object

(Burns, 2000). In recent years, measurements of students’ attitudes toward science

have been considered important in evaluating students’ engagement (or

disengagement) with science as a way of understanding declines in enrolments in

school science, and the numbers of young people pursuing science-related careers

(Osborne, 2003). The promotion of favourable attitudes toward science is seen as one

way of alleviating these phenomena.

Exactly what constitutes such favourable attitudes was the subject of Klopfer’s work

in 1971, when he presented a classification scheme for science education aims,

which includes six affective categories that distinguish between attitudes toward

science (Klopfer, 1971, cited in Fraser, 1977, p. 318):

Manifestation of favourable attitudes toward science and scientists;

Acceptance of scientific inquiry as a way of thought;

Adoption of ‘scientific attitudes’;

Enjoyment of science learning experiences;

Development of interests in science and science-related activities; and

45

Development of interest in pursuing a career in science.

An important distinction was made a short time after by Gardner (1975) between

‘scientific attitudes’ and ‘attitudes toward science’. The former is characteristic of

scientific thinking and is cognitive in nature; the latter (which encompasses the

majority of Klopfer’s characteristics) involves feelings, beliefs and values held in

relation to the scientific enterprise, school science, science and society, or scientists

(Osborne, 2003).

There are many examples in the literature of studies that have sought to assess

students’ attitudes toward science, by a variety of means. Most rely on quantitative

measures, utilising questionnaires. Others include interest inventories, which require

the respondent to articulate which items they are interested in from a given list, and

subject enrolments, which examine student enrolment numbers in science subjects

(Osborne, 2003). The former normally examine a very specific focus, which can

present a limited view of one’s attitudes toward science. Subject enrolment

information may not be indicative of students’ interest in science, as enrolments can

be influenced by a variety of variables, including gender preferences, perceived

difficulty of subjects, study opportunities and economic factors (Osborne, 2003).

Other studies have required students to rank subjects in order of preference, as a way

of indicating the relative status assigned to school subjects (Lightbody & Durndell,

1996; Ormerod, 1971; Osborne & Collins, 2001; Whitfield, 1980). While studies

such as these are useful for determining the popularity of science compared to other

subjects, they do not measure the extent of a student’s contentment, or otherwise,

towards a subject. For example, a student who enjoys school may have a high

interest in all of their subjects, but still rank science lower than others. Despite their

ranking, this student may still enjoy science more than another student who ranks

science higher, but dislikes school, and holds all of their subjects in low regard.

Subject preference studies are therefore limited by the relative nature of their

comparisons.

Standardised scales or questionnaires represent the most popular means of assessing

attitudes toward science. Scales such as these require the respondent to indicate their

46

degree of favourability towards an attitude object, usually a statement, which

represents the belief behind a particular theoretical attitude (Burns, 2000). As they

are self-report measures, attitude tests may only be used to summarise respondents’

verbal attitudes, or those that they are willing to express in the test situation (Burns,

2000).

Three types of attitude scales that are commonly used are the Likert, Thurstone, and

the semantic differential. Likert scales are generally recognised by researchers as

being the most efficient means of measuring attitudes, and many examples of their

application in science attitudinal research exist in the literature (e.g., Fraser, 1981;

Galton, Eggleston, & Jones, 1975; Harlen, Black, & Johnson, 1981; Wareing, 1982;

West, Hailes, & Sammons, 1997).

In order to yield a meaningful score from an attitude instrument, all of the items

within the scale must relate to a single attitude object (Gardner, 1975). The reliability

of questionnaires that use Likert scales have been criticised (Munby, 1983);

however, the validity and reliability of well-designed Likert instruments are

relatively high as they produce more homogenous scales that have a greater

probability of testing a unitary attitude (Burns, 2000). Likert scales lend themselves

to measures of internal consistency by correlating item score to total score.

Cronbach’s alpha is a commonly used measure of internal consistency (Cronbach,

1951). A high Cronbach’s alpha indicates good internal consistency (i.e., the items

within the scale relate to a unitary attitude).

Rather than examining attitudes toward science as a school subject, many attitude

scales that feature Likert-scale items focus on aspects of science in society (Osborne,

2003). Well-known examples include the Scientific Attitude Inventory (Moore &

Sutman, 1970); the Views on Science-Technology-Society Instrument (Aikenhead,

Ryan, & Fleming, 1989), which focuses on views relating to the nature of science;

and the Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA) (Fraser, 1981), which examines

the social implications of science, the normality of scientists, attitudes toward

science inquiry, adoption of scientific attitudes, enjoyment of science lesson, leisure

interest in science, and career interest in science. Instruments such as these, which

include a number of Likert scales, are inherently valuable as they have the capacity

47

to examine a number of different aspects of students’ attitudes in a single instrument,

thereby providing a more comprehensive insight.

TIMSS and PISA have also used Likert scales in their international assessments of

scientific literacy, including attitudes toward science. The attitudinal items that will

be used in the current study have been taken, or adapted from, the student

background questionnaire for PISA 2006 (OECD, 2006), and have been used in the

preliminary BioStories’ study (Ritchie et al., 2008b). Among a number of topics, the

PISA questionnaire examines students’ views on issues related to science (e.g.,

capacity for science-related tasks and relevance of science in society), the

environment (e.g., issues such as nuclear waste, deforestation and greenhouse gases),

careers in science, and teaching and learning science. These questions relate to

science in general. Other questions are included to measure specific attitudes toward

particular topics (e.g., forensic science). The PISA questionnaire is an internationally

validated instrument, and the adapted questions used in the preliminary BioStories’

study have also demonstrated high internal consistency (refer Section 4.2.2).

2.4 Technology in the Science Classroom

When examining the role of technology in science education, it is important to make

the distinction between learning about technology and learning with technology.

Digital technologies can be utilised in classrooms in a number of ways (Table 2.1);

however, in spite of their applications, and the rapid expansion of digital

technologies, Songer (2007) asserted that computers and network technologies are

generally “underutilised” and “poorly integrated” (p. 471) into the core science

curriculum across all grade levels, and that a clear gap exists between technology for

doing science, and for learning science. With respect to Internet-based materials,

their under-utilisation may be attributed to the poor quality (i.e., questionable

scientific content or appropriateness) of web-based science material available for K-

12 science learning (Linn, Davis, & Bell, 2004).

48

Table 2.1. Five ways in which digital technologies can be applied in the classroom (Barab & Leuhmann, 2003, p. 458).

General Use Role

Information resource Provide information to support learner inquiry (e.g., hypermedia, WWW, interactive CD ROMs)

Communication tool Facilitate collaborative and distributed learning (e.g., asynchronous conferencing tools, teleapprenticeships)

Content contextualisation Situate the material to be learned within a rich context (e.g., anchored instruction, experiential simulations)

Construction kit Provide concrete tools for building phenomena/understandings (e.g., LOGO, HTML, and VRML editors, Hyperstudio)

Visualisation/manipulation tool Present phenomena for scrutiny and manipulation (e.g., visualisation tools, model-based situations)

2.4.1 Digital Resources versus Cognitive Tools

In order to examine the use of technology for learning science, Songer (2007) made

the distinction between Digital Resources and Cognitive Tools. A digital resource

comprises of computer-available information that presents information, including

facts and perspectives, about a particular topic. They do not specify a particular

audience (e.g., high school students, teachers or scientists); how the information is to

be used for learning; or what kinds of products learners can be expected to produce

as they work with the resource.

In contrast to a digital resource, a cognitive tool is a computer-available information

source or resource that presents focused information targeted at a particular audience,

with specific learning goals pertaining to a topic of study (Songer, 2007). Cognitive

tools are designed for use in specific ways in order to achieve the desired learning

outcomes. As the learning audience, activities and performances are clearly

articulated, empirical evidence can be gathered in order to evaluate the effectiveness

of the cognitive tool (Songer, 2007).

Songer acknowledged that “digital resources often provide a rich scientific milieu

with strong but unrealised or unfocused potential as a way of learning science” (p.

480). The Cognitive Tools Framework offers a way of realising this potential by

transforming digital resources into cognitive tools (Figure 2.2). The framework

emphasises three areas of importance: Audience/knowledge refers to the

49

identification of the target audience (including age, abilities, prior knowledge and

beliefs), and learning goals (e.g., science content); Learning activities refers to the

specific tasks that the audience will perform with the cognitive tool; and Learning

performances refers to the products the students will generate as a result of their

interactions with the learning activities (Songer, 2007).

Ways in which technology can be used to support collaboration and discussion

continues to be an important focus for educational research. An innovative example

of research into the use of cognitive tools for writing science is the preliminary

BioStories’ project (Ritchie et al., 2008b), which engaged students in the writing of

short stories that merged scientific and narrative genres, with the support of a

dedicated web page and digital resources. The students were required to upload their

short stories with a biosecurity theme onto the website, and were encouraged to read

stories authored by other students and provide feedback about their writing. A

discussion forum also provided students with opportunities to ask each other, as well

as scientists, questions pertaining to their particular topics. Venville, Wallace, Rennie

and Malone (2002) suggested that technology-based projects such as this, which

involve non-traditional representational tasks, simultaneously enhance student

1. Start with Digital Resource E.g., Web-based information for scientists.

2. Examine Audience/Knowledge Select key components that suit audience and goals.

3. Create/Revise Learning Activities. Design activities to foster desired goals with target audience.

4. Examine Performances Examine what audience produces through activities.

5. Complete Cycle Examine performances to audience and desired goals.

Figure 2.2. The steps involved in converting a digital resource to a cognitive tool, via the Cognitive Tools Framework (Songer 2007, p. 480).

50

engagement and science learning. The preliminary BioStories’ project is an excellent

example of how network technologies and web-based resources can be used

effectively in the science classroom.

By their interactive nature, many network technologies, such as online discussion

tools, enable students to discuss, collaborate, or share materials with one another, and

critically evaluate and communicate their scientific ideas with others (Songer, 2007).

Well-designed collaborative learning activities have been shown to offer a number of

benefits to learners: students’ repertoires of ideas can be expanded; understanding

can be facilitated when students hear ideas expressed in the words of their peers;

students can find answers to their questions through discussions with others; and

students can provide and receive feedback in order to sort their ideas (Cohen, 1982;

Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1983). Online discussions are also useful for

students to reflect on their learning, as they have an opportunity to think before they

respond, unlike class discussions (Linn, 2003).

Like the preliminary BioStories’ project (Ritchie et al., 2008b), the current study has

been designed as an online project, whereby cognitive tools mediated the students’

learning as they constructed and shared hybridised scientific narratives about

biosecurity. This aspect of the study design is elaborated in Section 3.3.1

2.5 Theoretical Framework: Developing Scientific Literacy through

Engagement with Socioscientific Issues

In modern society, scientific issues are becoming increasingly pervasive in everyday

life. Issues such as global warming, water conservation, ecological sustainability,

nuclear energy and alternative fuels, among others, regularly feature in both the

media and political campaigns. These issues, which require public input, and involve

societal factors, have been termed socioscientific issues (Sadler, 2004b). As

described in Chapter 1, modern interpretations of scientific literacy articulate that

scientifically literate and reflective citizens should demonstrate a willingness to

engage with scientific ideas and issues, in order to make informed individual and

collective decisions (Christensen, 2001; OECD, 2006). The ability to negotiate

socioscientific issues in making informed decisions may be considered an important

component of scientific literacy (Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; Driver, Leach, Millar, &

51

Scott, 1996; Kolstø, 2001; Sadler, 2004b). Students should be provided with

opportunities to negotiate such issues, if they are to develop this aspect of scientific

literacy. “Socioscientific issues are by no means the only way of promoting scientific

literacy, but they can provide a powerful vehicle for teachers to help stimulate the

intellectual and social growth of their students” (Sadler, 2004a, p. 533).

2.5.1 Science-Technology-Society (STS) Education

The notion of including socioscientific issues in the science curriculum is not a new

one. Recognition of its importance in the classroom has been growing for almost four

decades, and many researchers have argued for their inclusion in school science (e.g.,

Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Pedretti, 1999; Sadler &

Zeidler, 2005b). Perhaps one of the most well known curricular movements, STS

education, emerged in the 1970s, during a time when educators called for new

innovations in science education. It promoted a holistic view of science education,

and presented science in a more humanistic way (Aikenhead, 2003). It followed the

recognition that “[f]or future citizens in a democratic society, understanding the

interrelationships of science, technology and society may be as important as

understanding the concepts and processes of science” (Gallagher, 1971, p. 337).

Gallagher (1971) argued that the classroom treatment of scientific concepts and

processes should be rooted in the sociology of science, and relevant technology and

social issues.

STS education came about as a means of addressing inadequacies in the traditional

science curriculum, and in the process, improving student enrolments and career

choices in science, and enhancing student achievement in science. It was expected

that STS curricula would also increase the general public’s interest in, and

understanding of science, while engaging bright and creative students who were

otherwise disenchanted by the traditional science curriculum (Aikenhead, 1994a).

Finally, STS education sought to develop students’ social responsibility in collective

decision-making on science and technology issues, while developing the skills

necessary for their induction in a world increasingly shaped by science and

technology (e.g., individual empowerment; critical thinking; creative problem-

solving; logical reasoning; national and local citizenship; and professional skills for

business and industry) (Aikenhead, 1994a).

52

Much like scientific literacy, there is no agreement as to what the term STS education

means, as it is often defined by particular STS projects unique to particular countries.

There are, however, four goals that may be seen as common to most STS syllabi

(Aikenhead, 1994b):

1. To increase citizen’s scientific literacy;

2. To generate student interest in science and technology;

3. To encourage interest in the interactions among science, technology, and

society; and

4. To help students become better at critical thinking, logical reasoning,

creative problem solving, and especially decision making. (p. 169)

These goals are assigned different priorities, depending upon particular STS courses.

Unlike traditional school science, the goals of STS education seek to address the

needs of two broad groups: future scientists and engineers who require pre-

professional training in science, and general citizens who require intellectual

empowerment for their democratic participation in society (Aikenhead, 1994a).

Unlike traditional school science which may be viewed as ‘scientist centred’, STS

science is focused upon the student, and the ways in which they seek to make sense

of their social, technological and natural environments (Aikenhead, 1994a). STS

teaching, therefore, embeds science in the technological and social environments of

the student by integrating their personal understandings.

STS education is often conceived as principally dealing with social issues that

connect science with a societal problem (Yager, 1992). STS content is taught within

a social-technological context, which may be chosen according to its relevance to

students, or by the need-to-know science content generated by the context itself

(Aikenhead, 1994a). For students, the science content is relevant as it arises from a

real-world situation, and is linked with their everyday work. This differs markedly

from the traditional science curriculum, in which the sequence of teaching is

“determined by how an academic scientist would systematically conceptualise

nature” (Aikenhead, 1994a, p. 58).

53

Numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of STS curricula (for a summary,

see Aikenhead, 1994b). Such studies have shown that students generally respond

enthusiastically, and are highly motivated by STS instruction, and noticeable

differences have been observed in students’ understanding of STS content, thinking

skills, and attitudes toward science, when compared to traditional science curricula.

Overall, STS curricula have been shown to benefit students consistently over their

traditional science counterparts and are advantageous for improving students’

scientific literacy.

2.5.2 Beyond STS: Socioscientific Issues (SSI) Education

Despite its apparent benefits and admirable intentions, STS education is bound by a

number of limitations that have been attributed to its continued decline (for a detailed

discussion, see Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005). A number of researchers

(e.g., Hodson, 2003; Jenkins, 2002; Shamos, 1995; Zeidler et al., 2005) propose that

one crucial limitation is the lack of a well-developed unifying theoretical framework.

Proponents of STS education admit that it consists of several conflicting

perspectives, however, the combination of these perspectives should not entail the

creation of a unitary approach to STS (Fuglsang, 2001). Furthermore, “the

fundamental purposes of STS education are genuinely and properly diverse and

incoherent” (Ziman, 1994, p. 22). It appears that this incoherence limits STS as a

context for science, rather than a defined pedagogical strategy (Yager, 1996).

SSI education, whilst conceptually related to research on STS education, is based

upon a theoretical framework that focuses the development of students’ moral,

ethical and epistemological orientations, with an emphasis on discourse and

argumentation, in which the role of emotions and character are viewed as key

components of science education (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a; Zeidler, Sadler,

Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009). SSI education “seeks to engage students in decision-

making regarding current social issues with moral implication embedded in scientific

contexts” (Zeidler, et al., 2009, p. 74), as a means of empowering them to deal with

these issues (Sadler, 2004a).

In the context of SSI education, socioscientific issues are important social issues and

problems with conceptual or technological links to science (Kolstø, 2001; Sadler et

54

al., 2007). Such issues involve divergent scientific, social or moral viewpoints, which

may conflict with students’ own beliefs (Zeidler et al., 2009). SSI education provides

students with opportunities to develop scientific knowledge through data

interpretation, analysis of conflicting evidence, and argumentation (i.e., a process of

making and justifying claims and conclusions) (Sadler, 2004a). Social interaction

and discourse enable students to evaluate claims, analyse evidence, and assess

multiple ethical viewpoints as they reflect on socioscientific issues (Zeidler et al.,

2009).

A number of studies that examined students’ negotiation of socioscientific issues

have identified improvements in their informal reasoning, argumentation and

information evaluation skills; their conceptual science understanding and NOS

conceptualisations; allows them to exercise their value commitments; encourages the

development of informed epistemologies; fosters citizenship education; and,

importantly, engages students in the learning process (Sadler, 2004a; Sadler &

Zeidler, 2005a, 2005b; Sadler et al., 2007). A number of relevant studies are

reviewed in the following section.

2.5.2.1 A Framework for SSI Education

Zeidler et al. (2005) present a conceptual SSI framework that consists of four

pedagogical issues that attempt to fill the gaps in STS education: nature of science

issues, case-based issues, classroom discourse issues, and cultural issues. While these

issues are not exhaustive of the conditions necessary to develop scientific literacy, it

is asserted that they are “critical and necessary” (p.362), and may be viewed “as

entry points in the science curriculum” (p. 361) that can contribute to the

development of students’ functional scientific literacy through appropriate pedagogy

(Zeidler et al., 2005) (Figure 2.3). “Functional scientific literacy”, as it is used in

this framework, differs from the technocratic perspectives offered by other

researchers (e.g., Jenkins, 1990; Ryder, 2001; Shamos, 1995), in that it emphasises

students’ “personal epistemological and intellectual development in the context of

varied cultural settings” (Zeidler et al., 2005, p. 362).

Exposing students to nature of science issues in the classroom provides opportunities

to develop their transferable reasoning skills, a fundamental goal of SSI education,

55

and one that appropriates its place in the science curriculum (Zeidler et al., 2005).

When making decisions in the context of socioscientific issues, nature of science

(NOS) issues reveal students’ epistemological views, which influence their response

to evidence that supports or challenges their pre-instructional belief systems.

According to Sadler (2004b), an understanding of NOS is one of three interrelated

aptitudes required for socioscientific decision-making, the others being scientific

knowledge acquisition, and awareness of moral and ethical issues. NOS may be

described as “the values and assumptions inherent to the development of scientific

knowledge” (Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2002, p. 3). It is generally agreed that

these values and assumptions include the notion that scientific knowledge is subject

to change in light of new evidence or the reinterpretation of existing evidence;

science relies on empirical evidence, which is obtained and interpreted creatively by

scientists; scientific research is socially and culturally embedded; and ethical and

moral issues are part-and-parcel of scientific progress (Sadler et al., 2002). While an

understanding of NOS is necessary if students are to apply scientific information in

the decision-making process, in a society dependent on science and technology, it is

also important if students are to evaluate the worth of claims (scientific and

otherwise) on the basis of appropriate evidence (Sadler, 2004b; Zeidler et al., 2005).

Personal Cognitive and Moral Development

Cultural Issues

Nature of Science Issues

Case-based Issues

Discourse Issues

Functional Scientific Literacy

promoting

Figure 2.3. Socioscientific elements of functional scientific literacy (Zeidler et al., 2005, p. 361).

56

For example, a mixed-methods study by Zeidler at al. (2009) explored the

development of students’ reflective judgment (i.e., the reasoning patterns used by

individuals to support their approach to ill-structured problems) through

Socioscientific Issues instruction. Four intact classes of Year 11 and 12 Anatomy and

Physiology students participated in the study. Two classes served as a treatment

group, while two classes served as a comparison group. Both groups received

explicit NOS instruction that comprised of several standard NOS activities (see

Lederman & Adb-El-Khalick, 1998). As explained in Section 2.5.2, SSI education

seeks to provide students with opportunities to engage in social interaction and

discourse in order to evaluate claims, analyse evidence, and assess multiple ethical

viewpoints as they reflect on socioscientific issues. These opportunities are

conducive to the development of an understanding of NOS. In addition, the

curriculum and pedagogy of the comparison group was guided by the anatomy and

physiology textbook, and dominated by lectures and scripted laboratory activities.

Instruction of the treatment group was informed by two components. The first

comprised of a general framework of eight themes for examining the science

underlying socioscientific issues:

(1) Science-in-the-making and the role of consensus in science; (2)

Science as one of several social domains; (3) Descriptive and normative

statements; (4) Demands for underpinning evidence; (5) Scientific

models as context-bound; (6) Scientific evidence; (7) Suspension of

belief; and (8) Scrutinising science-related knowledge claims. (Zeidler et

al., 2009, p. 77)

The second comprised of a general organisational framework for decision-making

using controversial issues (i.e., clarifying general and scientific knowledge, and

criteria for evidence; considering alternative scenarios that argue for different

conclusions; and identifying and evaluating moral consequences), with an explicit

focus on argumentation and discourse (Zeidler et al., 2009). Overall, this instruction

was intended to develop students’ conceptual science understandings and their

application to socioscientific issues, which covered topics such as organ transplant

allocation, the use of marijuana, stem cell research, euthanasia, fast food

consumption, and other socially relevant contemporary issues.

57

The Prototypic Reflective Judgment Interview (PRJI) served as the primary

instrument for assessing reflective judgment (King & Kitchener, 2004), in which the

interviewer introduced the participant to a scenario describing an ill-structured

problem, before asking seven standard questions that encourages them to adopt and

justify a position on the issue. A random sample of 40 students (i.e., 10 from each

class) participated in the interviews, which were conducted at the beginning of the

school year, and again, seven weeks prior to the end of the school year. The students’

views on the nature of knowledge and their concepts of justification for that

knowledge were assessed in accordance with the frameworks previously described.

Qualitative analysis of the students’ responses revealed more sophisticated and

nuanced epistemological stances toward higher stages of reflective judgment,

demonstrated by the treatment group. In addition, quantitative analysis of individual

students’ levels of reflective judgment demonstrated a statistically significant

improvement for the treatment group, which suggests that the SSI treatment provided

opportunities that facilitated the development of reflective judgment. In addition, the

students in the treatment group learned more basic anatomy and physiology concepts

than those in the comparison group. Both findings support the use of SSI education

in the science classroom. In the context of this study, the students in the treatment

group “were actively involved in reading and evaluating conflicting evidence from

credible sources and negotiating their conclusions within and against other groups of

students” (Zeidler et al., 2009, pp. 90-91). In other words, the SSI framework

facilitated the use of argumentation and evidence-based reasoning as a way of

developing students’ reflective judgment. This is also significant because reflective

judgment is comparable to the development of an understanding of NOS: “both

require epistemological frameworks that conceptualise and justify knowledge via a

process of inquiry, are based on data-driven evidence, allow for the probabilistic

nature of data, and possess an openness to reevaluation” (Zeidler et al., 2009, p. 91).

Furthermore, an understanding of scientific content is an important determinant of

the quality of students’ informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific issues, as

described later in the current section.

58

Case-based issues highlight the importance of engaging students with controversial

socioscientific case studies in order to develop both their intellect and sense of

character. According to Simmons and Zeidler (2003):

The present argument rests on the assumption that using controversial

SSI as a foundation for individual consideration and group interaction

provides an environment where students can and will increase their

science knowledge while simultaneously developing their critical

thinking and moral reasoning skills. (p. 83)

This assumption is supported by research that has shown that student engagement

with contentious socioscientific issues (such as genetically modified foods, human

genetic engineering, animal experimentation and environmental issues) cultivates

cognitive, as well as moral and ethical development (e.g., Kolstø, 2001; Sadler &

Zeidler, 2005b; Simonneaux, 2001; Walker & Zeidler, 2003) (see review of Sadler &

Zeidler, 2005b, in Classroom discourse issues, below).

An awareness of morality and ethics is necessary in socioscientific decision-making,

as they are “inseparable from science in the context of socioscientific issues” and are

“central to the processes in which individuals engage when considering and

resolving these issues” (Sadler, 2004b, pp. 41-42). It is this concerted consideration

of ethical issues and construction of moral judgments through social interaction and

discourse that sets SSI education apart from STS education (Sadler, 2004b; Sadler et

al., 2002; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2005).

Classroom discourse issues emphasises the critical role that discourse about

socioscientific issues plays in the development of students’ reasoning skills, and their

views about science (Zeidler et al., 2005a). By their very nature, socioscientific

issues “are open-ended, ill-structured problems which are typically contentious and

subject to multiple perspectives and solutions” (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b, p. 72). As

such, students negotiate these issues through the process of informal reasoning (i.e.,

the formation and evaluation of a position, in response to complex issues,

encompassing both cognitive and affective processes) (cf. formal reasoning, a

process of deduction, characterised by logic and mathematics) (Sadler, 2004a; Sadler

59

& Zeidler, 2005a). As argumentation is an expression of informal reasoning, the

development of students’ argumentation skills (i.e., “the discursive practices

associated with evaluating evidence, assessing alternatives, establishing the validity

of claims, and addressing counter positions” [Sadler & Donnelly, 2006, p. 1464]) is a

desirable goal of SSI education (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a).

The construction of shared social knowledge about SSI through argumentation

develops students’ scientific reasoning and problem-solving skills. Students’ moral

commitments and behaviour, and their emotions, frame their stance on moral issues,

thus teaching in this context necessitates attention and sensitivity to these issues,

when students are engaging in argumentation (Zeidler et al., 2005).

A number of studies have shown that emotion and affect are important, not only in

engaging students in the learning process, but also in the exploration and resolution

of socioscientific issues, when students are engaging in argumentation. While the

term ‘emotion’ appears to be undefined in the context of SSI education, a stronger

link between the role of emotion in learning about socioscientific issues would need

to draw upon the extensive literature on the sociology of emotions (e.g., Turner,

2002, 2007).

Zeidler and Schafer (1984) investigated mediating factors of moral reasoning,

producing the first empirical evidence that showed the importance of emotional

reactions to the resolution of socioscientific issues. A later study conducted by Sadler

and Zeidler (2004) explored how scientific content knowledge influenced the quality

and patterns of students’ informal reasoning, as they negotiated and resolved

controversial genetic engineering scenarios. The quality of informal reasoning was

assessed according to four criteria: intrascenario coherence (i.e., whether the

rationale supports the stated position); interscenario noncontradiction (i.e., whether

the positions and rationales from each of genetics scenarios were noncontradictory

with one another); counter position construction (i.e., whether the participant could

construct and explain a counterposition); and rebuttal construction (i.e., whether the

participant could construct coherent rebuttal) (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). Three

patterns of informal reasoning were examined in the study: rationalistic reasoning

(i.e., calculations based on reason, such as utilitarian principles and rational

60

assessments of limitations); emotive reasoning (i.e., the application of moral

emotions, such as sympathy and empathy–a genuine concern for others); and

intuitive reasoning (immediate, or ‘gut feeling’ reactions to the context of a scenario)

(Sadler & Zeidler, 2004).

Following completion of a quantitative test of genetics concepts, 30 students were

drawn from a sample of 269 undergraduate science students, and individually

interviewed regarding their responses to three gene therapy scenarios and three

cloning scenarios. The results of the study found that the quality of students’

informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues is related to their understanding

of the relevant content knowledge underlying the issue. Fewer informal reasoning

flaws were demonstrated by students with a strong understanding of genetics

concepts (i.e., in terms of intrascenario coherence, interscenario noncontradiction,

counter position and rebuttal construction), compared to students with a weaker

understanding of such concepts. While scientific content knowledge was found to

influence the quality of students’ informal reasoning, the study did not find any

correlation between content knowledge and patterns of informal reasoning; that is, a

students’ understanding of genetics concepts did not determine their use of

rationalistic, emotive and intuitive patterns of informal reasoning. This result

indicates that a rationalistic perspective does not result in higher quality reasoning

that emotive or intuitive perspectives, and, importantly, emotions and feelings are

valid and critical factors in the negotiation of socioscientific issues.

A follow-up study by Sadler and Zeidler (2005b) also found that college students

demonstrated evidence of emotive and intuitive informal reasoning (in addition to

rationalistic reasoning) in their negotiation and resolution of genetic engineering

issues. A qualitative study investigated patterns of informal reasoning and the role of

morality negotiating six genetic engineering scenarios. Semi-structured interviews

conducted with 30 college students who responded to the scenarios revealed that

their responses incorporated both cognition and affect. Participants in the study

actively displayed a sense of empathy and sympathy (i.e., moral emotions) towards

the fictitious characters that featured in the scenarios to which they were asked to

respond. In addition, most participants displayed an appreciation of at least some of

the moral implications of their decisions. These moral considerations were generally

61

interwoven within their patterns of informal reasoning. Sadler and Zeidler (2005b)

concluded that emotive reasoning was often equivalent to cognitive counterparts

such as rationalistic thinking, in terms of logical constructs such as internal

consistency and coherence. They argue that emotion and intuition, in addition to

reason, should be valued in the science classroom. This sentiment is echoed by

Lewis (2008) who asserts that “emotions [should be assigned] the same status as

cognitions. Just as cognitions can lead to emotions, emotions can lead to cognitions.

The theory implies no status difference” (Lewis, 2008, p. 745). Both studies by

Sadler and Zeidler (2004, 2005b) emphasise the importance of emotion and affect in

the negotiation and resolution of socioscientific issues.

Attention to cultural issues in the science classroom maximises the learning

opportunities of students from diverse cultures, developmental abilities and genders,

by recognising and acknowledging this diversity (Zeidler et al., 2005). Students are

recognised as moral agents, and their cultural experiences, beliefs and values impact

on the ways in which they approach socioscientific issues, and the decisions they

make in seeking resolution. At the same time, a classroom environment must be

nurtured in which students feel comfortable to express their diverse perspectives

(even if they conflict with canonical science), as mutual respect and tolerance of

dissident views is necessary if classroom discourse is to be productive (Zeidler et al.,

2005).

Notwithstanding the importance of the four pedagogical issues that comprise the SSI

framework, students must also understand the scientific content of an issue, and

process relevant information, before they can address moral and ethical

ramifications, and adopt a position in relation to a socioscientific issue (Sadler et al.,

2004; Sadler & Donnelly, 2006). It is intuitive that students must possess an

understanding of the underlying science in order to negotiate SSI and make informed

decisions, and an understanding of science content knowledge has been shown to

contribute to higher quality informal reasoning (Sadler & Donnelly, 2006; Sadler &

Zeidler, 2005b). As socioscientific issues are constantly evolving, students also

require the skills necessary to acquire and process new scientific knowledge in this

context of change. Socioscientific issues may be used as a medium for teaching and

learning science content, while at the same time, developing the aptitude required for

62

socioscientific decision-making (Sadler, 2004b; Sadler et al., 2007); however, unlike

traditional science curricula, knowledge acquisition represents only one dimension of

SSI education.

2.6 Implications for the Current Study

This chapter has described, and where appropriate, critically evaluated, research into

writing-to-learn science approaches, their potential for developing scientific literacy,

and assessment strategies. These approaches have informed the current study in a

number of ways. Firstly, diversified writing-to-learn science activities, including

those that involve imaginative or creative writing, and collaboration, can serve to

motivate students, whilst promoting conceptual understanding and developing

scientific literacy. Research into the utility of diversified writing types in the science

classroom is guided by a pedagogical perspective of the development of the literacies

of science that draws on cognitive theories of knowledge production (Prain, 2008).

The current study has adopted a pedagogical perspective, as it seeks to investigate

particular cognitive and communicative conditions that support knowledge

production and the development of attitudes in science through diversified writing

practices (Prain, 2008).

In his review of the theoretical practical considerations of researching effective

pedagogies for developing the literacies of science, Prain (2008) highlights a broad

acceptance of the pedagogical value of:

(a) an explicit focus on interpreting and constructing science texts; (b)

providing students with effective cognitive strategies (e.g., planning,

reviewing, and responding to feedback) to enable successful text

production; (c) teaching students the function and form of textual

features to show how reasoning, language practices, and meaning-

making are interconnected in doing and learning science; and (d)

constantly linking learning the disciplinary literacy of science to

students’ everyday discourses, values, and representational capacities. (p.

160)

63

While students’ utilisation of their vernacular language can cultivate the link

between their everyday discourses and learning the disciplinary literacy of science,

further research is necessary to clarify how this linkage is enacted for different

learners, and to conceptualise new learning contexts (Prain, 2008).

As stressing the rules of formal scientific language can serve to disengage students,

the BioStories’ project engages students in the writing of hybridised scientific

narratives, which requires them to draw on their vernacular language, culture and

lived experiences as a way of learning science, with an emphasis on interpreting and

constructing scientific texts (see also Section 3.3.1). Furthermore, research on the

utilisation of hybridised imaginative genres in the science classroom remains thin.

This study extends the body of knowledge regarding the implementation and

usefulness of creative writing-to-learn activities in the science classroom,

specifically, the writing of short stories that require students to merge scientific and

narrative genres in a meaningful way. To date, such an intervention has not been

carried out in the secondary school.

Secondly, the study will investigate the development of selected aspects of Year 9

students’ scientific literacy as a result of their participation in the project. As it has

been suggested that all dimensions of scientific literacy cannot be engaged in a single

writing task (Hand et al., 1999), this project will seek to develop selected aspects of

the students’ scientific literacy. As articulated in Section 2.2, Norris and Phillips

(2003) asserted that coming to know science requires competency in two notions of

scientific literacy, fundamental and derived senses of scientific literacy, both of

which can be developed in a writing-to-learn science context. Furthermore, PISA

defines scientific literacy in such a way that encompasses scientific contexts,

knowledge, competencies and attitudes (OECD, 2006) (refer Chapter 1).

Consequently, the 2006 PISA testing examined, among other things, students’ ability

to demonstrate “attitudes, values and motivations as they meet and respond to

science-related issues” (OECD, 2006, p. 20). For this reason, the current study

positions the development of attitudes toward science and science learning as a

valuable and desirable goal of scientific literacy education, in addition to the

development of conceptual science understandings, and the ability to write about

science. For this reason, the project focuses on three aspects of the students’

64

developing scientific literacy: their conceptual science understanding relating to

biosecurity (i.e., a derived sense of scientific literacy); the students’ ability to

transform scientific texts in order to compose stories about biosecurity (i.e., both

simple and expanded fundamental senses of scientific literacy) (Norris & Phillips,

2003); and their attitudes toward science and science learning. Prain (2008) asserts

that the identification of “appropriate methods for measuring and explaining change

in learner understandings and attitudes” (p. 164) remains an important research

challenge that is yet to be addressed. Assessment procedures will be developed in

order to assess validly and reliably selected aspects of the students’ fundamental and

derived senses of scientific literacy (as evidenced by their BioStories), and their

attitudes toward science and science learning (as evidenced by their responses to a

Likert-type instrument).

Section 2.1 presented two competing perspectives of the derived sense of scientific

literacy, cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. Sadler (2007) argues that a

cognitive perspective prioritises concept acquisition, supports a simple fundamental

sense of scientific literacy, as language is a medium through which knowledge can

be transmitted and communicated. Alternatively, from a sociocultural perspective,

the role of language as scientific practice is consistent with an expanded fundamental

sense of scientific literacy, as science is negotiated through written and spoken

language in a social context.

Notwithstanding the legitimacy of these two perspectives of derived scientific

literacy, together, they artificially dichotomise the role of language in the

development of scientific literacy. This study will seek to develop students’

conceptual understanding relating to biosecurity, and their attitudes toward science

and science learning (i.e., cognitive attributes), through the construction of

hybridised scientific genres (i.e., a medium through which scientific information is

communicated to their teachers and peers); however, the very construction of these

BioStories requires students to interpret and transform scientific information suitable

for communication in a new social context (this is elaborated in Section 3.3.1). In

this way, the role of language is not minimised, as Sadler (2007) suggests. Rather,

language is central to the learning and communication of science. Furthermore, in-

keeping with a socioscientific perspective, Sadler (2007) argues:

65

It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect all students to work in

apprenticeships that lead to professional science; however, in order to

learn science, students need more than just exposure to abstract concepts.

Students need to experience science concepts and tools in authentic

practice, where authentic practice represents developmentally appropriate

contexts that invoke similar processes as those used in research labs or

other settings in which “real science” takes place. (pp. 87-88)

It is unreasonable to prepare all students for professional science; however, at the

time same, emulating authentic practice as it takes place in ‘real science’ settings is

somewhat contradictory of this notion. Engaging students in the practices of the

scientific community as a means of developing their derived sense of scientific

literacy can serve to disengage students from science learning, and challenges the

notion of “science for all”. As articulated in Section 1.5, the view of scientific

literacy adopted in this study is primarily one of citizenship education. This study

proposes that students’ expanded fundamental and derived senses of scientific

literacy can be simultaneously developed in an authentic context in which language

plays a central role, but does not require the emulation of practices consistent with

the scientific community. The writing of BioStories offers a valuable opportunity to

develop these aspects of students’ scientific literacy, while overcoming the

dichotomy presented by the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives.

Thirdly, SSI education will serve as a theoretical framework for the current study. In

order to enhance the relevance of the learning activities for the students, the

BioStories’ project, and its associated resources (including the short story templates

that contextualise the students’ short stories), are centred on a contemporary

socioscientific issue, biosecurity. It offers students an opportunity to explore the

interrelationship of science, technology and society by writing about a social issue

that connects science with a societal problem. Through their participation in the

project, students will negotiate this socioscientific issue as a means of developing

their scientific literacy.

With reference to Figure 2.2, the socioscientific issue of biosecurity will serve as a

classroom discourse issue (cf. Zeidler et al., 2005) as a means of developing the Year

66

9 science students’ conceptual science understandings and attitudes toward science

and science learning, as a way of promoting their functional scientific literacy. In the

context of this study, biosecurity is an appropriate classroom discourse issue as the

writing of hybridised scientific narratives emphasises the critical role that discourse

about a socioscientific issue plays in the development of students’ scientific literacy.

As described in the previous section, the role of argumentation in negotiating

classroom discourse issues features heavily in the literature regarding SSI education.

An important feature of SSI education that distinguishes it from other theoretical

frameworks in science education is the emphasis placed on students’ moral

development, and the role emotion and affect in this context. In particular, Zeidler

and Schafer (1984) and Sadler and Zeidler (2005) found that emotions guided by

care and concern for others, such as empathy and sympathy, are important in the

exploration and resolution of socioscientific issues. As the current study will

emphasise students’ developing attitudes toward science and science learning (in

addition to conceptual science understandings), the moral and ethical issues relevant

to socioscientific decision-making in the context of biosecurity will not be

investigated.

Notwithstanding the value of argumentation in the context of classroom discourse

issues, and the role of empathy in resolving these issues, at the time of this study, the

researcher was unaware of any current literature that associates argumentation with

positive emotions or attitudes toward science; however, as described in Section 2.2.2,

diversified science writing tasks have been shown to motivate students, and impact

positively on their attitudes and engagement. Argumentation positions the student to

adopt an objectivist standpoint (i.e., that of an ‘outsider’). The construction of

narratives, however, positions the student as an ‘insider’, therefore, their experiences

are more likely to be perceived as interesting and personally relevant (i.e., more

‘real’). The current study will explore the role of students’ attitudes toward science

and science learning as they negotiate the socioscientific issue of biosecurity.

Importantly, it will also investigate an alternative discourse with which students can

engage in the context of classroom discourse issues, hybridised scientific narratives.

67

2.7 Summary

The current chapter critically reviewed the writing-to-learn science and SSI

education literature, and identified key issues in need of further research, which this

study seeks to address. In addition, issues associated with assessing scientific

literacy, and the role of digital technologies in the science classroom, were also

reviewed, which informed the design of the study. The following chapter will

examine the research design and procedures that were employed in order to seek

answers to the research questions articulated in Chapter 1, including methods of data

generation and analysis.

68

69

Chapter 3

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

3.1 Introduction

This study adopted a mixed methods design, generating both quantitative and

qualitative data, in order to answer the following research questions, articulated in

Section 1.7:




biosecurity demonstrate conceptual understanding of related scientific

concepts through their written artefacts and in interviews about the artefacts?

3. To what extent does students’ participation in the BioStories’ project

influence their attitudes toward science and science learning?

A mixed methods research design was adopted for the current study. This chapter

begins by describing the mixed methods, and justifying its suitability for answering

the proposed research questions (Section 3.2). Section 3.3 presents the research

procedures employed in this study, beginning with the study design and organisation

(Section 3.3.1), and an outline of the methods employed in order to generate data,

including how and when these methods were implemented (Section 3.3.4). Finally,

the approaches to data analysis that were employed, including quantitative and

qualitative approaches, are detailed in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, respectively, in order

to illustrate how answers to the proposed research questions were investigated.

3.2 Research Design

This study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods in order to illuminate

and gain a deep understanding of the students’ learning experiences as they

constructed hybridised short stories about biosecurity. Observing and interacting

with the participants in the naturalistic settings of their classrooms can only gain

such in-depth perspectives. Experimental methods impose a limited worldview on

the subjects, thereby destroying valuable data by coding the social world (Marshall

70

& Rossman, 2006). Furthermore, Erickson (1998) described the ‘essential’ purpose

of qualitative research, which is to document everyday events and identify their

meanings for those who participate in them and witness them.

In spite of scepticism regarding the universal adoption of quantitative methods in the

social sciences, “it may sometimes be sensible to include certain simple

quantifications” (Avlesson & Sköldberg, 2000, p. 4). Furthermore, although

qualitative methods are ideally suited to seeking answers to the proposed research

questions, “there is nothing inherent in the epistemologies of qualitative inquiry that

prohibits the use of numbers as data” (Schwandt, 2000, p. 206). The complementary

use of both qualitative and quantitative methods characterise mixed methods research

designs. This pragmatic approach recognises that together, both quantitative and

qualitative techniques can provide a deeper understanding of social phenomena, than

either approach would individually (Fraser, 1984; Fraser & Tobin, 1989; Hayles,

1986; Osborne, 1987; Reichardt & Cook, 1979; Toulmin, 1986). Mixed methods

designs offer the researcher great flexibility, and allow the research questions

themselves to direct the approaches to data collection and analysis.

This study has adopted a triangulation mixed methods design, in which both

qualitative and quantitative data were generated and merged to develop a deeper

understanding of the research problem (Creswell, 2005). Triangulation designs

combine the strengths of both types of data, in that quantitative data enables the

identification of trends that can be generalised across the sample population, while

qualitative data facilitates a deeper understanding of the context (Creswell, 2005).

Furthermore, there is current widespread recognition of the need for mixed method

approaches in the research of developing the literacies of science (Prain, 2008). In

this study, quantitative analysis of the students’ written artefacts, and their attitudes

toward science and science learning were complemented by qualitative techniques

(namely, a detailed case study, and student and teacher interviews) that probed the

students’ conceptual science understandings and particular aspects of their attitudes

toward learning science. Procedures for designing and carrying out case studies

described by Stake (1995) were adopted for this study.

71

3.3 Research Procedures

The following sections examine the factors that shaped the design and organisation

of the current study, including preliminary research, pedagogical considerations, the

school context and study participants, and methods of data generation.

3.3.1 Organisation of the Study

The organisation of the current study was principally informed by the preliminary

BioStories’ study (Ritchie et al., 2008b), which was carried out with Years 6 and 7

students. Prior to this study, the BioStories’ project had not been applied in the

secondary science classroom, specifically, in lower-secondary classes where student

disengagement with school science continues to be problematic (refer Chapter 1). In

the present study, these procedures were refined further and applied to eight intact

classes of Year 9 science students at a co-educational P-12 college. Other innovative

features include the adoption of SSI education as a theoretical framework, and the

development of a new procedure for assessing the level of scientific literacy

demonstrated by the students’ BioStories. Each of these features is described in more

detail later in the current chapter.

As in the preliminary BioStories’ project, the students were required to write three

short stories. The first two stories were written in order to complete a given scenario

(i.e., short story template) (Appendix A). The third and culminating story was

composed so as to incorporate elements from the students’ preceding work in order

to complete the sequence of stories. This three-part structure has been retained,

because an earlier study by Hand et al. (2001) found that Year 9 and 10 students who

undertook a sequence of two connected writing tasks were able to review and

reinforce their conceptual science understandings while remaining engaged with the

topic, due to a lack of perceived repetition.

The preliminary BioStories’ project was designed as an online project, and this

aspect of the study was also retained. In addition to making learning broadly

available (Barab & Leuhmann, 2003), the World Wide Web can facilitate

collaborative writing and writing-to-learn, as it allows students to communicate to

their readerships and make them more aware of their audience; enhances motivation,

increases their written output, and “broadens their minds” (Hartley & Tynjälä, 2001,

72

p. 171). Furthermore, the learning potential of the web-based resources have been

focused through the development of a website that has transformed them into

cognitive tools; that is, a computer-available resource (the BioStories’ website) that

presents focused information targeted at a particular audience (Year 9 science

students), with specific learning goals that relate to the topic of study (an awareness

and understanding of scientific issues and concepts pertaining to biosecurity)

(Songer, 2007).

It was intended that the BioStories’ project could implemented and completed within

a single school term, with appropriate teacher scaffolding. This would prevent

classes from being constrained to a single topic or project for months at a time, and

allow BioStories to be integrated into the school’s work program, without taking

time away from other units of study.

The students in the current study participated in the project over a seven-week period

in Term 2, 2008 (i.e., May to July). The entire cohort of Year 9 students undertook

the BioStories’ project at the school’s request, as they wanted to ensure that students

in all classes participated in the same curriculum (N=208). An information pack and

consent form was distributed to each student to inform his/her parents/guardians of

the BioStories’ project (Appendix B). Consent was sought from all of the participants

and their families to allow any data collected from each child’s work during the

project to be used in the study.

The project was embedded in an 11-week Life and Living1 unit entitled The Nature

of Things, which included elements of ecology (i.e., food chains, food webs,

adaptations and evolution), human reproduction and genetics. The researcher

proposed the development of a biosecurity unit that aligned better with the

BioStories’ project; however, the school’s science department felt that the content of

the existing unit was valuable, and asked that it remain unchanged. The project was

therefore embedded within it. Four 50-minute lessons were allocated to BioStories 1 The Queensland Study Authority’s Years 1-10 Science syllabus organises a number of key science concepts according to five strands: Life and Living, Science and Society, Earth and Beyond, Energy and Change, and Natural and Processed Materials. Through their engagement with the Life and Living strand, students will come to understand the characteristics, diversity and functioning of organisms, and the interactions between living and non-living components of the environment (QSA, 1999).

73

over a four-week period. No class time was provided during the fifth week, as a

science examination for the Life and Living unit was scheduled. All science class

time in the sixth and seventh weeks were allocated to BioStories (i.e., six lessons), as

the students had completed their assessment for the unit.

3.3.2 School Context

Alexander High (a pseudonym) is a co-educational urban school in North

Queensland. It currently caters for approximately 2000 students from Prep through to

Year 12. The school community consists of students from neighbouring suburbs, and

come from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Student mobility is relatively low over any one year. The majority of the transient

population consists of students whose families are employed by the Defense Forces.

Since 2000, the school’s apparent retention rate has remained high, at approximately

90%. The school population continues to expand due to nearby suburban

development.

Alexander High has a three-tier curriculum structure, including Junior School (Prep-

Year 4), Middle School (Years 5-9), and Senior School (Years 10-12). The school

offers both academic and vocational subjects. The curriculum in the junior and

middle schools is organised around the eight nationally agreed Key Learning Areas

(KLAs): Mathematics, Science, English, The Arts, Study of Society and the

Environment (SOSE), Technology, Health and Physical Education (HPE), and

Languages other than English (LOTE). At the time of the study, the curriculum was

based on an outcomes approach to learning, which assumes that learning is

progressive through various levels, 1-6. Students were expected to have achieved

Level 6 outcomes by the end of Year 10.

Year 8 students study a program of nine subjects, to assist their subject selection in

Year 9. Students elect two subjects from the LOTE, Arts, Business or Technology

KLAs, in addition to Religion, English, Mathematics, Science, Information and

Communication Technology (ICT), HPE and Civics and Citizenship (SOSE). This

course of study is followed for three semesters (18 months). To ease students’

through the transition from Year 10 to 11, the final semester of Year 10 is dedicated

74

to ‘Transition Studies’, whereby students have the opportunity to sample senior

curriculum offerings to help make informed decisions about their senior subject

choices.

The school’s science department offers junior science in Years 8 and 9, and Physics,

Chemistry, Biology, and Multi-strand Science in Years 11 and 12. In Year 10,

students can elect to study a general science course, or introductory courses to senior

science subjects. The science department has 11 regular teaching staff and is well-

resourced with five laboratories and two dedicated laboratory technicians, and a

student:computer ratio of approximately 5:1.

At the time of this study, there were eight Year 9 science classes at the school, with a

total of 208 students. Each student completed the same questionnaire on two

different occasions, as described in Section 3.3.4.1. It generated data regarding the

students’ interest and enjoyment in learning about science; their capacity for

particular science-related tasks; their perceived personal and general value of

science; familiarity with biosecurity issues; and their attitudes toward biosecurity.

From these eight science classes, one class was selected as the focus of a detailed

case study, and the learning experiences of these students were followed in greater

detail.

3.3.3 Class Case Study

A single science class was selected as the focus of a detailed case study, based on a

range of performances demonstrated in the BioQuiz, and discussions with the class

teachers. The case study class was investigated in order to answer questions

regarding the development of the students’ conceptual understanding, their attitudes

toward science and science learning, and their interest and enjoyment over the course

of the project.

Mr. Peters (a pseudonym) was the case study class’ science teacher. At the time of

the study, he had been a science teacher for nine years, eight of which were served at

Alexander High. Mr. Peters teaches Year 8-10 Science, and Chemistry in Years 11-

12. He has been the Middle School Science Coordinator at the school for two years.

75

Mr. Peters employs both teacher- and student-centred strategies in his day-to-day

teaching. In a student-centred environment, he ensures that students are guided

appropriately and scaffolded, where necessary, to maximise the learning potential of

the activity. He enjoys utilising hand-on, practical science activities and

investigations regularly in his classrooms, and incorporates the use of Information

Communication Technologies in both teaching and learning activities. When

engaging students in science learning, Mr. Peters draws upon an inquiry-orientated

teaching and learning model, the 5Es (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and

Evaluate), which supports students’ conceptual development by utilising their prior

knowledge to make sense of their experiences in science, and fostering connections

between these and new information (Australian Academy of Science, 2008). Within

his classrooms, Mr. Peters has established an environment in which a strong work

ethic, independent learning, individual responsibility and accountability, and

working to one’s potential are valued and emphasised. For this reason, he is highly

respected by both his colleagues at the school, and his students.

Mr. Peters’s Year 9 science class comprises of 10 boys and 16 girls. All are 13-14

years of age. The science classes at the Alexander High are not streamed according

to previous academic results; therefore, the selected class was representative of the

entire cohort of students in terms of academic performance and interests. The

students have a diverse range of interests, and many participate regularly in extra-

curricular activities such as cultural, academic and sporting activities. None of the

students speak English as a second language, or present with learning difficulties.

The science achievements of the class are varied. Nine students are at the expected

level of achievement in science (i.e., a C2 grade), while nine are above the expected

level, and eight are below. Mr. Peters describes his class as “challenging” to work

with, due to the varying levels of maturity of the students, and their diverse work

ethic. For this reason, he prefers to adopt a more teacher-centred approach with these

students, as he feels that they work more productively in a structured environment.

2 Student assessment is rated on a scale of A to E, where A is the very best grade attainable for any given task, and E is the lowest grade. C represents the expected level of achievement (i.e., A and B are above the expected level of achievement, while D and E are below the expected level).

76

As described in the previous section, the students in the case study class (as with all

students across classes) completed the BioQuiz prior to completing the BioStories’

tasks, and upon their completion, in order to elicit attitudinal information. In

addition, the short stories composed by these students were analysed to gain an

understanding of the development of each child’s scientific literacy over the course

of the project. An in-depth understanding of scientific literacy was gained both

quantitatively (refer Section 3.4.1) and qualitatively (refer Section 3.4.2). While all

students completed the BioQuiz as part of the school program, only data from

consenting students and parents were analysed for the purpose of conducting the

research.

3.3.4 Methods of Data Generation

Multiple methods of data generation were employed in this study in order to source

both quantitative and qualitative data from different perspectives. Within qualitative

research, there are two principal ways of generating data: looking and asking

(Erickson, 1998). In the current study, qualitative data were sourced from semi-

structured in-depth interviews and classroom observations. Student attitudinal

surveys sourced quantitative data, and students’ written artefacts (i.e., BioStories)

were used to generate both qualitative and quantitative data. A description of each

data generating technique employed in this study is presented below.

3.3.4.1 Student Questionnaire

An attitudinal questionnaire (i.e., BioQuiz) was administered on two occasions:

before the project, and upon completion of the writing activities. The Likert-style

instrument consists of 29 items organised in six subscales that examine the students’

interest in learning about science; their capacity for particular science-related tasks

(science self-efficacy); their perceived personal and general value of science (i.e.,

two separate subscales); their familiarity with biosecurity issues; and their attitudes

toward biosecurity. The BioQuiz was adapted from the PISA Student Questionnaire

(OECD, 2006) for use in the preliminary BioStories’ project (Ritchie et al., 2008b).

A detailed account of the development of the BioQuiz subscales and validation of the

instrument is presented in Chapter 4.

77

3.3.4.2 Student Artefacts

The students’ short stories were written in three phases (i.e., Parts A, B and C). At

each phase, the stories composed by the case study class, which were uploaded to the

BioStories’ website, were read and analysed in order to gain an insight into the

development of their understanding of the topic throughout the project (Figure 3.1).

Matrices were developed specifically to assess the students’ developing scientific

literacy, as evidenced by their BioStories (see Chapter 4). The students’ stories were

also used to identify issues and questions for the interviews.

3.3.4.3 Semi-structured In-depth Interviews

Semi-structured interviews are not constrained by a specific interview schedule;

however, the researcher guides the conversation to ensure that the focus remains

relevant to the problem (Burns, 2000). In-depth interviews may be considered as

“repeated face-to-face encounters between the researcher and informants directed

towards understanding informants’ perspectives on their lives, experiences or

situations as expressed in their own words” (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984, p. 77).

Figure 3.1. An example of a student’s Part A BioStory, uploaded to the BioStories’ website.

78

Interviews with each student in the case study class and the teachers of the eight

science classes commenced two weeks after completion of the project, due to the

vacation at the end of Term 2. Teacher interviews were conducted within the first

week of Term 3, while student interviews continued over a four-week period, during

school lunchtimes, so as not to interfere with their science lessons (as per their

teacher’s request). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis

(refer Section 3.4.2.2 for transcription procedures).

Classroom observations and reviews of the students’ short stories by the researcher

were used to identify questions and issues for exploration in the interviews. Although

the interviews were semi-structured, a number of guiding questions were devised.

For students, the interviews explored what they learnt through writing their stories.

Specifically, they examined the development of their conceptual science

understandings, which aspects of the project they enjoyed the most or least, what

they found challenging, and their experiences in merging science with fiction. For

teachers, the interviews explored their perceived value of the intervention for the

students, and their experiences in implementing the project.

Although the credibility of data generated from qualitative interviews may be

questioned due their lack of ‘objectivity’ and inherent human interaction, this may

be considered a strength, as interviews capture the subject’s perspective of the

phenomenon under study as it unfolds, and enables them to formulate their own

conceptions of reality in a dialogue with the researcher (Kvale, 1996; Marshall &

Rossman, 2006). Furthermore, it can be argued that interviews are neither objective

nor subjective, but rather, intersubjective; they are a valuable way of obtaining

descriptions of the subjects’ lived worlds (Kvale, 1996). In-depth interviews are

suitable in the context of the current study as they can be used to gather more detail

about the teachers’ and students’ experiences of the project, than would otherwise be

gained through participant observation alone (Burns, 2000).

In order to enhance the validity of the findings drawn from the study, students and

teachers were consulted for the purposes of member checking, to ensure that

interpretations of their earlier interviews were fair and representative (Creswell,

2005).

79

3.3.4.4 Field Journal

Throughout the project, the researcher maintained a field journal in order to record

classroom observations, and other thoughts, feelings or hunches experienced as the

project unfolded. The observations recorded in the field journal also provided broad

insights into the learning environments of the classes in the study, and the complex

interactions between the students. It was anticipated that such observations would

provide insights as to how students negotiate and construct understanding, and

decide what knowledge is worthy of inclusion in their stories. These data primarily

supplemented the student and teacher interviews, and were used to identify issues

and questions for investigation in the interviews.

The role adopted by the researcher in the classroom settings was that of participant

observer. Although the boundary between participant and non-participant

observation is somewhat clouded, strictly speaking, non-participant observation

occurs when the observer is hidden from the subjects’ sight (Burns, 2000). In

contrast, the observer-as-participant role allows the researcher to interact “casually

and non-directively” with the subjects under observation (Angrosino & Mays de

Perez, 2000, p. 677). The researcher’s role in the setting was limited to the extent

that she did not adopt the role of a student in any of the classes, but rather, interacted

casually with them, as suggested above, by asking questions about their activities so

as to illuminate their interactions and experiences. These interactions guided

subsequent observations and identified foci for further exploration during interview.

3.3.4.5 Summary of Methods of Data Generation

A summary of the data generation methods discussed in the foregoing sections and

their utilisation in the study is presented in Table 3.1.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data analysis was carried out to measure attitudinal shifts across all

classes that participated in the study, and the development of scientific literacy in the

case study class. The analysis techniques that were employed are described in detail

in the following section. Qualitative analysis of the student and teacher interviews,

and classroom observations, were used to complement and gain a deeper

understanding of the quantitative findings (refer Section 3.4.2).

80

Table 3.1. A summary of data generation methods employed in the study. Method Focus Timing

Field journal Observations across classes, and within the case study class.

Throughout implementation of the project at school.

Semi-structured in-depth interviews Student and teacher interviews. Upon completion of the project.

Student artefacts Short stories written by all students in the case study class.

Stories submitted at three stages during the project.

Student questionnaire All students across all classes. Two occasions: before and upon completion of the project.

3.4.1 Quantitative Approach to Data Analysis

The primary objective of quantitative data analysis was to understand better the

development of the students’ scientific literacy (i.e., conceptual science

understanding, and attitudes toward science and science learning). As described in

the previous section, qualitative analysis of the students’ stories at three stages

during the project provided an in-depth understanding of the development of the

scientific literacy. These data, as well as the results of the BioQuiz, were analysed

quantitatively to illuminate any trends in this development, and that of the students’

attitudes. The quantitative methods employed are described in the following sections.

3.4.1.1 Analysis of Student Artefacts

Written artefacts (i.e., BioStories) authored by the students in the case study class

were analysed for evidence of their developing scientific literacy. Parts A, B and C

of the BioStories’ tasks, along with a sample of their writing prior to their

participation in the BioStories’ project (so that comparisons can be made pre- and

post-intervention), were the subjects of analysis.

In order to make judgments about students’ developing scientific literacy, as

evidenced by their writing, a number of matrices were developed to facilitate this

(refer Chapter 4). Derived scientific literacy matrices were used to examine the

volume and accuracy of science content relating to biosecurity in the stories

(Appendix E), while a writing matrix was used to produce a score that aims to reflect

the quality of the students’ writing (Norris & Phillips, 2003) (Appendix F). The sum

of the derived scientific literacy and writing scores produced a fundamental scientific

literacy score for Parts A, B and C that indicates how well the students could write a

81

story about biosecurity. Both the derived and fundamental scientific literacy scores

were analysed for any significant changes.

In order to examine the extent to which students’ scientific literacy was enhanced

through their participation in the BioStories’ writing tasks, three research questions

were investigated:

1. Were there significant improvements in students’ derived scientific

literacy scores across Parts A, B and C of their BioStories?

2. Were there significant improvements in students’ derived scientific

literacy scores from their pre-writing sample, to Parts A, B and C of their

BioStories?

3. Were there significant improvements in students’ fundamental scientific

literacy scores across Parts A, B and C of their BioStories?

A number of dependent-samples t tests were performed in order to identify any

significant differences between the mean derived and fundamental scientific literacy

scores obtained from the BioStories written by the case study class.

3.4.1.2 Analysis of Student Questionnaire

As discussed in Chapter 2, attitudes toward science may be considered an aspect of

scientific literacy. The BioQuiz was administered to assess students’ attitudes toward

science and science learning both pretest and posttest. There is a long history within

the literature of parametric analyses of Likert scales, including those that relate to

attitudinal testing (e.g., Fraser, 1981; Gogolin & Swartz, 1992; Simpson & Troost,

1982); therefore, parametric techniques will be applied in the analysis of the BioQuiz

data. Changes in mean scores for each of the six subscales were analysed using the

related-samples t test, using SPSS. The related-samples t test is appropriate in this

context, as the study employed a within-subjects design, testing only a single sample

(i.e., consenting students from the entire cohort) (Burns, 2000).

Analyses of BioQuiz data generated from the entire cohort of Year 9 science students

were conducted to determine the reliability of the instrument (see Chapter 4), and to

82

examine the extent to which students’ participation in the BioStories’ project

influenced their responses. In order to answer this question, the following two

research questions were investigated:

1. Were there significant interaction effects for class and gender that influenced

students’ BioQuiz responses over the course of the project?

2. To what extent did the BioStories’ project enhance students’ interest in

learning science, familiarity with biosecurity issues, attitudes toward

biosecurity, and their perceived self-efficacy with science-related tasks, and

personal and general value of science?

It was necessary to establish whether the data for the entire cohort could be treated

the same by investigating possible interaction effects for class and gender (i.e.,

Research Question 1), prior to addressing Research Question 2. These findings

would indicate whether the project had been implemented consistently across

classes, and whether there were differences in the ways in which boys and girls

responded to the BioQuiz.

Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed in order to identify

any significant interaction effects between the six dependent variables in the BioQuiz

(i.e., interest in learning science, familiarity with biosecurity issues, attitudes toward

biosecurity, perceived self-efficacy with science-related tasks, and the students’

perceived personal and general value of science), two independent variables (i.e.,

time pretest to posttest, and the BioQuiz subscales), and two co-variables (i.e., class

and gender) that would warrant further statistical investigation. Univariate analyses

of variance (ANOVA) were conducted as follow-up tests on each dependent

variable, and a number of t tests were performed in order to investigate further the

significant interactions identified by the univariate tests, and their impact on BioQuiz

scores.

3.4.2 Qualitative Approach to Data Analysis

Audio recordings of interviews with the case study students and all science teachers

participating in the study served as the primary source of qualitative data as they

83

provided insight into the students’ conceptual science understandings, and their

perceptions of learning science through the writing of BioStories. Observational data

from a field journal were used to supplement the interview data by providing

supporting or contradictory evidence, where appropriate, and judgments about the

students’ expanded fundamental sense of scientific literacy were made by observing

whether they were able to transform scientific information meaningfully in order to

construct hybridised scientific narratives.

The following sections will outline how the interview data were analysed

qualitatively. The primary purpose of these data were to complement the quantitative

analyses of the BioQuiz and BioStories; specifically, by examining the students’

conceptual science understandings, and their attitudes toward science learning (i.e.,

their perceptions and experiences of the project, including specific attitudes toward

the writing tasks and learning science through writing BioStories). This combination

of both qualitative and quantitative data in order to gain a deeper understanding of

the research problem typifies triangulation mixed methods designs (Creswell, 2005).

3.4.2.1 Analysis of Interview Data

Audio recordings of both teacher and student interviews were transcribed in order to

facilitate their analysis. Transcripts “are artificial constructions from an oral to a

written mode of communication” (Kvale, 1996, p. 163); therefore, transcription itself

is an interpretative process. The transcription procedures adopted in the current study

are described in the following section.

Silvermann (2000) describes two approaches to the analysis of interview data. A

realist approach assumes that the subject’s responses represent an external reality. A

narrative approach views interview data as stories that describe the respondent’s

world. The former approach was adopted in the current study where the students’

responses will be viewed as offering direct access to their experiences during the

project.

Claims arising from the data were developed by way of analytic induction; that is,

the process by which “one continues reviewing evidence until all relevant data have

been identified and compared. One then goes on to another assertion or chain of

84

assertions” (Erickson, 1998, p. 1164). Roth (2005) describes this process in the

following way: The researcher puts forward a tentative assertion when he or she

believes a significant event can be observed in the data (e.g., in video-recorded

interactions). This tentative assertion is fully explored by re-visiting the data as often

as required. Additional data (e.g., observational data from a field journal) may be

explored to check the extent to which they confirm or disconfirm the assertion,

before it is reformulated until it is representative of the data. This process is then

repeated as many times as is necessary for any subsequent assertions made.

3.4.2.2 Transcription Procedures

When transcribing data, it is important to include procedures to describe both what

was spoken, and how it was said, so that features such as pauses and intonations are

not lost. To ensure that consistency of interpretation was maintained, the following

transcriptions procedures were adapted from Psathas (1995):

Emphasis noted by using italics for parts of an utterance that are stressed.

Semi-colons indicate words that are stretched (e.g., so:::).

Square brackets indicate speech that is overlapped. Double brackets are used

when utterances start simultaneously.

Punctuation indicates pitch: a question mark (?) indicates a question, or

rising intonation; a comma (,) indicates continuing intonation; an animated

tone is indicated by ‘!’.

‘=’ indicates latching (i.e., no interval between the end of a prior and the

start of a next part of talk).

Numbers in parentheses indicates in seconds the length of an interval [e.g.,

(2) represents a two-second pause]. Longer un-timed pauses are represented

by ((gap)).

Cut off indicated with a single dash (e.g., bu-).

Incomplete sentences are followed by ‘…’.

Descriptions of phenomena are enclosed in double parentheses [e.g.,

((cough)); ((telephone rings))].

Other than timed intervals, utterances in parentheses are in doubt. If single

parentheses are empty, no hearing was achieved.

85

3.4.2.3 Coding the Data

Interview transcripts were coded qualitatively. Coding procedures described by

Creswell (1994) and Tesch (1990) were adopted in the current study. A preliminary

exploratory analysis was carried out on all transcripts, by reading them in their

entirety several times in order to gain a general sense of the data (Creswell, 2005).

The transcripts were then divided into text segments and labeled in such a way that

best represented the underlying meaning. These codes were reviewed several times

in relation to the data in order to identify key themes. Two preliminary coding

categories were used in the study, in accordance with the research questions

articulated at the beginning of this chapter: conceptual understanding, and students’

perceptions of the project. As the purpose of coding was to reveal themes that would

help to develop an in-depth understanding of the students’ experiences in order to

answer the proposed research questions, more specific codes were generated as the

study progressed. Ultimately, nine codes were generated. Three codes related to the

students’ conceptual understanding; that is, deeper, comparable, and superficial or

problematic understanding (in comparison to understandings articulated in the

students’ BioStories). Six codes pertained to the students’ perceptions of the project,

and of their participation in the project: writing differently in science, stimulating

imagination, student-centred pedagogy, engaging diverse learners, accessing

information technologies, and issues arising from project design and implementation.

Excerpt 3.4.1 serves as an example of the code writing differently in science.

Examples that illustrate all nine codes may be found in Appendix C.

Excerpt 3.4.1

Researcher What did you like about BioStories?

Student 13 Making up a story in science. You never get to do that.

Researcher Okay, so how does this type of writing compare to other writing you’ve done in science?

Student 13 Heaps different, because we usually do formal reports after we do experiments. This was totally different, writing stories.

86

3.5 Summary

In order to explore Year 9 students’ learning experiences as they authored hybridised

scientific narratives, a triangulation mixed methods research design was chosen to

generate both qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitative techniques facilitated

more coarse-grained analysis in order to ascertain all students’ attitudes toward

science and science learning over the course of the project, as well as illuminate any

trends in the development of scientific literacy in the case study class through

quantitative analysis of their BioStories. Qualitative research methods were

employed in relation to a single case study class, in order to assess developments in

the students’ scientific literacy, as demonstrated by their written artefacts, and

develop a deeper understanding of their attitudes toward science learning over the

course of the project. In order to clarify the procedures described in the preceding

chapter, a summary of the key phases of the study, including project implementation,

data generation and data analysis, and their timing, is presented in Table 3.2. The

following chapter describes the development of the instrumentation used in this

study: the BioQuiz, and the BioStories’ matrices.

Table 3.2. A summary of the key phases of the study, their timing, and the relevant procedures employed. Phase of Study Timing Procedures Refinement of resources.

December 2007- April 2008.

The BioStories’ website (specifically, the BioStories’ tasks and their associated resources) and the BioQuiz were refined following the preliminary BioStories’ project (Ritchie et al., 2008b).

Project implementation in science classes.

12th May-27th June, 2008. Eight in-tact science classes participated in the BioStories’ project (N=208).

Data generation.

Pre- and post-intervention (i.e., week beginning 12th May, and 23rd June, respectively).

During BioStories’ lessons (12th May- 27th June, 2008).

DATA SOURCES Student questionnaire: All participants completed the BioQuiz at the onset of the project, during their first BioStories’ lesson, and immediately upon completion of the project, during their final lesson (i.e., following the submission of their Part C BioStories).

Field journal: The experiences of a single case study class (i.e., Mr. Peters’s science class) were followed throughout the project (N=26). A field journal was maintained during project implementation to record classroom observations.

87

Phase of Study Timing Procedures Part A: Completed week

beginning 26th May, 2008. Part B: Completed

week beginning 16th June, 2008. Part C: Completed week beginning 23rd June, 2008.

Post-intervention. Student interviews: 7th July-1st August, 2008. Teacher interviews:

7th-11th July, 2008.

Student artefacts: The BioStories authored by students in the case study class (i.e., Parts A, B and C) were downloaded from the BioStories’ website, and analysed for evidence of their developing scientific literacy. A sample of the students’ scientific writing prior to their participation in the study was also analysed. Semi-structured in-depth interviews: Consenting students in the case study class (N=24), as well as all participating science teachers (N=7) participated in the interview process.

Data analysis August 2008- February 2009.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES Student questionnaire: Consenting students’ responses to the BioQuiz (pretest and posttest, N=152) were analysed using related samples t tests to examine how their participation in the project influenced their responses to the items.

Student artefacts: The BioStories authored by students in the case study class, and a sample of their earlier writing, were analysed using a number of specifically-designed matrices (i.e., derived scientific literacy and writing matrices). The matrices produced numerical scores that served as an indicator of students’ simple and expanded fundamental sense of scientific literacy (Norris & Phillips, 2003). These scores were analysed for any significant changes across the BioStories’ tasks using dependent-samples t tests.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSES Semi-structured in-depth interviews: Interview data generated by the case study students were analysed for evidence of their conceptual science understandings, and their perceptions of their participation in the project. Interview data generated by the science teachers were analysed for their perceptions of the project, their students’ experiences, and the value of the intervention for their students.

Field journal: Observational data generated in the case study classroom were used to supplement the interview data by providing supporting or contradictory evidence.

Student artefacts: Observations of the BioStories authored by the case study class were used to make judgments about the students’ expanded fundamental sense of scientific literacy (Norris & Phillips, 2003).

88

89

Chapter 4

INSTRUMENTATION

4.1 Introduction

The following chapter describes the development and validation of an instrument

that examined selected aspects of the students’ attitudes toward science and science

learning (i.e., the BioQuiz), and a range of instruments used to assess the BioStories

written by the students in the case study class for evidence of their developing

scientific literacy (i.e., the derived scientific literacy and writing matrices). The data

generated by these instruments comprised the quantitative component of this study.

Section 4.2 details the conceptual origin of the BioQuiz, and the establishment of

instrument reliability and validity; including a summary of the results of principle

component and confirmatory factor analyses. Section 4.3 examines the development

of the matrices that facilitated quantitative analyses of the students’ BioStories, as

well as the establishment of the reliability and validity of these instruments.

4.2 Student Questionnaire

An instrument that measures selected aspects of students’ attitudes towards science

and science learning (i.e., BioQuiz) was administered to the Year 9 students in order

to gauge any shift that could be attributed to their participation in the writing

activities. The Likert-style instrument consists of 29 items within six subscales that

examine the students’ interest in learning about science; their self-efficacy for

particular science-related tasks; their perceived general and personal value of science

(i.e., two scales); their familiarity with biosecurity issues; and their attitudes toward

biosecurity (Table 4.1). The BioQuiz was adapted from the PISA Student

Questionnaire (OECD, 2006) for use in the preliminary BioStories’ project (Ritchie,

et al., 2008b). The students responded to each item using a four-point scale specific

to each subscale (Figure 4.1). These responses were then scored on a scale of 1-4, so

that higher scores represented more positive responses, as shown in Figure 4.1.

4.2.1 Conceptual Origin

Many of the test items have been directly sourced from the PISA 2006 student

questionnaire, which includes questions regarding students’ views on scientific

issues, the environment, and science-related careers. Subscales 1-4 of the BioQuiz

90

were taken, or adapted from, Questions 16, 17 and 18 in Section 3 of the PISA test,

Your Views on Science. Items belonging to Subscales 3 and 4 appear as they do in

PISA, as they examine students’ general attitudes toward the relevance of science.

Subscale Scoring

1 2 3 4

1 Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree

2 I could not

do this I would struggle to do this on my own

I could do this with a bit of effort

I could do this easily



5 I have never heard of

this

I have heard of this but I would not be

able to explain what it is really about

I know something about this and could explain the general

issue

I am familiar with this and I would be able to explain this

well

6 No interest Low interest Medium interest High interest Figure 4.1. The scoring of student responses applied in the analysis of the BioQuiz.

Items 1a, 1b, 1d and 1e of the BioQuiz correspond to the same items in Question 16

of the PISA test. Item 1c (I am happy doing science problems) was changed to I am

happy writing about science, as the BioStories’ project required students to author

short stories about science, as opposed to solve science problems.

Items 2a, 2b, 2c and 2e were adapted from Items a, b, c and f, respectively, in

Question 17 of the PISA test. In these cases, only the topics of the questions were

changed, so that they were relevant to biosecurity. For example, Item a in PISA,

Recognise the science question that underlies a newspaper report on a health issue,

was changed to Recognise the science that underlies a newspaper report on an

environmental issue. Item 2d (Predict how changes to an environment will affect the

survival of certain species) remained unchanged due to its existing relevance.

Subscale 5 of the BioQuiz was adapted from Question 22 in Section 4 of the PISA

test, The Environment. Once again, the topics of the original questions were changed

so that they relate to biosecurity. For example, Item 5e, The possible consequences of

introducing exotic species, was adapted from The consequences of clearing forests

for other land use.

91

Table 4.1. Subscales and items of the BioQuiz.

Subscale Item no. Item 1. Interest and

enjoyment. 1a I generally have fun when I am learning science topics. 1b I like reading about science. 1c I am happy writing about science. 1d I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in science. 1e I am interested in learning about science.

2. Capacity for particular science-related tasks (self-efficacy).

2a Identify the science that underlies a newspaper report on an environmental issue.

2b Explain why food and other plant or animal products should not be brought into Australia by international travelers without declaring them to airport authorities.

2c Describe how the spread of animal and crop diseases can be controlled.

2d Predict how changes to an environment will affect the survival of certain species.

2e Interpret the scientific information provided on a government website about how an introduced animal species can affect the survival of some native species.

3. Personal relevance and use of science.

3a Some concepts in science help me see how I relate to other people.

3b I will use science in many ways when I am an adult. 3c Science is very relevant to me. 3d I find that science help me to understand the things around me.

3e When I leave school there will be many opportunities for me to use science.

4. General relevance and use of science.

4a Advances in science and technology usually improve people’s living conditions.

4b Science is important for helping us to understand the natural world.

4c Advances in science and technology usually help improve the economy.

4d Science is valuable to society. 4e Advances in science and technology usually bring social benefits.

5. Familiarity with biosecurity issues.

5a Threats to biodiversity. 5b The need for biosecurity. 5c The role of Quarantine regulations. 5d Why vectors need to be identified to control animal disease. 5e The possible consequences of introducing exotic species.

6. Attitudes toward biosecurity.

6a Knowing more about how introduced species can threaten eco-systems in Australia.

6b Learning about exotic species that have already entered Australia, and the effect that they’re having on local eco-systems.

6c Understanding better how introduced animal species can affect the survival of some native species.

6d Understanding better the role that Quarantine plays in preventing exotic species from entering the country.

Subscale 6 has been developed specifically for the current study, and examines

students’ attitudes towards biosecurity. The wording of these items was adapted from

PISA attitudinal items relating to forensic science (OECD, 2006). This additional

scale was included so that a comparison could be made between the students’ general

attitudes toward science, and those that specifically relate to biosecurity. As the

92

BioStories’ project extended over a relatively short period (seven weeks), it was

anticipated that the intervention would be more likely to impact students’ attitudes

specifically towards biosecurity, rather than general science attitudes.

4.2.2 Instrument Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity are two essential features of any instrument (Hubley &

Zumbo, 1996). Reliability is traditionally associated with notions of score stability

and consistency, and is a necessary precursor of validity (Creswell, 2005; Warner,

2008). Estimates of instrument reliability are commonly achieved via four measures:

test-retest (whereby the same instrument is administered to a single test group on two

different occasions); parallel forms (two different instruments that report to measure

the same variable/s are administered to a single test group); internal consistency (a

coefficient alpha is calculated which reflects the consistency of the participants’

responses upon a single administration of the instrument); and inter-rater reliability

(at least two observers rate the participants’ behaviour and determine the amount of

agreement between them) (Hubley & Zumbo, 1996).

Appropriate methods of reliability estimation are dependent on the nature of the

instrument. In the current study, inter-rater reliability is not appropriate as the

BioQuiz is a self-report measure. In addition, the creation of an alternative form of

the BioQuiz was a time-consuming and impractical option, and unnecessary

considering its conceptual original is very closely tied to the PISA student

questionnaire. Test-retest reliability is most appropriate when respondents’ scores are

not expected to vary significantly over time (Hinkin, 1995); however, in the current

study, it was anticipated that the project would impact students’ attitudes toward

science, therefore, some change in students’ responses was expected. It has also been

suggested that test-retest reliability can be tainted by change due to maturation,

learned responses, or sensitisation to issues examined by the instrument (Kline,

2005). Discounting the appropriateness of test-retest reliability in the context of the

current study, Hinkin (1995) asserts that internal consistency is the most valuable

and feasible estimation of reliability in the test development phase.

In the current study, a principle components analysis (PCA) was performed pretest

and posttest to identify the latent structure of the BioQuiz. The internal consistency

93

of the BioQuiz was examined by computing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient () for

each identified factor3. Item reliability analysis was also carried out to ensure that

items shared the strongest correlation with their corresponding factor. No additional

estimates of internal consistency were necessary, as Cronbach’s is mathematically

equivalent to the average of all possible split-half estimates of internal consistency

(Kline, 2005). According to Hinkin (1995), a Cronbach’s α ≥.7 represents adequate

internal consistency. This criterion was adopted in the current study.

The internal consistency of each of the subscales, calculated at pretest during the

preliminary study (Ritchie et al., 2008b), was very high (Table 4.2). These

correspond favourably with international benchmarks established by PISA. For these

reasons, the BioQuiz was adapted for use in this study as it was found to be a reliable

instrument to measure students’ attitudes towards science.

Table 4.2. A summary of the characteristics of the BioQuiz subscales from the preliminary study (Ritchie et al., 2008b).

Subscales Number of Items

Cronbach’s Reliability

Preliminary BioStories

N=69

PISA 2006 N=500

1. Interest and enjoyment. 5 .83 .94

2. Capacity for particular science-related tasks (self-efficacy).

5 .82 .88*

3. Personal relevance and use of science. 5 .82 .86

4. General relevance and use of science. 5 .73 .81

5. Familiarity with biosecurity issues. 5 .81 .79**

Note. Two measures of internal consistency (Cronbach’s ) for each subscale are presented:

preliminary BioStories (calculated at pretest); and ‘PISA 2006’ (calculated with weighted national

samples from Australia, from the 2006 round of PISA testing). The subscales 2 (*) and 5 (**) from

PISA were changed considerably for the purpose of the BioStories’ project (i.e., the wording of items

has been changed to suit biosecurity, or items have been omitted).

3 A PCA produces components rather than factors. Components are aggregates of correlated variables, while factors produce scores on the variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The difference therefore lies in the way in which the variables are associated with the factor or component. In the current study, the term factor is used, as this distinction is not critical in the following discussion.

94

A valid instrument is one that enables the researcher to draw legitimate conclusions

about the population from which the sample was drawn (Creswell, 2005). In other

words, validity is associated with accuracy, authenticity and soundness (Hubley &

Zumbo, 1996). As the BioQuiz items belonging to Subscales 1-5 have been sourced

directly or adapted from the PISA 2006 student questionnaire, an internationally

validated test administered to 15 year-old students, it was deemed that a thorough

validation process was not necessary. However, as Subscale 6 does not closely

resemble an existing scale from the PISA questionnaire, it was subjected to further

validation.

Although validity theory is complex and ever changing (see Hubley & Zumbo,

1996), a ternary notion of validity has historically prevailed: content, criteria-related

and construct validity. While some disagreement has occurred as to whether they

may be considered three types (Angoff, 1988), or aspects (Guion, 1980) of validity,

each is commonly viewed as its own entity, thus offering three possible ways in

which validity may be obtained (Hubley & Zumbo, 1996).

Content validity is a fixed property of an instrument and refers to the extent to which

the survey items are representative of the construct being tested (Creswell, 1995). An

appropriate method of assessing content validity is to invite a panel of experts in the

area of interest to make this judgment by evaluating the test items (Czaja & Blair,

2005; Hinkin, 1998). In the current study, content validity of Subscale 6 was

addressed during the item generation phase. As described in the previous section, the

wording of the four items belonging to this subscale was adapted from the four PISA

attitudinal items relating to forensic science (OECD, 2006). Following its

construction, Subscale 6 (Figure 4.2) was presented to a panel of five experts, in

order to determine whether the items were representative of the area of interest,

attitudes toward biosecurity. The panel consisted of three academics in science

education (including a biology educator, and a key international figure in science

education); a teacher who has a particular interest in science education and

participated in the preliminary BioStories’ study; and a biosecurity expert who

specialises in entomology. Two additional items that did not fit the scale were also

included, Items c and e.

95

How much interest do you have in the following? High

interest Medium interest

Low interest

No interest

a. Knowing more about how introduced species can threaten eco-systems in Australia.

b. Learning about exotic species that have already entered Australia, and the effect that they’re having on local eco-systems.

c. Learning how to interpret the scientific information provided on a government website about how an introduced animal species can affect the survival of some native species.

d. Understanding better how introduced species can be controlled using science.

e. Knowing more about threats to biodiversity.

f. Understanding better the role that Quarantine plays in preventing exotic species from entering the country.

Figure 4.2. The scale presented to a panel of experts to evaluate the face validity of Subscale 6, Attitudes toward biosecurity. Items c and e represent additional items that did belong to the original scale.

The panelists were asked to place a tick besides items they believed fitted within the

scale, and a cross besides those that did not. The following results were obtained:

Item a: 5/5 agree.

Item b: 5/5 agree.

Item c: 0/5 agree.

Item d: 4/5 agree.

Item e: 2/5 agree, 1/5 undecided.

Item f: 4/5 agree.

In response to the above results, Items a and b were retained, unchanged. Item c was

correctly identified as not fitting the scale, and Item e was also discarded, based on

the mixed reviews. Items d and f could have remained unchanged as in both cases,

only one of the five panelists did not believe that they fitted within the scale;

however, concern was raised by one panelist that the wording of Item d did not

specifically relate to biosecurity. As such, it was changed to the following:

Understanding better how introduced animal species can affect the survival of some

native species.

96

Construct validity is concerned with how well an instrument measures the underlying

constructs or latent variables that it is supposed to assess (Warren, 2008). There are

several methods by which construct validity can be established, one of which is to

conduct factor analyses in order to identify the latent structure of the instrument

(Hubley & Zumbo, 1996). In the current study, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

was undertaken to confirm the factor structure identified by the PCA. This allowed

for meaningful judgments to be made about the students’ scientific literacy, as the

dimensions of attitudes toward science assessed by the BioQuiz were clearly

identified.

4.2.2.1 BioQuiz Administration

After excluding data for those students who did not return permission slips, pretest

and posttest results for 152 students were analysed; 72 participants (47%) were boys,

and 80 (53%) were girls. Students completed the BioQuiz on two occasions: at the

beginning of the project, prior to their introduction to the tasks, and immediately

upon completion of the program (i.e., after their Part C task was uploaded to the

website).

Means and standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis statistics, and minimum and

maximum scores for each subscale are presented in Table 4.3. As described in

Chapter 3, students’ responses were scored on a scale of 1-4, whereby higher scores

represented more positive responses.

4.2.2.2 Summary of Factor Analyses

While a summary of the results of the PCA and CFA are presented below, full details

of the psychometrics can be found in Appendix D.

A PCA of the BioQuiz data revealed five factors at pretest, and six factors at posttest

(Table D.4). At pretest, the value of science items were observed to load onto one

factor (GV), while at posttest, they loaded onto two (PVS and GVS). The remaining

four factors (ILS, SSE, FB and AB) remained consistent pretest to posttest. While

VS explained 39.4% of the variance in BioQuiz scores pretest, ILS and FB became

more salient factors in explaining the variance in test scores from pretest to posttest

(40.32% and 11.25%, respectively) (Table D.4).

97

Each of the six factors demonstrated excellent internal consistency from pretest to

posttest (as shown by Cronbach’s ), ranging from .813 to .899 (Table 4.2). Item

reliability analyses also showed that each item is most strongly correlated to its

respective factor (Tables D.2 and D.3).

Table 4.3. Descriptive statistics for each subscale (N=152).

Interest and enjoyment.

Science self-

efficacy.

General value of science.

Personal value of science.

Familiarity with science

issues.

Attitudes toward

biosecurity.

Pre

test

Mean 2.56 3.00 3.00 2.83 2.21 2.81

SD 0.70 0.68 0.60 0.74 0.72 0.78

Minimum 1 (6.2%) 1 (3.4%) 1 (3.4%) 1 (4.5%) 1 (6.8%) 1 (8.5%)

Maximum 4 (1.7%) 4 (7.3%) 4 (5.6%) 4 (4.5%) 4 (1.7%) 4 (5.6%)

Skewness -.519 -.955 -1.150 -.745 .319 -.907

Kurtosis -.096 1.011 2.547 .239 -.324 .366

Pos

ttes

t

Mean 2.84 3.14 3.18 2.96 2.54 2.83

SD 0.64 0.61 0.53 0.66 0.84 0.75

Minimum 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (4.0%) 1 (5.6%)

Maximum 4 (8.5%) 4 (10.2%) 4 (14.1%) 4 (9.0%) 4 (7.9%) 4 (9.6%)

Skewness -.219 -.969 -.370 -.490 .064 -.857

Kurtosis .141 1.470 .955 .386 -.705 .266

A range of fit indices produced by CFA were employed to assess the BioQuiz factor

model: the Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), root-mean

square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the root mean square residual (RMR).

These indices demonstrated a satisfactory fit between the six-factor model and the

data, which confirms that ILS, SSE, PVS, GVS, FB and AB are reliable factors for

directly describing students’ attitudes toward science (Table D.8). Although a five-

factor model, whereby personal and general value of science items are grouped under

a single factor, could have been investigated further, the goal of PCA and CFA was

not one of item reduction, but of the establishment of test validity. The adoption of

the five-factor model would have required a large reduction in the number of test

items in the “Value of science” subscale, so as not to compromise its reliability (see

Appendix D). Due to the possible effect of a small sample size on the analysis, and

the strong conceptual ties between the BioQuiz and the PISA 2006 student

questionnaire, this option was not investigated, and the theorised model structure was

98

retained. Preservation of the current model will also facilitate comparisons between

students’ performances in the BioQuiz in the current and previous studies.

The results of the PCA and CFA clearly indicate that the relationship between the

factors is complex, and it is possible that particular factors may influence others via a

mediating variable not measured by the BioQuiz, such as learning strategy.

Nonetheless, the results of these investigations indicate the BioQuiz is a reliable and

valid measure of selected aspects of students’ attitudes toward science and science

learning.

4.3 Assessment of Conceptual Understanding: Analysis of BioStories

Students’ short stories (i.e., BioStories) were analysed to evaluate the development of

their scientific literacy, at various stages of the writing process. The texts were

analysed using a series of matrices that produced numerical scores that reflect

students’ developing fundamental and derived senses of scientific literacy (Norris &

Phillips, 2003) (Appendices E, F and G).

Based on the review of scientific literacy presented in Chapter 2, the researcher

accepts that what it means to be scientifically literate is complex and

multidimensional; however, at the same time, no single writing task can be used to

engage all the dimensions of scientific literacy. Quantitative analysis of the

BioStories therefore focused on two aspects of scientific literacy: conceptual science

understanding relating to biosecurity (i.e., a derived sense of scientific literacy), and

the students’ ability to compose stories about biosecurity (i.e., a fundamental sense

of scientific literacy) (Norris & Phillips, 2003).

4.3.1 Preliminary Instrumentation

A number of procedures for assessing students’ BioStories for scientific literacy were

experimentally implemented and refined in order to develop a suitable procedure in

the context of the current research.

The preliminary BioStories’ project (Ritchie et al., 2008b) had intended to use the

Science Literacy Progress Map developed by MCEETYA (2005), to assess the

students’ BioStories for scientific literacy. The science literacy progress map was

99

developed in order to investigate the scientific literacy of Year 6 students as part of a

national program. The progress map assesses scientific literacy across three domains

that incorporate the five elements of scientific literacy used in the PISA 2000 and

2006 testing (OECD, 1999, 2006). These domains examine skills and understandings

that pertain to scientific literacy according to a six-level hierarchy, which increase in

complexity and abstraction (MCEETYA, 2005). In the context of the current study,

adoption of the science literacy progress map was not deemed appropriate as it

assesses different aspects of scientific literacy than those developed by students’

participation in the BioStories’ project.

With the exception of pencil-and-paper tests, a review of the literature revealed few

working examples of quantifying and making judgments about students’ developing

scientific literacy in a writing-to-learn context. Bybee’s (1997) five dimensions of

scientific literacy (i.e., scientific illiteracy, nominal scientific literacy, functional

scientific literacy, conceptual scientific literacy, and multidimensional scientific

literacy) were investigated and utilised in an experimental assessment framework for

interpreting students’ levels of scientific literacy, as evidenced by their BioStories.

For a detailed discussion of the application of the assessment framework, see Tomas

and Ritchie (2008).

The assessment framework was trialed using the BioStories written by the case study

class. Preliminary results found that all 77 stories written by the students

demonstrated an overall functional level of scientific literacy for all three of their

BioStories (i.e., Parts A, B and C). Despite these results, it was unreasonable to

assume that every student’s level of conceptual science understanding relating to

biosecurity was essentially the same. The framework, therefore, was not sensitive

enough to detect changes in the students’ developing scientific literacy.

4.3.2 The BioStories’ Matrices

Both the scientific literacy progress map and the assessment framework did not

specifically assess how well the students wrote about issues relating to biosecurity.

With this in mind, matrices were developed that assess how well students addressed

the BioStories’ task requirements (Appendices E and F). As the task requirements for

Parts A, B and C differed, separate matrices were developed for each task.

100

Initial analysis of the BioStories using the assessment framework revealed three

general trends in the ways in which students incorporated scientific information

about biosecurity into their stories. Firstly, some students made no attempt to address

particular task requirements. Secondly, most students attempted to address particular

task requirements, but did so incompletely, or with some errors. Thirdly, some

students addressed particular task requirements fully, completely and correctly. For

example, students were asked to explain how their particular biological incursion

entered Australia for Part A. A student could either: (a) not include the incursion’s

country of origin at all; (b) incorrectly state the incursion’s country of origin, or (c)

correctly state the incursion’s country of origin. For this reason, each criterion in the

matrices was assigned a score of zero, one or two depending on whether or not the

student addressed the particular criterion, and how well they did so (i.e., zero for no

attempt, one for an incomplete or incorrect attempt, and two if the criterion was

addressed completely and accurately).

It was not deemed necessary to differentiate between incomplete and incorrect

responses to the criteria as the position was adopted that a student’s scientific literacy

with respect to a particular criterion is no better or worse if they attempt it but do not

complete it, than that of a student who attempts it, but is not fully correct. As

judgments about students’ scientific literacy based on their BioStories can only be

made at face value, further investigations (such as student interviews) are necessary

to differentiate whether or not students actually know the concept, but failed to

communicate it in their work, or whether their knowledge is actually lacking or

erroneous (White & Gunstone, 1992).

4.3.2.1 Development of the Matrices

For Parts A and B, the tasks presented an equal number of requirements (i.e., four),

therefore the highest score attainable for these tasks was eight. The students were

asked to address the following in their BioStories, which represent the criteria against

which they were scored:

Part A

The biological incursion’s country of origin.

101

How the biological incursion entered Australia.

The problems the biological incursion has caused or continues to cause

native and/or commercial species or eco-systems (environmental, social

and economic impacts).

The difficulties scientists and farmers face controlling the pest, or how

the pest was brought under control.

Part B

What avian influenza is.

The organisms affected by avian influenza, or those at risk of infection.

The problems that an outbreak of avian influenza would cause on a farm

and in the wider community (social and economic impacts).

The difficulties scientists and farmers face controlling avian influenza.

For Part C, the students were asked to compose a new story about the biological

incursions that they wrote about in the preceding two parts; however, specific

requirements as to what type of scientific information they should include was not

provided. Instead, the task stipulated “Think about the guidelines provided in Parts A

and B when deciding what sort of scientific information you should include in your

final story”. The Part C matrix consists of nine criteria, as it is comprised of an

amalgamation of the Parts A and B matrices, plus an additional criterion to address

the following task requirement:

“Finally, you should write a conclusion that explains preventative

measures for minimising the escalation of biological incursions (i.e.,

how can we prevent biological incursions from becoming a problem in

Australia in the first place?), and why these measures are so important

to our country”.

The matrices for Parts A, B and C produce a derived scientific literacy score that

reflects how well students addressed the tasks requirements relating to conceptual

understanding about biosecurity. In order to facilitate comparisons of students’

102

derived scientific literacy scores across their three BioStories, they were converted to

a percentage of the highest possible score attainable for each part. An interpretation

of the derived scientific literacy score is presented in Table 4.4.

The matrices examined thus far are concerned with students’ derived sense of

scientific literacy (i.e., being knowledgeable, learned and educated in science);

however, as described in Chapter 2, Norris and Phillips (2003) argued that coming to

know science also requires competency in a fundamental sense of scientific literacy

(i.e., reading and writing science content). Consequently, a fourth matrix was

developed to facilitate the investigation of students’ simple fundamental sense of

scientific literacy.

Table 4.4. An interpretation of the derived scientific literacy score as applied to students’ BioStories.

Derived scientific literacy score Interpretation

Parts A and B Part C

0-3 0-7 Students have made little attempt to include the required information, and/or the scientific information that has been included in incorrect and/or incomplete.

4-6 8-12 Students have attempted to include most or all of the required scientific information in their story, some of which is incorrect and/or incomplete.

7-8 13-18 Students have attempted to include all of the required information in their story, which is largely correct and complete.

The writing matrix examines six criteria: spelling and grammar; punctuation;

technical vocabulary (i.e., the employment of specialised technical vocabulary

pertinent to biosecurity); story structure; story length; and the incorporation of

scientific information (i.e., the incorporation of scientific information in such a way

that meaningful and creative). These six criteria were selected as preliminary

analysis of the BioStories revealed that the quality of students’ work varied most

highly with respect to these areas. For example, with regard to the incorporation of

scientific information, some students had clearly used information verbatim from the

original resource, as its use was not always meaningful, or did not read naturally.

Conversely, other students had synthesised the information they had found in such a

way that it was used meaningfully and creatively in their stories. Once again, each of

103

the criteria were scored at three levels (zero, one and two), with the exception of

story length, which was scored at two (i.e., zero for a story that was inappropriately

long or short, and one for a story that was long enough to communicate the required

scientific information, while developing a suitable story).

The chosen criteria that comprise the writing matrix seek to quantify students’ simple

fundamental sense of scientific literacy–their ability to write stories about

biosecurity. Judgments about students’ expanded fundamental literacy, or their

ability to infer meaning from texts, are best made qualitatively, by examining

whether or not students could successfully interpret and transform scientific

information into a hybridised narrative.

Notwithstanding the importance of being able to read scientific content, a key

element of Norris and Phillips’s (2003) fundamental sense of scientific literacy, this

was not assessed as the current research project is concerned with the examination of

written artefacts to make judgments about students’ developing scientific literacy.

For this same reason, students’ writing scores were not examined in isolation; they

were combined with the derived scientific literacy scores to produce a fundamental

scientific literacy score for each students’ BioStory. This is because the current study

is not particularly concerned with how well students can write in itself, but rather,

how well students can write about biosecurity (i.e., the derived scientific literacy

score), and how well they can write a story about biosecurity (i.e., the fundamental

scientific literacy score). An interpretation of the fundamental scientific literacy

score is presented in Table 4.5.

4.3.2.2 Examination of Students’ Writing Prior to the BioStories’ Project

In order to make judgments about students’ developing scientific literacy before and

after their participation in the BioStories’ project, a fifth matrix was developed to

assess students’ scientific literacy, as evidenced by a sample of their scientific

writing before they completed the BioStories’ writing tasks (Appendix G). A review

of the assessment tasks completed by the case study class prior to the BioStories’

project revealed a single assessment piece that required students to write about a

scientific topic that was not in the format of a written test or experimental

investigation. The task required students to choose and describe a system of the

104

human body, and a disease that is exclusive to that system. Although the students

presented their research as a computer slideshow to their classmates, they were also

required to submit a written report.

A matrix was developed that produced a derived scientific literacy score based on

their written reports, therefore, a comparison was made between how well students

were able to write about a scientific topic before and after their participation in the

BioStories’ project. As the students composed a report, rather than a short story, a

writing score was not calculated, as its purpose was to obtain an overall score that

reflected how well students could write a story about a scientific topic.

Table 4.5. An interpretation of the fundamental scientific literacy score as applied to students’ BioStories.

Fundamental scientific literacy score Interpretation

Parts A and B Part C

0-8 0-14

Students have made little attempt to include the required information, and/or the scientific information that has been included in incorrect and/or incomplete, and the story itself is poorly written.

9-14 15-23

Students have attempted to include most or all of the required scientific information in their story, some of which is incorrect and/or incomplete, and the story itself is quite well written.

15-19 24-29 Students have attempted to include all of the required information in their story, which largely correct and complete, and the story itself is very well written.

The derived scientific literacy matrix for the students’ reports consists of 12 criteria

that were sourced directly from the marking scheme that accompanied the task. The

task instructions explicitly asked students to refer to the marking scheme to ensure

that they included all of the required information. Once again, each criterion was

scored at three levels (zero, one and two) depending on whether or not the student

addressed it, and how well they did so (incompletely and/or incorrectly, or

completely and accurately). Students’ scores were converted to a percentage of the

highest possible attainable score (i.e., 24) to facilitate comparisons between their

writing before and after their participation in the BioStories’ project.

105

4.3.3 Instrument Reliability and Validity

As described earlier in this chapter, reliability is a necessary precursor to validity. A

reliable instrument is one that produces scores that are stable and consistent, and

there are a number of accepted methods by which estimates of instrument reliability

may be obtained. In the context of the current study, inter-rater reliability (whereby

more than one observer rates the participants’ performance and the scores are

compared) is most appropriate, and an effective way of reducing any bias that a

single individual may bring to the scoring process (Creswell, 2005; Hubley &

Zumbo, 1996).

The reliability of the matrices was examined by moderating judgments between two

independent scorers: the researcher, and a secondary science teacher with ten years

of teaching experience. First, the researcher scored all of the students’ BioStories

using the matrices. Second, the science teacher was asked to produce derived

scientific literacy scores for Parts A and B, and fundamental scientific literacy scores

for Part A. She was not asked to score the Part C stories, as this matrix is essentially

an amalgamation of those used for A and B. A fundamental scientific literacy score

was also unnecessary for Parts B and C as the same writing matrix is applied for all

three stories.

Discussions between the scorers resolved slightly different interpretations of the

criteria, and what constituted accurate responses to more open-ended criteria. These

discussions led to a refinement of the interpretations, and in some cases, of the

wording of particular criteria to eliminate ambiguity, until the results from each

scorer were in agreement. These final scores were the subject of statistical analyses

to determine any significant changes in student performance.

The content validity of the matrices (i.e., the extent to which the instrument is

representative of the construct being examined) (Hubley & Zumbo, 1996) was

explored through discussions with the science teacher who cross-marked the

students’ BioStories. She was asked to examine the BioStories’ tasks and the criteria

belonging to the derived scientific literacy matrices to determine whether they

adequately assess what the students were required to do. She was satisfied that

criteria closely match the task requirements and did not recommend any changes. In

106

addition, she felt that the scope of the writing matrix criteria adequately assessed the

quality of the students’ work.

4.3.4 Summary of Matrices Instrumentation

Following a review of the suitability of the Scientific Literacy Progress Map

(MCEETYA, 2005) in the context of the current study, and the trial of an

experimental assessment framework, a number of matrices were developed so that

the students’ BioStories could be analysed for evidence of their developing

fundamental and derived senses of scientific literacy. Two types of matrices were

developed: derived scientific literacy matrices and a writing matrix. Four derived

scientific literacy matrices were produced to score Parts A, B, and C, as well as a

sample of the students’ writing prior to their participation in the BioStories’ project

(i.e., a written report on a disease of the human body). These matrices produce a

score that is indicative of the volume and accuracy of science content in the students’

written work. A writing matrix was also developed that comprises of six criteria that

score the quality of the students’ written work. The writing score is combined with

the derived scientific literacy score to produce a fundamental scientific literacy score

for Parts A, B and C that serves to reflect how well the students could write a story

about biosecurity. The students’ derived scientific literacy scores for their pre-

writing sample and Parts A, B and C, as well as their fundamental scientific literacy

scores for each BioStories’ task, were the subjects of statistical analyses to determine

any significant changes in student performance. The following chapter presents an

analysis of the quantitative data generated by the instrumentation discussed herein.

107

Chapter 5

QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

5.1 Introduction

The following chapter presents the results of the quantitative analyses of the BioQuiz

and BioStories’ data. The results of these analyses were interpreted in conjunction

with the qualitative data generated by the student and teacher interviews (Chapter 6)

in order to develop a deeper understanding of the development of the students’

scientific literacy (i.e., their conceptual science understandings, and selected aspects

of their attitudes toward science and science learning), and their experiences of the

BioStories’ project, in order to seek answers to the research questions articulated in

Chapter 1.

Section 5.2 presents an overview of the analysis of the BioQuiz data, and the results

of both multivariate and univariate analyses of variance, and paired- and

independent-samples t tests. These results are presented according to a series of

questions that examine potential gender and class differences in the ways in which

students responded to the BioQuiz, and changes in BioQuiz scores from pretest to

posttest (Sections 5.2.3.1-5.2.3.4).

Section 5.3 presents an overview of the analysis of the students’ BioStories’ scores,

beginning with a summary of their derived and fundamental scientific literacy scores

for each of the BioStories’ tasks and pre-writing sample (Section 5.3.1). Section

5.3.2 presents the results of a number of dependent-samples t tests, which are also

organised according to a series of questions that examine any changes in students’

BioStories’ scores across the pre-writing sample, and Parts A, B and C.

5.2 Overview of BioQuiz Analysis and Summary of Results

As described in Chapter 4, data from the administration of an instrument called the

BioQuiz were analysed to investigate the impact of a project that featured a set of

hybridised writing tasks related to biosecurity. The BioQuiz was administered twice

to the entire cohort of Year 9 students at one school (i.e., N=152), across eight

science classes, prior to commencing the project, and immediately after the students

had submitted their final writing task. The 29 BioQuiz items were arranged in six

108

subscales that addressed selected aspects of the students’ scientific literacy: interest

in learning science, familiarity with biosecurity issues, attitudes toward biosecurity,

perceived self-efficacy with science-related tasks, and the students’ perceived

personal and general value of science.

Analyses of the BioQuiz data were conducted to address the fundamental question, to

what extent did students’ participation in the BioStories’ project influence their

responses to the BioQuiz? More specifically, two research questions were

investigated:

1. Were there significant interaction effects for class and gender that

influenced students’ BioQuiz responses over the course of the project?

2. To what extent did students’ participation in the BioStories’ project

enhance their interest in learning science, familiarity with biosecurity

issues, attitudes toward biosecurity, and their perceived self-efficacy with

science-related tasks, and personal and general value of science?

Prior to exploring the critical research question (i.e., Research Question 2), it was

important to establish whether the data for the entire cohort could be treated the same

by investigating possible interaction effects for class and gender (i.e., Research

Question 1). These findings would indicate whether the project had been

implemented consistently across classes, and had a similar impact on both boys and

girls.

Research Question 2 was investigated following the multivariate analyses employed

for the first research question. Several specific hypotheses were derived in order to

answer this question:

Research hypothesis 1: Students who participate in the BioStories’

project will demonstrate a significant improvement in their interest in

learning science, as measured by the BioQuiz.

109


project will demonstrate a significant improvement in their perceived

science self-efficacy, as measured by the BioQuiz.



personal value of science, as measured by the BioQuiz.



general value of science, as measured by the BioQuiz.


project will demonstrate a significant improvement in their familiarity

with biosecurity issues, as measured by the BioQuiz.


project will demonstrate a significant improvement in their attitudes

toward biosecurity, as measured by the BioQuiz.

Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed in order to identify

any significant interaction effects between the six dependent variables in the BioQuiz

two independent variables (i.e., time, and the BioQuiz subscales), and two co-

variables (i.e., class and gender) that would warrant further statistical investigation.

Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted as follow-up tests on

each dependent variable. Finally, a number of t tests were performed as a means of

addressing the research questions by investigating further the significant interactions

identified by the univariate tests, and their impact on BioQuiz scores.

5.2.1 Exploring Interaction Effects: Multivariate Analyses of Variance

Repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance were conducted to explore the

possible impact of four independent variables (i.e., time4, the BioQuiz subscales,

gender and class teacher) on students’ BioQuiz scores (i.e., six dependent variables:

interest in learning science, science self-efficacy, personal value of science, general

value of science, familiarity with biosecurity, and attitudes toward biosecurity).

4 “Time”, as it was used in the context of this analysis, refers to the difference in the means on the dependent variables from pretest to posttest, rather than the actual time that elapsed.

110

While all possible combinations of variables were explored, only the significant

effects and interactions of direct relevance to the research questions articulated in the

previous section have been presented. MANOVA was chosen as it reduces the

probability of Type I error (i.e., the probability of rejecting a null hypothesis when it

is true) when multiple interrelated dependent variables are being analysed (Green &

Salkind, 2005; Pallant, 2005).

A significant main effect was found for time, Wilks’s = .28, F(1, 152) = 4.21,

p < .01, partial 2 = .72, which indicates that BioQuiz scores varied from pretest to

posttest. A significant time*BioQuiz subscales*gender interaction was also observed,

Wilks’s = .92, F(5, 152) = 2.68, p = .024, partial 2 = .08, which suggests that

girls’ and boys’ BioQuiz scores changed from pretest to posttest. As indicated by

partial 2, a large proportion of the variance in students’ BioQuiz scores (i.e., 72%)

was attributable to the pretest to posttest condition. A medium effect was attributable

to the time*BioQuiz subscales*gender interaction, which accounted for 8% of the

variance in BioQuiz scores. No significant effects were found for class teacher.

5.2.2 Follow-Up Univariate Analyses of Variance

Univariate analyses of variance were conducted on each dependent variable as

follow-up tests to the MANOVA. The Bonferroni method (Green & Salkind, 2005)

was used to control for Type 1 error across the six dependent variables, therefore

each ANOVA was tested at the .008 level (i.e., .05/6). A significant within-subjects

effect was observed for time, F(1, 152) = 421.21, p < .001, partial 2 = .72, and a

significant interaction was found between time, the BioQuiz subscales and gender,

F(4, 152) = 3.66, p = .005, partial 2 = .02. A trend was observed between time, the

BioQuiz subscales and class teacher, F(26, 152) = 1.55, p = .040, 2 =.05, which,

after the Bonferroni adjustment of .008, was no longer significant. No significant

between-subjects effects were found for gender and class teacher.

111

5.2.3 Paired- and Independent-Samples t tests

Paired-samples t tests were conducted to investigate the significant main effect of

time, and the time*BioQuiz subscales*gender interaction revealed by the follow-up

univariate tests. A number of independent t tests were also performed to investigate

whether there were significant gender or class differences in BioQuiz responses. For

ease of interpretation, the results that follow are organised according to a series of

questions that summarise the key findings.

5.2.3.1 Were there Differences in the Ways in which Girls and Boys Responded

to the BioQuiz?

The significant time*BioQuiz subscales*gender interaction revealed by the follow-up

ANOVA reported earlier was explored further via a number of t tests. An

independent samples t test, which compared changes in BioQuiz scores pre- and

posttest for girls and boys, was not significant, which indicates that there were no

differences in the ways in which girls and boys responded to the BioQuiz.

Paired samples t tests found that girls demonstrated an improvement in their BioQuiz

scores for interest in learning science, science self-efficacy, general value of science

and familiarity with biosecurity issues, from pretest to posttest (Table 6.1). A modest

to medium effect was observed in each case. Boys reported an improvement in their

BioQuiz scores for interest in learning science and personal value of science pretest

to posttest, with a medium and modest effect, respectively (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1. Results of the paired-samples t tests, which examined mean BioQuiz scores for girls and boys, pretest to posttest. Non-significant results are not shown.

Variable 1 Mean (SD)


t value df Sig. Cohen’s d

Girls

Pre interest 13.12 (2.96)

Post interest 14.19 (3.25)

-3.896 80 .000* 0.40

Pre self-efficacy

15.09 (3.10)

Post self-efficacy

16.02 (2.88)

-3.203 80 .002* 0.33

Pre general value

14.82 (2.43)

Post general value

15.88 (2.43)

-4.040 80 .000* 0.41

Pre familiarity 10.48 (3.19)

Post familiarity 12.53 (4.25)

-4.252 80 .000* 0.48

Boys

Pre interest 12.35 (4.00)

Post interest 14.15 (3.12)

-4.146 72 .000* 0.46

Pre personal value

13.81 (4.05)

Post personal value

14.58 (3.35)

-2.730 72 .008* 0.31

* Significant at the 0.008 level (2-tailed).

112

5.2.3.2 Were there Class Differences in the Ways in which Students Responded

to the BioQuiz?

As the researcher was present in the case study class during BioStories’ lessons, the

interaction between class teacher and BioQuiz scores was investigated further to

determine whether the case study class, or any of the other seven participating

science classes, performed significantly differently to one another in the BioQuiz. In

the follow-up univariate tests, a trend was observed between class teacher and the

BioQuiz subscales, F(23, 152) = 1.49, p = .065, partial 2 = .05. This interaction was

explored further via a one-way MANOVA which revealed a significant main effect

for class teacher, F(36, 152) = 1.55, p = .021, partial 2 = .053. Follow-up univariate

tests found a significant between-subjects effect for teacher and interest in learning

science, F(6, 152) = 3, p = .008, which accounted for 9.6% of the variance in interest

in learning science scores overall. A Scheffé test conducted post-hoc found a single

significant interaction between two teachers, one of which was the case study class

teacher. Of the two teachers, it revealed that students in the case study class reported

a higher mean interest in science score (pre- and posttest) (M = 3.06, SD = 0.04),

than that of the students in the other class (M = 2.25, SD = 0.05), p < .005. No other

significant differences in BioQuiz scores between the classes were found.

Follow-up independent-samples t tests, which compared changes in BioQuiz scores

for students belonging to different classes (i.e., different class teachers), were not

significant, which indicates that there were no differences in the ways the classes

responded to the BioQuiz, and thus it can be assumed that the ways in which the

BioStories’ project was implemented across classes was comparable.

5.2.3.3 Did BioQuiz Scores Overall Change from Pretest to Posttest?

Paired-samples t tests demonstrated an improvement in BioQuiz scores from pre- (M

= 13.2, SD = 2.49) to posttest (M = 14.10, SD = 2.36), t(176) = -6.38, p < .01. Effect

size, as measured by Cohen’s d, was 0.48, which is indicative of a medium effect

(Cohen, 1988). Effect size reflects the degree of association between two variables,

or the strength of the relationship (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Cohen’s d is a

measure of the standardised difference between two means, whereby the greater the

value of d, the greater the difference between the means (Green & Salkind, 2005).

113

According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), research in educational settings has a

propensity to produce smaller effects.

5.2.3.4 Did BioQuiz Scores for Each Subscale Improve from Pretest to

Posttest?

Paired-samples t tests were conducted to evaluate whether students’ BioQuiz scores

improved pretest to posttest (Table 5.2). These analyses address the question, did

students’ participation in the BioStories’ project influence their responses to the

BioQuiz? A number of specific null hypotheses were evaluated in relation to this

question:

Null hypothesis 1: Students who participate in the BioStories’ project

will not demonstrate a significant improvement in their interest in

learning science, as measured by the BioQuiz.


will not demonstrate a significant improvement in their perceived science

self-efficacy, as measured by the BioQuiz.


will not demonstrate a significant improvement in their perceived

personal value of science, as measured by the BioQuiz.


will not demonstrate a significant improvement in their perceived general

value of science, as measured by the BioQuiz.


will not demonstrate a significant improvement in their familiarity with

biosecurity issues, as measured by the BioQuiz.


will not demonstrate a significant improvement in their attitudes toward

biosecurity, as measured by the BioQuiz.

With respect to Null Hypotheses 1-5, a statistically significant improvement was

observed in the interest in learning science [t(152) = -5.66, p < .01, d = .42], science

114

self-efficacy [t(152) = -3.11, p = .002, d = .23], personal value of science [t(152) = -

3.06, p = .003, d = .23], general value of science [t(152) = -4.59, p < .01, d = .34] and

familiarity with biosecurity items [t(152) = -4.40, p < .01, d = .33]. These null

hypotheses were therefore rejected as the results suggest that the students’ interest in

science, science self-efficacy, personal and general value of science, and familiarity

with biosecurity improved over the period of time the intervention was conducted.

Small to modest effects were observed in each case, the largest of which was

observed for interest in learning science (d = 0.42), which represents the greatest

improvement pretest to posttest.

Table 5.2. Significant results of the paired-samples t tests, which examined changes in students’ mean BioQuiz scores, pretest to posttest. Results for attitudes toward biosecurity are not shown, as no significant change was observed for this subscale.



t value df Sig. Cohen’s d

Pre-interest 2.56

(0.70) Post interest

2.84 (0.64)

-5.663 152 .000* 0.42

Pre-self-efficacy

2.99 (0.67)

Post self-efficacy

3.14 (0.60)

-3.106 152 .002* 0.23

Pre-general value

3.00 (0.60)

Post general value

3.18 (0.53)

-4.592 152 .000* 0.34

Pre-personal value

2.83 (0.74)

Post personal value

2.96 (0.66)

-3.057 152 .003* 0.23

Pre-familiarity

2.21 (0.73)

Post familiarity 2.54

(0.84) -4.400 152 .000* 0.33


With respect to Null Hypothesis 6, no statistically significant change in the attitudes

toward biosecurity items was observed, t(152) = -0.23, p = .82. This null hypothesis

was therefore accepted, as the students’ participation in the BioStories’ project did

not influence their attitudes toward biosecurity.

5.2.4 Summary of BioQuiz Analysis

Analysis of the BioQuiz data was performed in order to address two research

questions that were concerned with possible class and gender differences in students’

BioQuiz responses (Research Question 1), and the extent to which the BioStories’

project enhanced six selected aspects of students’ scientific literacy (Research

Question 2).

In order to explore the research questions, repeated measures MANOVA was

performed as a means of identifying any significant interaction effects that would

115

warrant further investigation. The MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for

time, and a significant time*BioQuiz subscales*gender interaction. No significant

effects were found for class teacher. Follow-up univariate analyses produced similar

results to the MANOVA, revealing a significant within-subject effect for time, and a

significant time*BioQuiz subscales*gender interaction. No significant between-

subjects effects were found for gender and class teacher.

The results of the univariate tests were further explored via paired- and independent-

samples t tests in order to address the research questions. In relation to Research

Question 1, an independent-samples t test found no differences in the ways in which

girls and boys responded to the BioQuiz, however, a number of BioQuiz scores for

girls and boys changed from pretest to posttest. Girls demonstrated an improvement

in their interest in learning science, science self-efficacy, general value of science

and familiarity with biosecurity scores. Boys reported an improvement in their

interest in learning science and personal value of science scores.

Research Question 1 was also concerned with possible class interaction effects that

may have influenced BioQuiz scores. An independent-samples t test found no class

differences in the BioQuiz responses. Additional analyses found that students in the

case study class reported a higher mean interest in science score than that of the

students in another other class. No other significant class differences were found.

Together, these findings suggest that the BioStories’ project was implemented

uniformly across classes, and there were no observable differences in the ways in

which boys and girls responded to the BioQuiz.

In relation to Research Question 2, paired-samples t tests found that BioQuiz scores

improved overall pretest to posttest, and a statistically significant improvement in

scores for all subscales, except attitudes toward biosecurity, was observed from

pretest to posttest. The greatest improvement was observed for interest in learning

science. The significance of these results will be discussed in-depth in Chapter 7.

116

5.3 Overview of BioStories’ Analysis

As described in Chapter 4, written artefacts (i.e., BioStories) authored by the students

in the case study class were analysed for evidence of their developing fundamental

and derived senses of scientific literacy. Each student wrote a series of three

BioStories (i.e., Parts A, B and C), and these, along with a sample of their writing

prior to their participation in the BioStories’ project (i.e., a written report about a

disease that affects the human body), were the subjects of analysis.

Three derived scientific literacy matrices were developed for Parts A, B, and C, in

accordance with the BioStories’ task requirements, in order to produce a score that

was indicative of the volume and accuracy of science content relating to biosecurity

in the stories (Appendix E). In addition, a derived scientific literacy matrix was also

developed for the pre-writing sample (i.e., the written report on a disease of the

human body) so that comparisons of the students’ scientific literacy through these

writing samples before and after their participation in the BioStories’ writing tasks

could be made (Appendix G). A writing matrix was also developed that comprises of

six criteria (i.e., spelling and grammar; punctuation; the employment of technical

vocabulary; story structure; story length; and the incorporation of scientific

information) serves as an indicator of the quality of the students’ written work

(Appendix F). The writing score was combined with the derived scientific literacy

score to produce a fundamental scientific literacy score for Parts A, B and C that

sought to reflect how well the students could write a story about biosecurity.

Analysis of the BioStories was conducted to address the fundamental question, to

what extent is students’ scientific literacy enhanced through their participation in the

BioStories’ writing tasks? More specifically, three research questions were

investigated:

1. Were there statistically significant improvements in students’ derived

scientific literacy scores across Parts A, B and C of their BioStories?

2. Were there statistically significant improvements in students’ derived

scientific literacy scores from their pre-writing sample, to Parts A, B and

C of their BioStories?

117

3. Were there statistically significant improvements in students’

fundamental scientific literacy scores across Parts A, B and C of their

BioStories?

Following the summary of students’ BioStories’ scores presented below, the results

of a series of dependent-samples t tests are organised according to the above research

questions.

5.3.1 Summary of Students’ BioStories’ Scores

Descriptive statistics for the students’ BioStories’ scores are presented in Table 5.3.

In order to facilitate comparisons of students’ derived and fundamental scientific

literacy scores across the four writing tasks (i.e., pre-writing, Part A, Part B, Part C),

they were converted to a percentage of the highest possible score attainable for each

task. As evidenced in the table, the mean Part C scores were considerably lower than

those for the other writing tasks. The highest mean scores were obtained for Part B.

Table 5.3. A summary of the descriptive statistics for each of the variables explored via dependent samples t tests.

Variable Mean N SD

Pre-writing derived scientific literacy 51.00% 26 19.99

Part A derived scientific literacy 58.65% 26 21.44

Part B derived scientific literacy 74.04% 26 9.30

Part C derived scientific literacy 39.11% 25 18.74

Part A fundamental scientific literacy 68.42% 26 15.79

Part B fundamental scientific literacy 73.26% 26 14.49

Part C fundamental scientific literacy 51.45% 25 15.64 Note. Although there were 26 students in the case study class, one student was absent for the Part C task, hence N=25 for the Part C variables.

Tables 5.4 and 5.5 present a summary of the number of BioStories that fell within the

various ranges of scores identified in Chapter 4. For Parts A and B, the majority of

derived scientific literacy scores fell in the middle range, which indicates that

students attempted to include most or all of the required scientific information in

their BioStories, with some inaccuracies (Table 5.4). For Part C, the majority of

derived scientific literacy scores fell in the low range, indicating that students made

little attempt to include the required information, and/or the presented information

118

was inaccurate. There was also a considerable increase in the number of BioStories

that fell in the middle range, from Part A to Part B. For Parts A, B and C, a small

number of BioStories fell in the high score range (i.e., all of the required information

was presented, and was largely accurate).

Table 5.4. An interpretation of the derived scientific literacy score as applied to the students’ BioStories.

Der

ived

sci

enti

fic

lite

racy

sco

re

Par

ts A

an

d B

Nu

mb

er o

f B

ioS

tori

es in

th

is

ran

ge

Der

ived

sci

enti

fic

lite

racy

sco

re

Par

t C

Nu

mb

er o

f B

ioS

tori

es in

th

is

ran

ge

Interpretation

0-3 A: 9 B: 0

0-7 14

Students have made little attempt to include the required information, and/or the scientific information that has been included in incorrect and/or incomplete.

4-6 A: 13 B: 23

8-12 10 Students have attempted to include most or all of the required scientific information in their story, some of which is incorrect and/or incomplete.

7-8 A: 4 B: 3

13-18 1 Students have attempted to include all of the required information in their story, which largely correct and complete.

With respect to the fundamental scientific literacy scores (Table 5.5), the majority of

the BioStories’ scores for Parts A and B once again fell in the middle range (i.e., in

addition to attempting to include most or all of the required information, the story

itself was quite well-written). The number of stories that fell in the low (i.e., a

poorly-written story with little of the required information) and middle range for Part

C were quite evenly distributed, with only one story in the high range (i.e., a very-

well written story with all or most of the required information). A similar

phenomenon was observed for Part B; however, the majority of scores were shared

in the middle and high range, with one BioStory in the low range. For Part A, more

than double the number of scores fell in the middle range compared to the high

range, and once again, only one story fell in the low range.

119

Table 5.5. An interpretation of the fundamental scientific literacy score as applied to the students’ BioStories.

Fu

nda

men

tal

scie

nti

fic

lite

racy

sco

re

Par

ts A

an

d B

Nu

mb

er o

f B

ioS

tori

es in

th

is r

ange

Fu

nda

men

tal

scie

nti

fic

lite

racy

sco

re

Par

t C

Nu

mb

er o

f B

ioS

tori

es in

th

is r

ange

Interpretation

0-8 A: 1 B: 1

0-14 13

Students have made little attempt to include the required information, and/or the scientific information that has been included in incorrect and/or incomplete, and the story itself is poorly written.

9-14 A: 17 B: 13

15-23 11

Students have attempted to include most or all of the required scientific information in their story, some of which is incorrect and/or incomplete, and the story itself is quite well written.

15-19 A: 8 B: 12

24-29 1

Students have attempted to include all of the required information in their story, which is largely correct and complete, and the story itself is very well written.

5.3.2 Dependent-Samples t tests

Dependent-samples t tests were performed in order to identify any significant

differences between the mean derived and fundamental scientific literacy scores

obtained from the BioStories written by the case study class. Effect sizes (i.e.,

Cohen’s d) were also calculated. The results of each of the t tests are presented

below, in response to the research questions articulated in Section 5.3.

5.3.2.1 Were there Significant Improvements in Students’ Derived Scientific

Literacy Scores across Parts A, B and C of their BioStories?

Dependent-samples t tests were conducted to evaluate the differences in students’

derived scientific literacy scores across the three BioStories’ tasks. These analyses

address the question, were there significant improvements in students’ derived

scientific literacy scores across Parts A, B and C of their BioStories? A number of

specific null hypotheses were evaluated in relation to this question:


will not demonstrate a significant improvement in their derived scientific

literacy scores from Parts A to B of their BioStories.

120



literacy scores from Parts B to C of their BioStories.



literacy scores from Parts A to C of their BioStories.

The results of the t tests are shown in Table 5.6. With respect to Null Hypothesis 1,

the analyses revealed a significant improvement in students’ derived scientific

literacy scores from Part A (M = 58.65%, SD = 21.44) to Part B (M = 74.04%, SD =

9.30), t(26) = -4.33, p < .01. Effect size, as measured by Cohen’s d, was 0.85. This is

a large effect (i.e., d ≥0.8), which is indicative of a large standardised difference

between the two means (Cohen, 1988; Green & Salkind, 2005). A large effect size is

particularly positive in the context of the current study, as research in educational

settings tends to produce smaller effects (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). This null

hypothesis was therefore rejected as the results show that students’ derived scientific

literacy scores improved from Part A to Part B of their BioStories.

With respect to Null Hypotheses 2 and 3, a significant reduction was observed in

students’ derived scientific literacy scores from Part A to Part C (M = 39.11%, SD =

18.74), t(25) = 4.52, p < .01, and from Part B to Part C, t(25) = 11.17, p < .01. A

large effect was observed in each case (d = 0.89 and d = 2.19, respectively). These

null hypotheses were therefore accepted, as students’ derived scientific literacy

scores did not improve from Parts A to C, or from Parts B to C of their BioStories.

Table 5.6. Significant results of the dependent-samples t tests, which examined changes in students’ derived scientific literacy scores across the three BioStories’ tasks.

Variable 1 Variable 2 t df p d

Part A derived scientific literacy

Part B derived scientific literacy

-4.326 26 .000* 0.85

Part A derived scientific literacy

Part C derived scientific literacy

4.523 25 .000* 0.89



11.170 25 .000* 2.19


121

5.3.2.2 Were there Significant Improvements in Students’ Derived Scientific

Literacy Scores from their Pre-writing Sample, to Parts A, B and C of

their BioStories?

The results of the t tests presented below address the research question, were there

significant improvements in students’ derived scientific literacy scores from their

pre-writing sample, to Parts A, B and C of their BioStories? The following null

hypotheses were evaluated in relation to this question:



literacy scores from pre-writing to Part A of their BioStories.



literacy scores from pre-writing to Part B of their BioStories.



literacy scores from pre-writing to Part C of their BioStories.

The t test results are shown in Table 5.7. With respect to Null Hypothesis 5, a

significant improvement was found in the derived scientific literacy scores from pre-

writing (M = 51.00%, SD = 19.99) to Part B, t(26) = -6.39, p < .01; therefore, this

null hypothesis was rejected. A large effect (d = 1.25) was observed. Null Hypothesis

6 was accepted as a significant decrease was observed from pre-writing to Part C,

t(25) = 2.80, p = .01, d = 0.55 (a medium effect). No significant difference was found

between students’ pre-writing and Part A derived scientific literacy scores, therefore,

Null Hypothesis 4 was also accepted.

Table 5.7. Significant results of the dependent-samples t tests, which examined changes in students’ derived scientific literacy scores across the pre-writing and BioStories’ tasks. The results for pre-writing to Part A are not shown, as they were not significant.


Pre-writing derived scientific literacy


-6.389 25 .000* 1.25

Pre-writing derived scientific literacy


2.801 24 .010* 0.55


122

5.3.2.3 Were there Significant Improvements in Students’ Fundamental

Scientific Literacy Scores across Parts A, B and C of their BioStories?

The results of the final t tests presented below examine the question, were there

significant improvements in students’ fundamental scientific literacy scores across

Parts A, B and C of their BioStories? The following null hypotheses were evaluated:


will not demonstrate a significant improvement in their fundamental

scientific literacy scores from Part A to Part B of their BioStories.



scientific literacy scores from Part B to Part C of their BioStories.



scientific literacy scores from Part A to Part C of their BioStories.

The results of the t tests are shown in Table 5.8. With respect to Null Hypothesis 7,

the analyses revealed a significant improvement in students’ fundamental scientific

literacy scores from Part A (M = 68.42%, SD = 15.79) to Part B (M = 73.26%, SD =

14.49), t(26) = -3.29, p < .01, d = 0.65 (a medium effect). This null hypothesis was

therefore rejected as the results show that students’ fundamental scientific literacy

scores improved from Part A to Part B of their BioStories. Null Hypotheses 8 and 9

were accepted, as a significant decrease was observed in students’ fundamental

scientific literacy scores from Parts B to C (M = 51.45%, SD = 15.64), t(25) = 10.40,

p < .01, d = 2.04, and Parts A to C, t(25) = 6.04, p < .01, d = 1.18 (a large effect in

both cases).

123

Table 5.8. Significant results of the dependent-samples t tests, which examined changes in students’ fundamental scientific literacy scores across the three BioStories’ tasks.


Part A fundamental scientific literacy

Part B fundamental scientific literacy -3.291 25 .003* 0.65

Part A fundamental scientific literacy

Part C fundamental scientific literacy 6.038 24 .000* 1.18

Part B fundamental scientific literacy

Part C fundamental scientific literacy 10.402 24 .000* 2.04


5.3.3 Summary of BioStories’ Analysis

Analysis of the BioStories’ data was performed in order to address three research

questions that were concerned with differences in students’ derived scientific literacy

scores (Research Questions 1 and 2), and their fundamental scientific literacy scores

(Research Question 3). In order to explore the research questions, a number of

dependent-samples t tests were conducted. In relation to Research Question 1, a

significant improvement was observed in students’ derived scientific literacy scores

from Parts A to B of the BioStories’ tasks, with a large effect. A statistically

significant reduction was found in the derived scientific literacy scores from Parts B

and C, and Parts A to C. In relation to Research Question 2, students’ derived

scientific literacy scores significantly improved from pre-writing to Part B, although

no difference was observed from pre-writing to Part A. A statistically significant

reduction was found in the derived scientific literacy scores from pre-writing to Part

C. With respect to Research Question 3, a significant improvement was observed in

students’ fundamental scientific literacy scores from Parts A to B, while the scores

decreased significantly from Parts B and C, and Parts A to C. The implications of

these results will be discussed in-depth in Chapter 7.

124

125

Chapter 6

QUALITATIVE RESULTS

6.1 Introduction

As described in Chapter 3, transcripts of semi-structured in-depth interviews

conducted with the students in the case study class (N=245) were analysed for

evidence of their developing scientific literacy (i.e., conceptual science

understanding relating to biosecurity), and students’ perceptions of the BioStories’

writing tasks and their participation in the project (in order to provide further insight

into their attitudes toward learning science). Interviews conducted with each of the

teachers of the eight participating science classes (N=7) were also analysed for their

perceptions of their class’ participation in the project and of the project itself, and to

provide additional insight into the students’ experiences.

Section 6.2 presents an overview of the interview process that was conducted for

students and teachers, and approach to analysis. Section 6.3 examines the extent to

which the scientific literacy of the Year 9 students was enhanced through their

participation in the BioStories’ project, by presenting evidence of their conceptual

science understandings articulated at interview. Section 6.4 examines the

participants’ perceptions of their experiences of the project, which provides further

insight into the students’ attitudes toward learning science through their participation

in the project. Section 6.4.1 reviews students’ interest and enjoyment generated in

the project, identifying five themes that arose from the interview data, while Section

6.4.2 examines issues arising from project design and implementation.

6.2 Overview of the Interview Process and Analysis

Both the student and teacher interviews were conducted within a four-week period

following the completion of the project at the participating school. As the BioStories’

project was completed in the final week of Term 2, 2008, the interviews commenced

at the beginning of Term 3, two weeks after project completion. At the request of the

case study class teacher, Mr. Peters, the student interviews were conducted in a

computer laboratory during school lunchtimes, so as not to interfere with science

5 Although there were 26 students in the case study class, 24 students agreed to participate in the interview process.

126

classes. Each student was asked to logon to the BioStories’ website and review

selected stories that he/she had written and uploaded. Each interview commenced

with a general or grand tour question (Spradley, 1979); that is, what did you learn

from the BioStories’ project? The students were then asked a series of questions in

relation to their stories in order to explore their understanding of the scientific

information they had written. Other questions were directed at the students’

experiences writing and uploading their BioStories, and their perceptions of the

project.

The teacher interviews were also initiated with a grand tour question; that is, tell me

about your experience implementing BioStories. Other questions examined their

perceptions of the project, their students’ experiences, and the value of the

intervention for the students. Transcription data from both the teacher and student

interviews were grouped around themes related to the research questions, and the

data corpus was searched for instances that supported and contradicted emerging

patterns.

Qualitative analysis of the transcripts was conducted in order to address the

following research questions, which have previously been investigated, in part, by

quantitative analysis of the BioQuiz results, and the students’ BioStories:





The results for each research question are discussed in the sections that follow. With

respect to Research Question 1, the results of this analysis will be aligned with the

relevant results of the analyses of BioQuiz and BioStories’ data (Chapters 5 and 6,

respectively), in order to make judgments about the students’ developing scientific

literacy (i.e., in terms of selected aspects of students’ attitudes toward science and

science learning, and their conceptual science understanding relating to biosecurity).

With respect to Research Question 2, the results of the interview analysis will be

127

used in conjunction with the BioQuiz results to produce claims. This combination of

both qualitative and quantitative analyses seeks to strengthen the claims made from

the BioQuiz results, in response to concerns that quantitative analyses in attitudinal

studies provide limited information as they are restricted by a narrow range of

responses based on the researcher’s perspective of the problem (Kaya, Yager, &

Dogan, 2009; Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003; Piburn & Baker, 1993). The

triangulation mixed methods design adopted in the current study strives to counteract

this concern by developing a deeper understanding of the students’ interest and

enjoyment over the course of the project, by merging both qualitative and

quantitative analyses. The claims from this study are presented in Chapter 7.

6.3 To what Extent is the Scientific Literacy of the Year 9 Students enhanced

through their Participation in the BioStories’ Project?

Qualitative analysis of the teacher and student interview data were used to make

judgments about the students’ derived sense of scientific literacy (i.e., their

conceptual science understanding), while qualitative examination of the students’

BioStories facilitated judgments about their expanded fundamental sense of scientific

literacy (i.e., their ability to infer meaning from text). Examination of the former

comprises the majority of the following discussion, as the students’ demonstrated

ability to infer meaning from the scientific texts and transform them into BioStories

will be reflected in their articulated conceptual understandings. It is reasonable to

assume that if the students’ understandings are largely problematic, that their

expanded fundamental sense of scientific literacy is also questionable.

During the interview process, students were asked to “Tell me about…” the

biological incursion that featured in their particular stories. When students referred to

some of the impacts of the incursion in their Part A stories (i.e., environmental,

social and economic impacts), they were then asked “So, does it matter if…”, in

order to probe their understanding in relation to these impacts. For example, if a

student stated that chytrid fungus kills frogs, he/she was asked, “So does it matter if

some native frogs die-off?” For the Part B stories, students were asked, “What

would be some of the impacts of a bird flu outbreak?” and “What would a farm need

to do if bird flu was discovered there?” in order to identify students’ level of

128

understanding in relation to the social and economic impacts of avian influenza, and

how the community should respond to an outbreak of the disease.

As shown in Table 6.1, which presents a summary of the students’ conceptual

science understandings expressed at interview, the interview findings are represented

in three subsections. The first refers to instances in which students revealed a

comparable level of understanding of the scientific concepts about which they had

written (i.e., students recalled the same concepts with comparable detail). In most

cases, the students’ recall of information was accurate; however, a small number of

students recalled the same alternative conceptions about which they wrote.

Table 6.1. A summary of students’ conceptual science understandings expressed at interview.

Evidence of comparable understanding

22 students recalled a comparable amount of scientific information as was written in their BioStories.

Three students confirmed alternative conceptions expressed in their BioStories.

Evidence of deeper conceptual understanding

14 students elaborated on the ecological, social and/or economic impacts of biological incursions that featured in their Part A BioStories.

Eight students correctly explained some of the social and economic impacts of a potential avian influenza outbreak.

Five students correctly explained how the community should respond to an outbreak of avian influenza.

Evidence of superficial or problematic conceptual understanding

Two students could recall little of the scientific information about a particular biological incursion about which they wrote.

Four students introduced new alternative conceptions at interview that were not expressed in their BioStories.

Six students offered superficial explanations of the social and economic impacts of a potential avian influenza outbreak.

Nine students could not offer a fully correct explanation of how a community should respond to an outbreak of avian influenza.

Four students intuitively identified the impacts of their Part A biological incursions as “bad”, but could not explain scientifically.

The second section of Table 6.1 illustrates instances in which students demonstrated

a deeper level of conceptual science understanding than was expressed in their

BioStories. These students successfully elaborated on the concepts that they wrote

about, or, alternatively, they introduced and elaborated on new scientific concepts

that they had not previously written about.

129

The third section of Table 6.1 includes instances in which students demonstrated a

superficial or problematic level of understanding in terms of specific concepts or

issues relating to biosecurity, in relation to what they wrote in their stories (i.e.,

students could only offer superficial explanations of what they wrote; or they

expressed alternative conceptions not evident in their writing). A very small number

of students (i.e., two) could recall very little of the scientific information about which

they wrote.

6.3.1 Evidence of Comparable Understanding

Twenty-two of the 24 students interviewed could accurately recall the same scientific

information as was written in their stories. This suggests that the students did learn

science through participation in the BioStories’ project, and this learning had more

than a short-term effect, as they could recall information two to six weeks after

completing the final writing task. In the following excerpts, the students accurately

recalled some of the concepts about which they wrote in their Part A stories:

Excerpt 6.3.1

Researcher So you wrote about tilapia and avian influenza in your stories. Can you tell me a little more about tilapia?

Student 2 Tilapia are like the rabbit of Queensland’s waterways. They breed really quickly and they’re not really fussy eaters, so they basically take over the other fish’s habitat and outnumber them.

Researcher Okay. How do they do that?

Student 2 Because they breed so quickly, and faster than all the native fish.

Excerpt 6.3.2

Researcher Can you explain a little more about silverleaf whitefly?

Student 15 I know that the actual flies are small. The fly contaminates most fruit and the actual fly contaminates the sap, which eventually kills the plant, but it normally doesn’t get that far because it has already contaminated the fruit and then farmer has to kill the plant.

Researcher Okay. You mentioned in your story that an outbreak would be devastating to farmers. Can you tell me a bit about that?

Student 15 What, whitefly?

Researcher Yeah.

Student 15 It’s spread quite easily and hard to stop because it is an insect and is very small, and I’m pretty sure it’s tough and hard to poison without

130

killing the plant. An outbreak would mean many crops were lost because the farmers would have to kill the crops to stop it.

Excerpt 6.3.3

Researcher Tell me a little about fire ants. What can you remember about fire ants?

Student 22 That fire ants have a pretty bad sting. I think that the reason for fire ant’s incursion in Australia was due to a shipping container of agricultural goods that contaminated soil, I think.

Excerpt 6.4.4

Researcher Tell me a little bit more about chytrid fungus.

Student 4 Well from what I can remember it’s a disease that affects the frog’s skin. They aren’t sure how it actually kills the frogs. There are various theories that it gets into its lungs and stops it from breathing or it dries the skin up and stops it from absorbing water. It reproduces asexually and it’s found in soils and stuff, so how it could have been brought in was if you brought in plants or things like that, they aren’t exactly sure how it was brought in and when it was but it was first detected in Queensland in the 1990s.

In the context of avian influenza (Part B), students could recall information about the

disease itself, and, to different extents, explain the impacts of a potential outbreak,

and how to respond to an outbreak. For example:

Excerpt 6.3.5

Researcher What can you tell me about bird flu?

Student 7 It’s a disease that affects types of bird and causes deaths and things.

Researcher What else can you tell me?

Student 7 It’s mainly in Asia and humans can be affected as well.

Researcher How are humans affected?

Student 7 When they come in contact, they can become real sick and maybe even die.

Researcher Tell me, what would happen if a farm discovered bird flu?

Student 7 They need to contact the government straight away and isolate it.

Researcher What would be the effects of a bird flu outbreak? Let’s say it happened in Australia. What would happen?

Student 7 It could spread really quickly and the whole of Australia might be affected.

Researcher What would be the impact of that?

131

Student 7 No eggs or chickens because they would all be infected.

Excerpt 6.3.6

Researcher Now you wrote about bird flu in your story as well. What can you tell me about that?

Student 10 That bird flu starts off in animals that aren’t domesticated and then it spreads through, and once it gets to the domesticated animals it gets worse and if one bird has it, it can, like, if it goes through cages and another bird comes in contact with that cage, then it can get it and they all die off.

Researcher So what does it do to birds?

Student 10 (5) Kills them.

Researcher Okay, what would be the impacts of a bird flu outbreak?

Student 10 It would affect people as well because if people eat the bird that has bird flu then they could get it and pass on to other humans.

Excerpt 6.3.7

Researcher What would a farm need to do if they found bird flu?

Student 14 Alert the council and stuff so they can take precautions and get rid of it, so it doesn’t go into anyone else, it doesn’t transmit into any other animal.

Researcher What do they do to get rid of it? Do you know?

Student 14 You pick the chicken up and they usually destroy it by burning it.

Of the students who recalled the same information as was written in their stories,

three recalled, or confirmed, the same alternative conceptions evident in their stories

during the interview:

Excerpt 6.3.8

Researcher So what would a farm have to do if they found bird flu?

Student 2 They would have to… well in my Part B story, I just said that they took the affected bird out the enclosure.

Researcher So is all that you would need to do?

Student 2 Yeah and check the other birds to make sure they don’t have any symptoms.

In the above example, the student incorrectly describes the response to an outbreak

of avian influenza. At the same time, it is clear that she underestimates the

132

seriousness of an outbreak, as her response indicates that the disease can be dealt

with quite simply by removing the infected birds.

In the Excerpt 6.3.9, the student believes that erecting fences around a farm’s

livestock can prevent the spread of bird flu:

Excerpt 6.3.9

This student went on to explain incorrectly that crops could be affected by bird flu:

Excerpt 6.3.10

Researcher You mentioned in your Part C story that crops can get bird flu. What crops can get bird flu? What did you mean by that?

Student 24 Like, on the farms that are close to birds, I think.

Researcher So, what was that?

Student 24 Crops that are close to birds are affected by it.

Researcher Can you give me an example of what you mean by that?

Student 24 Like, um, fruit and vegetables growing.

A likely explanation for this conception is that bird flu can be spread via

contaminated surfaces and equipment. This student may be confusing the concepts of

infection and contamination. While she has communicated that crops can be affected

by bird flu, she may mean that crops can become contaminated with the disease.

6.3.2 Evidence of Deeper Conceptual Understanding

Nineteen students in the case study class could elaborate successfully on the

scientific concepts identified in their BioStories, demonstrating a deeper level of

understanding than was expressed in their written work. Fourteen of these students

could explain some of the ecological, social and economic impacts of their Part A

biological incursions, concepts that they did not write about in their stories. The

following excerpts exemplify instances in which students explained some of the

Researcher What would a farm need to do if they found bird flu?

Student 24 Try to get rid of it like straight away and not let it spread to people.

Researcher What might a farm do to stop it from spreading?

Student 24 Um, put fences around all the birds.

133

ecological impacts of the biological incursions. Most notably, students referred, in

most cases, to the role of food chains and/or food webs in ecosystems, and how these

may be altered via the introduction of exotic species:

Excerpt 6.3.11

Researcher You said they [i.e., tilapia] breed really quickly. How does that affect native fish?

Student 2 Because it takes over their habitat and the tilapia eat the resources the other fish use, and the other fish end up dying off because there aren’t enough resources for them.

Researcher Okay, so if native fish die-off because of the tilapia, should we be worried about that, is that a problem?

Student 2 Well, because eventually it would kill off some species of our native fish.

Researcher Is that a problem do you think?

Student 2 Yes, because we eat fish and it would just throw the whole cycle off because if one thing dies then other species would be affected by it.

Researcher Oh yeah, tell me about that. Give me an example of how other species might be affected?

Student 2 Food chains, if like the trees... grasshoppers ate the grass, birds ate grasshoppers then snakes ate the birds. Well, if the birds died out then the snake’s population would decrease because there is not enough food and the grasshoppers would double because the birds that ate them died out.

Researcher So tell me how that relates to native fish and tilapia?

Student 2 Well, if the tilapia overtake all the native fish, they would die out, which will in the long-run would affect us because we eat fish. But it won’t affect us that much because we have other resources like meat and chicken.

Researcher So if the native fish did die out and we didn’t need them because we don’t need to eat them, does it really matter then?

Student 2 Probably it still would, because it would affect the food web, for animals lower than the fish.

Excerpt 6.3.12

Researcher In the Part A scenario, it mentioned that they [i.e., fire ants] can be a problem for lizards and skinks. Do you remember why?

Student 1 ‘Cause they eat them.

Researcher Is that a problem? Does it matter if fire ants eat our skinks?

Student 1 It would upset our ecosystem.

134

Researcher Oh yeah? Tell me about that.

Student 1 It would, like the things that eat the lizards would then die-off.

Researcher Can you explain that? The things that eat the lizards would die off because?

Student 1 Because there’s a reduced number of lizards.

Researcher What would happen to the things the lizards eat?

Student 1 They would then increase in numbers because of there’s less things that eat them.

The students’ articulation of ecological relationships in food chains was not

surprising, as the science unit in which the BioStories’ project was embedded had an

ecology focus. As Mr. Peters explained, “We did food chains, we did food webs.

They were assessed on food chains and food webs and human impacts on the

environment”. However, as this topic was covered a number of weeks prior to the

commencement of students’ participation in the project, and Mr. Peters made no

explicit links between the concept of a food chain, and the environmental impacts of

the biological incursions about which his students wrote. This connection was one

that the students made themselves.

In Excerpt 6.3.13, Student 22 also refers to a social impact of a fire ant invasion, in

that the destruction of native fauna would impact negatively on Australia’s tourism

industry:

Excerpt 6.3.13

Researcher You mentioned in your Part A story that fire ants are a threat to our native fauna. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Student 22 Fire ants came into Australia, and that has a threat on our ecosystem, as other species would be suffering due to them.

Researcher How do they make them suffer? What do you mean by that?

Student 22 Well, they can harm other species and have the ability to kill small animals, and if that keeps on happening then mammals would die-off, then the next one in the line would die-off, and it would keep on going from there.

Researcher Okay then. Does it matter if we lose native animals to fire ants?

Student 22 I think it does, because they’re native to Australia and they make up Australia’s icon. They are part of Australia and that’s the reason why tourists come here. They come to see our animals and our fauna and it would be good to have things to preserve our wildlife now because we

135

might not have them in the future, and it would be good to ensure they are safe for the future.

Eight students were able to explain some the social and economic impacts of avian

influenza, despite not writing about these concepts in their Parts B or C stories:

Excerpt 6.3.14

Researcher What do you remember about bird flu, avian influenza?

Student 22 Oh, God! ((laughs))

Researcher Just tell me what you remember.

Student 22 I know that bird flu is highly contagious and it can spread really easy. What else do I know?

Researcher What does it impact on, what does it do?

Student 22 It really impacts on the production of chickens and eggs, and it sends farmers out of their jobs. They lose money and they go bankrupt, like a lot of companies due to epidemics of bird flu and the outbreaks that occur. It’s good that it hasn’t happened in Australia yet.

Excerpt 6.3.15

Researcher So what would bird flu impact in Australia?

Student 4 Probably the chicken industry.

Researcher What would happen?

Student 4 They wouldn’t be able to sell chicken because it could be infected, and people that depend on chicken who don’t like to eat red meat, like myself, I don’t eat red meat but will occasionally eat chicken, so that would affect those people as they may not be getting their source of iron from chicken.

Researcher How would it affect the chicken producers?

Student 4 They would probably feel the grind. They might not earn enough money to cope and keep their family up and might be finding it hard.

Excerpt 6.3.16

Researcher Okay then, would there be any impact on you and more or other people?

Student 3 In a sense that we can get bird flu, yes it can. In a sense that it would effect a farmer because of his chickens the buyers and wholesalers. Egg prices would go up of course.

Researcher What would happen to the chicken industry?

Student 3 The prices would go up for more demands of eggs because there would be less eggs coming in and people like eggs basically.

136

Although they had not written about it in their stories, five students could explain

correctly how the community should respond to an outbreak of avian influenza.

Three of these students (i.e., Students 15, 17 and 23) could also explain the economic

impact of an outbreak on both consumers and farmers:

Excerpt 6.3.17

Researcher What would a farm need to do if there was a bird flu outbreak?

Student 15 If there was one, they would need to contact police and other emergency services and quarantine the area. Then they would need to clean up any mess and destroy any bodies of birds and stuff like that.

Researcher What would be the impact of a bird flu outbreak?

Student 15 Well, it would probably destroy most poultry farms, and chicken would be a hard food to get, and prices of chicken products would go right up, like eggs.

Researcher What would happen to our farmers?

Student 15 They would probably go bankrupt from loss of work and labour.

Excerpt 6.3.18

Researcher What would a farm need to do if they found bird flu do you think?

Student 23 Call the animal people.

Researcher And what else would happen?

Student 23 They would have to quarantine.

Researcher What would be the impact of a bird flu outbreak? Who or what would be affected do you think?

Student 23 Well, if it’s on a farm, the farmers would be affected and they would lose money and chickens and the chickens would die.

Excerpt 6.3.19

Researcher So what would a farm need to do if they had an outbreak of bird flu?

Student 17 Quarantine the farm and kill the chickens because there is no cure, and that’s about it.

Researcher What would be the outcome of an outbreak, like what would happen if we did find bird flu in Australia?

Student 17 We would have to stop all importation of bird from the country we were getting it from in case it spread to other farms as well as we couldn’t import all the chickens and turkeys and all the other birds hat get it into other states, you would have to put them in a quarantine type area.

Researcher How would that affect the chicken industry?

137

Student 17 We wouldn’t get eggs and chicken and stuff because, I’m not sure but maybe it’s in the actual meat of the chicken too, but I don’t know about that.

In one student’s Part C story, she had written that crops (and animals) would die as a

consequence of a bird flu outbreak. However, when questioned about this at

interview, this student responded with an explanation about spreading the disease via

cross-contamination:

Excerpt 6.3.20

Researcher Okay, what would be the effects of a bird flu outbreak?

Student 20 Things would die.

Researcher What things?

Student 20 Living animals, humans can get affected.

Researcher So you said in your Part C story that if there was a bird flu outbreak than the crops and animals would start to die. Can you tell me a bit about that?

Student 20 When it spreads they, when something touches it and then they walk then something else touches it then it spreads.

In this example, the student demonstrated a deeper level of understanding at

interview with respect to this particular concept, for although she wrote about

something that was scientifically incorrect (i.e., crops dying from bird flu), she was

able to clarify what she meant verbally.

The results of analyses presented in this and the preceding section suggest that

writing BioStories exercised students’ expanded fundamental sense of scientific

literacy, as the majority of the students successfully inferred meaning from the

scientific resources that they used to construct their stories. This was reflected in

their articulated conceptual understandings.

6.3.3 Evidence of Superficial or Problematic Conceptual Understanding

Despite the impressive results presented so far, in which students were able to recall

the science concepts about which they had written, and/or demonstrate deeper levels

of conceptual understanding at interview than was written in their stories, a number

of students demonstrated a superficial understanding with respect to particular

138

scientific concepts. A small number of students introduced new alternative

conceptions not expressed in their stories (i.e., four students). It is important to note,

however, that all of these students, with the exception of two, demonstrated

comparable or deeper levels of understanding in relation to other scientific concepts

or issues relating to biosecurity. Two students presented a major disparity between

the level of scientific understanding evident in their stories, and what they expressed

at interview, as they could recall very little of the science about which they wrote.

The cases of superficial or problematic understanding presented below pertain to

specific concepts or questions, and not to the students’ overall level of

understanding. For example, four students introduced a number of alternative

conceptions during the interviews, all of which pertained to avian influenza:

Excerpt 6.3.21

Researcher You mentioned in your story that if people happen to catch the bird flu virus they can’t pass it on to other human beings. What does that mean?

Student 8 I probably meant that if you... one of my friends caught bird flu from school because a bird touched one of the bubblers and he drank from it.

Researcher Oh, so you had a friend with bird flu? What happened to them?

Student 8 They survived.

Researcher They survived? That’s lucky then!

Excerpt 6.3.22

Researcher Let’s talk about your Part C story. Your central character Brandon had bird flu, which was a bit of a worry. Can you tell me a bit more about bird flu?

Student 11 It’s a disease that is spread right through and if you=

Researcher =What do you mean, “spread right through”?

Student 11 Through all of Australia, and it’s a common thing around birds, but humans can catch it too, and I suppose it’s just annoying because you have to be careful when you go around birds.

In Excerpt 6.3.22, it is likely that the student was confused by the fact that non-lethal

subtypes of avian influenza are found in wild birds world-wide, hence his

explanation that bird flu is spread “through all of Australia” and one should be

careful when they approach birds.

139

In Excerpt 6.3.23, the student was having difficulty telling the researcher about citrus

canker, the topic of her Part A BioStory. After reminding the student that citrus

canker was a bacterial disease that affects citrus trees (as she had written in her

story), she was asked why the disease might be problematic. She explained that

animals that feed on citrus crops would become extinct:

Excerpt 6.3.23

Researcher Just to refresh your memory, citrus canker remember affects citrus trees=

Student 24 =Yeah.

Researcher It’s a bacterial disease, yeah? Can you tell me why it might be a problem?

Student 24 It like kills fruits as well, and then animals eat the fruit, and if it’s infected then they can’t eat it.

Researcher What’s the impact of that? What’s the impact of destroying citrus crops?

Student 24 The animals, they’ll become extinct.

Researcher Yeah, what sort of animals?

Student 24 Um, birds that eat the fruit.

In Australia, citrus crops do not serve as the primary food source for any animal, so

their removal would not result in the extinction of any species. Nonetheless, in any

food web, if a particular food source is removed, animals may need to rely to

alternative sources of food, which is the mostly likely explanation of this conception.

In Excerpt 6.3.24, the student explained incorrectly that avian influenza “eats away”

at plants. She then went on to explain that you “cannot tell” if a bird is infected with

avian influenza. Once again, this student may have been confusing the lethal H5N1

strain of bird flu with the non-lethal subtypes that do not exhibit symptoms in wild

birds:

Excerpt 6.3.24

Researcher Let’s talk about your Part B story. What can you tell me about bird flu?

Student 8 It can be spread, I think, and I think it’s dangerous. When people eat turkey and stuff they can pick it up, and that’s a serious situation also.

Researcher Why is it serious?

140

Student 8 Because it can affect crops and plants as well.

Researcher How can it affect crops and plants?

Student 8 Like the virus can... like eat away at the plants.

Researcher You mentioned in your Part B story that influenza cannot be controlled because it’s a widespread disease. Can you just tell me what you mean by that?

Student 8 The only way you can really stop the disease is by killing the birds, and you can’t really tell if the birds have it or not.

Researcher What sort of birds?

Student 8 Chickens on farms and just ibises.

Researcher So, you can’t tell if chickens on farms have bird flu?

Student 8 No, you can’t tell bird flu because they don’t have symptoms or anything like that. So if one bird you think has it you would have to kill the rest of them because it spreads rapidly through them.

When questioned about how an avian influenza outbreak should be responded to or

managed, nine students could not offer a fully correct explanation that referred to the

role of quarantine measures. For example, when asked how a farm should respond to

an outbreak of the disease, Student 19 explained, “They’d have to probably kill all

the chickens in case they did have the bird flu, and they wouldn’t have any eggs to

make breakfast or they’d just have to kill all the birds”. Student 20 believed that an

infected farm would need to clear all of its crops, which, again, may represent some

confusion between the notions of “infection” versus “contamination”:

Excerpt 6.3.25

Researcher What would a farm need to do if it had a bird flu outbreak?

Student 20 Clear all the crops and start again.

Researcher What do you mean by crops?

Student 20 Like all the trees and the ground and stuff and you would have to spray something to get rid of it.

Student 3 explained that a farm would need to manage an outbreak of bird flu all on

its own:

Excerpt 6.3.26

Researcher What would a farm need to do if it found bird flu?

141

Student 3 They are working on a cure now. I’m pretty sure they don’t have any cure at the moment. If you found bird flu, apparently the most you can do is inspect all the livestock that you have, for example, if you have chickens and they are all in a coop then you go and inspect all the chickens. You read up on all the symptoms, check their feathers and their egg count for the last month to three months or something, check their eyelids. If they have the symptoms, then you kill off the ones that have the symptoms because there is nothing else and they can infect the other ones as well.

Researcher Is that all you’d need to do?

Student 3 Because there is no other cure for it yet.

Six students demonstrated a superficial understanding of the impacts of a potential

avian influenza outbreak at interview. In Excerpt 6.3.27, Student 11 explains that

bird flu would only affect him if he traveled beyond his hometown to a place that

was affected by the disease. His response does not demonstrate an understanding of

the wider social and economic implications (such as declaring quarantine, and the

cost of poultry products rising).

Excerpt 6.3.27

Researcher What would be the effects of a bird flu outbreak?

Student 11 I’m not really sure because it was so long ago, and I haven’t read through it.

Researcher That’s alright. Would it matter to you and me for example if there was a bird flu outbreak?

Student 11 Depends on where it is. It won’t matter if it’s not in Townsville because we wouldn’t be able to catch it, but if we went out of Townsville we could catch it and bring it in.

When questioned about the potential impacts of a bird flu outbreak, a concept that

was not addressed in either their Part B or Part C stories, two students identified that

there would, in fact, be ramifications; however, their responses did not demonstrate

an understanding of the wider implications. In Excerpt 6.3.28, the student explained

that, with the exception of farmers, only people who consumed chicken would be

affected by an outbreak of bird flu:

Excerpt 6.3.28

Researcher What would be the effects of a bird flu outbreak? Who or what would

142

be affected?

Student 13 The farmer and the town near it because they don’t have any poultry because all the chickens are dead or infected.

Researcher Would there be any impact on you and me, for example, if we lived in that town?

Student 13 If we were vegetarian no, but if we did eat meat, kind of.

Researcher Why is that?

Student 13 We wouldn’t be able to eat chicken.

In Excerpt 6.3.29, the student emphasises the lack of eggs for the consumer:

Excerpt 6.3.29

Researcher What would be the impact of a bird flu outbreak?

Student 14 If it was on a poultry farm you wouldn’t be able to sell the eggs because they would be infected with the disease and the chickens that are infected would have to be killed and the other chickens there. If it was like a small town, and they might rely on those eggs then they would have to get it shipped in and stuff.

Researcher Would there be any impact on you and me for example?

Student 14 Yes. If it was one of the big egg companies and we bought the same brand we would have to go to a different brand.

When explaining the impact of the biological incursions that featured in their Part A

stories, four students intuitively identified the loss of native species as “bad”;

however, they could not explain scientifically, as exemplified by the Excerpts 6.3.30

and 6.3.31:

Excerpt 6.3.30

Researcher Tell me, what do you know about tilapia?

Student 19 It’s a sort of fish that disturbs all the underwater plants and eats all the other fish’s eggs so the other fish can’t reproduce rapidly.

Researcher Okay. Is that a problem?

Student 19 ‘Cause it’s not native to Australia, and if the tilapia eats the fish our native fish to Australia can’t reproduce, and we don’t have any fish to have as our pets or anything like that.

Researcher Okay, is that a big deal? Does it matter if our native fish die off? What do you think?

Student 19 I think yes, because it’s important to have fish that are native to

143

Australia so it’s nice to have Australian fish in Australian waters.

Excerpt 6.3.31

Researcher You wrote in your Part A story that chytrid fungus is devastating to our vulnerable ecosystems. Can you explain that for me?

Student 5 Because it’s just affecting species and stuff.

Researcher What sort of species?

Student 5 Like amphibians and other types of frogs.

Researcher You mentioned that it causes the frogs to die. Is that a big deal? Does it matter if some of our frogs die?

Student 5 Yes, because it’s like (3)

Researcher Just tell me what you think.

Student 5 Um (3)

Researcher Why did you say yes straight away? Why do you think it’s a problem?

Student 5 Because like they are part of the environment and stuff.

Only two students, Students 21 and 24, recalled only limited scientific information

regarding the biological incursions that featured in their BioStories:

Excerpt 6.3.32

Researcher What did you learn about the citrus canker?

Student 24 That it’s like a big problem and it can spread real fast.

Researcher What it’s a problem for?

Student 24 Um, plants and animals.

Researcher Can you be more specific?

Student 24 Um, no.

Researcher You don’t remember?

Student 24 No, not really.

Excerpt 6.3.33

Researcher What was your Part A story about? (2) Can you remember?

Student 21 No not really.

Researcher Let’s have a look, silver leaf whitefly. Do you remember anything about silver leaf whitefly?

Student 21 No, not really.

144

Later in the interview, Student 21 also recalled little about avian influenza:

Excerpt 6.3.34

Researcher Okay, what does bird flu do, what’s it about?

Student 21 It’s a sickness. It’s like a flu, but it’s worse.

Researcher What does it impact on?

Student 21 Um (3)

Researcher What does it affect?

Student 21 Um, (7) I can’t remember.

Students 21 and 24 represent the only students who could recall little of the scientific

information about which they wrote. The evidence of superficial and problematic

understanding expressed by the remaining students at interview pertained only to

specific scientific concepts, and not to their overall level of understanding, such as

the social and economic impacts of a potential avian influenza outbreak, the ways in

which the community should respond to an outbreak of bird flu, alternative

conceptions about the disease, and the reasons why the impacts of the Part A

biological incursions are undesirable. Interestingly, the interview data highlights that

the students’ superficial and problematic understandings relate primarily to avian

influenza.

6.3.4 Summary of Analysis of Students’ Conceptual Understanding

The preceding interview data provide evidence to support two claims in relation to

the students’ developing scientific literacy: (1) most students demonstrated deeper

levels of conceptual science understandings at interview (in terms of relevant

biological concepts, and issues pertinent to biosecurity), than they expressed in their

written stories; and (2) students became more aware of biosecurity issues through

their participation in the BioStories’ project. Specifically, students explained

correctly some of the environmental, social and economic impacts of the biological

incursions that featured in their BioStories; that is, concepts that weren’t elaborated,

or, in some cases, evident, in their writing. These students elaborated their

understandings or introduced and explained new concepts that were not expressed in

their stories, which has implications for making judgments about students’

developing scientific literacy, based on their writing alone (refer Chapter 7).

145

Furthermore, students’ awareness of biosecurity issues, such as the impacts of

introduced species, the potential threat of biological incursions that are yet to reach

our shores, and the need for quarantine, increased through their participation in the

project. In addition to the data already presented, further evidence is presented in the

following sections, whereby students acknowledged their newfound awareness of

such issues at interview. Additional evidence also exists the BioQuiz results

(specifically, the improvement in students’ scores for the familiarity with biosecurity

issues subscale).

6.4 Participants’ Perceptions of their Experiences in the Project

In order to strengthen the claims made from the BioQuiz results by gaining a deeper

insight into the students’ attitudes toward learning science through their participation

in the project, they were asked a number of questions at interview that explored their

perceptions of their experiences in the project; specifically, what they enjoyed most

and least about learning science through their participation in the BioStories’ project;

their perceptions of the writing tasks; how they compared learning science through

writing BioStories to the ways in which they normally learn science; and their

perceptions of transforming scientific information and re-representing it in their

BioStories. As shown in Table 6.2, the students identified a comparable number of

aspects of the project that they enjoyed and did not enjoy, however, half as many

negative comments were recorded, compared to positive ones.

In Section 6.4.1, evidence of students’ interest and enjoyment generated in the

project is presented. This evidence is organised according to five themes that arose

from the interview data. Section 6.4.2 examines a number of issues articulated by the

students and teachers at interview, that arose from design and implementation.

Together, these qualitative results illuminate further the students’ attitudes toward

learning science through their participation in the project.

146

Table 6.2. A summary of students’ responses at interview, regarding aspects of the project they did and did not enjoy. Frequency represents the number of times particular aspects were cited.

Aspects of the project that students enjoyed Frequency

Writing stories 11 Learning something new 9 Using imagination/creativity 7 Doing something different or writing differently in science 6 Being active in the learning process/taking ownership 4 Engaging with information technologies 4 Reading and commenting on peers’ stories 4 The writing tasks themselves were interesting 2 The topic (i.e., biosecurity) 2 Merging English and Science 2 The BioStories’ website 2 Explicit task requirements 2 Researching information 1 Challenging nature of the tasks 1 Working collaboratively 1

Total 58

Aspects of the project that students did not enjoy Frequency

Difficulty locating desired information 5 Part C – writing about two incursions in one story 3 Part C – amount of writing required 3 Researching information 3 Inadequate time provided to complete the project 3 Technical difficulties relating to website 2 Completing the work required 2 Transforming scientific information into stories (difficult) 1 The length of the project (too long) 1 Completing the BioQuiz 1 Typing stories 1 Reading ‘better’ stories once their own was uploaded 1 Coming up with ideas 1 Writing stories 1

Total 28

6.4.1 Interest and Enjoyment Generated in the Project

With respect to the features of the project they enjoyed, the majority of the students

cited four main aspects: writing the BioStories themselves, learning something new,

using their imagination or being creative, and doing something different/writing

differently in science (Table 6.2). From the students’ comments on these aspects of

the project, five main themes emerge:

1. Writing differently in science,

2. Stimulating imagination,

3. Student-centred pedagogy,

147

4. Engaging diverse learners, and

5. Accessing information technologies.

The results that support each of these themes are presented in the following sections.

The first three themes that emerged from the interview data, writing differently in

science, stimulating imagination and student-centred pedagogy are closely linked, as

the students appreciated writing hybridised scientific narratives as it was different to

the ways in which they normally write in science, and at the same time, it enabled

them to exercise their imagination and creativity, while taking control over their own

learning. While the data pertaining to the following sections are presented separately,

evidence of the connections between these themes are clearly evident in the students’

comments.

6.4.1.1 Writing Differently in Science

Six students in the case study class articulated that writing differently in science was

an aspect of the project that they enjoyed – both in terms of the genre (i.e.,

hybridised scientific narratives) and topic of their writing (i.e., biosecurity). Eleven

students specifically enjoyed writing stories.

Not surprisingly, the BioStories’ project and, in particular, writing stories in science,

was a novelty for many students, and one which they enjoyed. As one of the science

teachers explained, “It’s unique. The students did something different that they don’t

normally do”. Furthermore, writing stories in science about a topic they knew little

about (i.e., biosecurity) proved to be a significant talking point at interview. As

Student 17 explained, he learnt “a lot about all the different topics and what they

actually are. I didn’t even know what citrus canker was”. Excerpts 6.4.8-6.4.5

illustrate instances in which students acknowledged that they enjoyed writing stories

about a new topic:

Excerpt 6.4.1

Researcher What did you like about BioStories?

Student 13 Making up a story in science. You never get to do that.

Researcher Okay, so how does this type of writing compare to other writing you’ve done in science?

148

Student 13 Heaps different, because we usually do formal reports after we do experiments. This was totally different, writing stories.

Researcher Was there anything else you enjoyed?

Student 13 Learning about avian influenza and chytrid fungus.

Excerpt 6.4.2

Researcher What did you enjoy most about learning science this way?

Student 8 I enjoyed it mostly because we go to work on the computers, and we don’t normally get to in science. It was a bit different and a different assignment, so it gave a break from the other stuff, and it was just different to all the other stuff we do in science normally.

Excerpt 6.4.3


Student 8 I didn’t mind writing stories. I like writing stories.

Researcher So you enjoyed the story-writing side of it?

Student 8 Yeah.


Student 8 Learning the new things.

Excerpt 6.4.4

Researcher Tell me, what did you learn through BioStories?

Student 4 I learnt about chytrid fungus. I had no idea what it was before I started and how it came into Australia and what it actually affects, which is frogs. And with the avian influenza, I didn’t realise how easy it was for birds to get, so that’s the main thing I got out of BioStories.

Excerpt 6.4.5

Researcher What did you enjoy most about learning science in this way?

Student 12 Probably learning about bird flu and how it can go to many animals, and I have seen documentaries on fire ants before but I didn’t know much about them.

Researcher Anything else you enjoyed?

Student 12 Just writing differently.

Students also enjoyed the challenge that BioStories presented, as exemplified by

Student 7 in Excerpt 6.4.6:

149

Excerpt 6.4.6

Researcher What did you think of the writing tasks?

Student 7 It was a good challenge.

Researcher Why was it a good challenge?

Student 7 Because you get to learn more stuff and something that you didn’t know much about.

Researcher Okay, so you didn’t know much about biological incursions before?

Student 7 A little bit, but nothing much.

Not surprisingly, six students at interview expressed the notion that story-writing was

not something they had previously associated with learning science. As Student 3

explained, for example, “When [Mr. Peters] was like, we’re writing a story, I didn’t

know what he meant, because a story for science? Science is like one of those hard-

core smart subjects and you need to pay attention, and it’s not really a subject where

you can write a creative story. I like English and everything, so I was like, yay!”

In Excerpt 6.4.7, Student 24 identified both the topic of the stories, and the notion of

writing stories in science, as being different from the other types of writing in which

she normally engages in science. Importantly, she also explained that writing a

scientific story was “easier” than she thought, particularly as she normally

experienced difficulty in science:

Excerpt 6.4.7

Researcher How does this type of writing compare to other types of writing you have done in science?

Student 24 Um, yeah, it was different.

Researcher In what way was it different?

Student 24 Because we haven’t done anything about animals yet.

Researcher So you haven’t done this topic in science before? How about writing stories?

Student 24 Oh yeah, I’ve never written a story in science. It was weird.

Researcher What was weird?

Student 24 I don’t know. I just didn’t think I could do it, because it’s about science, but it was easier than I thought.

Researcher Do you normally find science difficult?

Student 24 Oh yeah ((nodding her head))

150

Researcher So, compared to the normal science you do, how did you find this?

Student 24 It was more fun.

Like Students 3 and 24, one of the science teachers explained that his students also

thought that writing stories in science was unusual, and at first, they seemed

apprehensive as it was so different to the types of learning with which they normally

engaged: “It’s a different form of learning and they couldn’t understand the reasons

why they should leave a classroom or a lab and go to a computer and write a story. It

was as though they couldn’t see the relevance behind it. It didn’t seem like science”.

When comparing BioStories to the type of learning activities in which they regularly

participate during science classes, many students appreciated engaging in a different

genre. For example:

Excerpt 6.4.8

Researcher What did you think about the writing tasks?

Student 16 I thought it was good that we didn’t just have to write a report, we could put it in a story and be more creative that just writing a report about it.

Researcher How does this type of writing compare to the writing you have done in science before?

Student 16 I think that I liked it because you can… you don’t have to be so full-on detailed and factual. You still have to, but with this you can have a bit of fun with it and make an interesting storyline to go with it.

Student 20 was the only student who identified a dislike for writing stories:

Excerpt 6.4.9

Researcher What did you enjoy the least about learning science in this way?

Student 20 Coming up with my own story.

Researcher Why did you not like that?

Student 20 Because I don’t like writing stories.

In Excerpt 6.4.10, Student 21 explains how she enjoyed learning about animals and

“how they affect the earth” (i.e., something new), and shares her perception that

science learning is normally about “equations and experiments”.

151

Excerpt 6.4.10

Researcher How did this writing compare to other writing you have done is science?

Student 21 Well in science we learn… we don’t learn about animals and how they affect our earth and stuff, and this was totally and completely different, I thought.

Researcher So you said that you normally don’t learn about animals and what they do to the earth. What do you normally learn about in science?

Student 21 Equations and experiments and stuff.

Regardless of whether this perception of “equations and experiments” was indeed an

accurate representation of her experiences in this class, Student 11 agreed that their

regular science learning was more about chemistry, completing practical

experiments, and learning “theory”. In Excerpt 6.4.11, he explains that BioStories

was more like SOSE (Study of Society and the Environment) or English, in that they

don’t normally learn about foreign species entering the country (i.e., a socioscientific

perspective):

Excerpt 6.4.11

Researcher How did this type of writing compare to other types of writing you normally do in science?

Student 11 It’s different because I didn’t think we would have to talk about when things came into our country and normally in science we don’t talk about that, it’s normally SOSE or English. Science is normally like doing chemistry and doing practicals and theory and stuff like that.

The notion of scientific reports being the primary genre that students write in science

was raised by a number of other students, which was exemplified by Student 5 in

Excerpt 6.4.12:

Excerpt 6.4.12

Researcher How does this type of writing compare to other writing you have done in science?

Student 5 Different, like a cross with English, sort of.

Researcher Okay then. What sort of writing do you normally do for science?

Student 5 Like writing-up demos and prac-writing, and stuff.

One of the science teachers believed her students engaged with BioStories as it

152

broadened their perspective of science: “I think a lot of them enjoyed it because they

got to see a different way of doing science, and they learnt that science isn’t just

reports and exams”. Mr. Peters agreed that the BioStories genre was completely new

for his class, and had the potential to broaden the range of assessment tasks that the

students complete in Year 9 at the school: “I think it’s probably something we could

use a little bit more in terms of a more research-type of assessment for the students.

You know, we do a lot of extended experimental investigations, especially in Year 9,

and written tests”. Extended experimental investigations culminate in the submission

of a written scientific report, which may contribute to the students’ perceptions that

this was the primary genre with which they engaged in science classes.

6.4.1.2 Stimulating Imagination

Seven students articulated that they enjoyed the BioStories’ project as it enabled

them to exercise their imagination and creativity. When asked what she thought of

the BioStories’ tasks, for example, Student 10 explained, “They were quite

interesting because you got to learn about different things, and it was a different way

to do science because you got to do story-writing.” A similar sentiment was echoed

by Student 19, when she indicated that “writing the stories and coming up with

creative ways to write your stories” was an enjoyable aspect of the project.

It was clear that the students appreciated the opportunity to use their imagination and

creativity in science, as illustrated in the following two excerpts. As Student 22

explained in Excerpt 6.4.13, she enjoyed being able to use her imagination, as

opposed to “just writing information”:

Excerpt 6.4.13

Researcher What did you think about the writing task?

Student 22 They were pretty good. I liked having a website that we could log on to, it was more interactive and it was kind of a bit more practical than theory I reckon, and you got to use your imagination a lot more. It was good to do that and made it a lot more enjoyable for me rather than just writing information about the biological incursion.

Researcher Do you get much opportunity to use your imagination in science?

Student 22 Not really, it’s mainly just all facts and science.

Researcher So what did you enjoy most?

153

Student 22 I liked being creative that was probably the best thing. You got to use your imagination a lot more.

Researcher And you enjoyed using the website as well?

Student 22 Yeah.

Excerpt 6.4.14


Student 19 Probably writing the stories and coming up with creative ways to write your stories.

Researcher Okay then. What did you think about the topic?

Student 19 I liked the topic. It was easy and was kind of fun to do at the same time. It wasn’t too hard to research on the Internet. It wasn’t easy but it wasn’t hard, so it was good.

When questioned about their perceived strengths of the BioStories’ project, each of

the science teachers also recognised the benefits of exercising students’

imaginations. Mr. Peters believed that enabling students to learn science in a way

that was new and imaginative was a positive aspect of the project: “The strengths I

thought were, for some kids, just getting the opportunity to do something that I

thought was a bit more exciting, to use their imagination, but they’ve got to embed

the good science in that”. Another teacher enjoyed the BioStories’ concept herself: “I

found it really interesting. It gets the kids to use their imagination, as well as trying

to incorporate factual information. Yeah, I really enjoyed that. It was very different. I

would have never even thought about something like that, but I could see lots of

different topics in science that would be suitable story-writing ideas”.

Stimulating students’ imaginations can be a powerful pedagogical strategy, not only

because it engages students in the learning process, but it can also promote more

meaningful learning, and foster lasting understandings of the world (Egan, 2008). In

spite of the potential benefits of engaging students’ imaginations in the learning of

science, some researchers have argued that creative writing-to-learn science

strategies can undermine many of the goals of science education, while infusing

artificial excitement into the science curriculum (see Section 7.6.1)

154

6.4.1.3 Student-centred Pedagogy

Four students enjoyed the fact that writing BioStories enabled them to play an active

role in their learning. For some students, exercising their imagination supported this

perception, as exemplified by Student 14 in Excerpt 6.4.15.

Excerpt 6.4.15


Student 14 That I could use my imagination more, and like, write my own stories.

Researcher So do you normally get much chance to use your imagination in science?

Student 14 Not really. It’s more formal.

Researcher What else did you like? Anything else?

Student 14 Probably making up your own characters, but that’s like using your imagination.

When asked what she enjoyed the most about learning science through the

BioStories’ project, Student 9 replied: “That we got to do it in a different way,

compared to the normal way, where the teacher just stands up, and we had to do it

ourselves”. She appreciated both learning science in a different way, and taking

ownership over her learning.

In the Excerpt 6.4.16, Student 17 explains how he appreciated the student-direction

in putting his “own stuff” into the stories he wrote:

Excerpt 6.4.16

Researcher How was it for you?

Student 17 It’s a lot better than just writing science stuff.

Researcher What do you mean by that?

Student 17 In science you are normally just writing facts, where as this one, you can put a bit of your own stuff in there.

Researcher So you can have more of your own input?

Student 17 Yeah, instead of just sticking to the books.

Student 18 also enjoyed the active role she played in her learning: “I thought it was

fun how you could put it [scientific information] into stories. You didn’t have to sit

in class and just get all the information thrown at you, and you put it in your book. It

155

was fun to get on the computer and type your stories up.” Student 21 also enjoyed

researching something new: “It was interesting to look stuff up and learn new

things.”

Three of the science teachers also recognised the strength of the student-centred

nature of the project. For two teachers, this contrasted with the types of science

instruction they regularly adopted:

Excerpt 6.4.17

Researcher How does this type of instruction compare to other forms of science instruction you commonly use in your classroom?

Teacher It was very student-oriented, where they could take it in any direction they wanted to, as long as they covered the science required. It was good, as opposed to, this is the experiment, this is what we did, this is what we found. Just a different approach.

A second teacher explained, “it certainly, fully, turns it over to the students. You

know, in terms of our role, there’s almost no role for the teacher, except for guidance

along the way. From start to finish, the students had full control, which is quite

different”.

For a third teacher, the student-centred nature of the project facilitated effective

science learning, as illustrated in Excerpt 6.4.18, particularly as a significant number

of the students in his class presented with learning and behavioural difficulties:

If I were to teach biosecurity in the classroom I don’t think they [i.e., the

students] would understand. It would have to be teacher-directed

instruction, and with my class teacher-directed instruction is like beating

them with a stick; it’s too hard. I mean, I do it, because that’s one of the

major ways of getting information across, but they don’t seem to soak it

up. I think they soaked it up better this way. (Excerpt 6.4.18)

Indeed, as demonstrated by the case study class, the students did learn and retain

conceptual science understanding relating to biosecurity.

156

While four students appreciated the active role they played in their own learning,

only one student reported that that they enjoyed researching information for their

stories. Five students did not enjoy this aspect of the project, as they experienced

difficulty locating the information outlined in the task requirements, as explained by

Student 21: “Most of the questions I had trouble with, like looking them up on the

computer. They were hard to find.” Student 6 also disliked “trying to find the

information, because it was hard.” When asked which aspects of the project she

enjoyed the least, Student 2 expressed a similar frustration: “Finding the information.

I find that I’m alright writing the story, but sometimes you can’t find the information

you are looking for from certain sites, and it annoys me a bit.” Three students

disliked the research, but not because they found it difficult to do. Student 1

admitted, for example, “I never really like research, anyway”, and Student 17

confessed that while there was a “lot” to do, “once you got the research, it was fine.”

In contrast to Student 14, who enjoyed finding information for herself, Student 13

expressed a desire to be provided with the necessary information by her teacher:

Excerpt 6.4.19

Researcher What did you enjoy least about learning science in this way?

Student 13 We didn’t go through each thing thoroughly, like the teachers would stand up and go through chytrid fungus then the next subject, then the next one, and we had to go off and do it yourself.

Researcher So you would have liked to have been taught something about it before writing the story?

Student 13 Yeah.

Researcher So how do you think that would have changed your experience?

Student 13 It might have been easier. We could have got our notebooks out and taken the information from there instead of going onto the Internet.

While three students expressed a dislike for researching information, Student 13 was

the only one to state that she would rather have been provided with the required

information in the form of notes. When asked if he believed the students should have

been taught some relevant scientific content relating to the project, Mr. Peters

commented, “I don’t think you need to, because to me, it was an opportunity for kids

to research and enrich their understanding. I think they can get everything they need

157

from their research, and most of the kids did get everything they needed because it

was a very explanatory task, very clearly explained”.

For two students, the active role they played in their own learning required

significant effort, and these students didn’t enjoy the work required to complete the

project. In Excerpt 6.4.20, Student 8 admitted, however, that she was “lazy”:

Excerpt 6.4.20

Researcher What did you enjoy least about learning science this way?

Student 8 Probably all the work. ((laughs))

Researcher ((laughs)) All the work? What do you mean by that?

Student 8 Like, as in… I guess at the time, it wasn’t too bad, but sometimes at school I’m lazy.

Researcher Anything else you didn’t like so much?

Student 8 No.

Similarly, Student 3 admitted he didn’t enjoy “doing the work”, however, when

asked if there was anything else he didn’t like, he replied, “Nah, most of it was pretty

good”.

An important feature of the BioStories’ project, which positioned students as active

participants in their learning, was the requirement to transform scientific information

from selected websites in order to construct hybridised scientific narratives about

biosecurity. Not surprisingly, this presented a challenge for some students. For

example, Student 18 explained that she sometimes found it difficult to construct a

story with the information she found: “Well sometimes when you were writing a

story, you couldn’t think of ideas. Like, it was hard to put a story together from

information that you get”. Only one student (i.e., Student 21) identified the

transformation of scientific information into fictional storylines as a feature of the

project they didn’t enjoy; however, a number of other students identified this aspect

of the project as a challenge (Excerpts 6.4.21-6.4.23):

Excerpt 6.4.21

Researcher How did you find transforming the scientific information into the stories that you wrote?

158

Student 14 Umm, it was fun but difficult, because you got to use your imagination, but it was difficult to try and put it in a way that it’s not all just facts, facts, facts, but like it’s being said and stuff.

Excerpt 6.4.22

Researcher How did you find transforming scientific into the stories that you wrote?

Student 23 It was alright. It was difficult, but.

Researcher What did you find difficult?

Student 23 Just putting in the scientific names and then trying to put a story together.

Excerpt 6.4.23

Researcher How did you find it making the science fit into your story?

Student 9 It didn’t always fit because there was all this information and you had to get it into their words, like, you had to hear someone say it. You just couldn’t just take it straight off the Internet. You had to think about it first.

One of the science teachers believed that writing about science in this way developed

deeper conceptual understanding: “I think it is always good for students to be able to

explain a concept in a variety of ways, so in doing that, and not just writing what the

text book says, being able to tell other people [i.e., through a story] develops that

deeper understanding”.

The notion of transforming information so that it fit within the context of a story was

echoed by Student 15, who explained that this type of writing required “more

thought” than regular science writing, as the inclusion of a storyline added an extra

element:

Excerpt 6.4.24

Researcher How does this writing compare to the other types of writing you have done in science?

Student 15 I like it better, but scientific writing is probably easier to do with less thought.

Researcher Why is that?

Student 15 Because it is more facts and figures, rather than a storyline mixed with facts and figures.

159

6.4.1.4 Engaging Diverse Learners

Students’ comments at interview suggest that writing BioStories engaged diverse

learners as the project enhanced the accessibility of science learning, particularly for

students who didn’t normally enjoy science, or found regular science activities more

difficult. For example, Student 22 explained in Excerpt 6.4.25 that she felt she did

well during the project, as she understood what she was required to do, in

comparison to writing scientific reports:

Excerpt 6.4.25

Researcher How did you find it incorporating science into the stories you wrote?

Student 22 Yeah, I thought that was pretty easy actually. You just had to make up a story and just put some science in there. It’s not that hard to me, I reckon. It was a lot more easy than it seems, because at first I thought “How the hell I am going to do that?” ((laughs))

Researcher How does the difficulty of this rate to the difficulty of the science you normally do in class? How do you feel it compares?

Student 22 I feel that it’s a lot easier to do, plus getting the marks that you need. It’s something that I understand and I get it so it’s a lot easier than doing all the science reports.

Student 20 echoed a similar sentiment in Excerpt 6.4.26, in that she could write a

BioStory more easily than a scientific report:

Excerpt 6.4.26


Student 20 I don’t know. It was just easy.

Researcher Easy compared to what?

Student 20 Writing reports because you have to do the prac then write the report.

Researcher Okay, so you found this type of writing easier?

Student 20 Yep.

For Student 12, writing in the first-person enhanced accessibility. As he explained,

“The writing we normally do in science, you can’t say ‘I’ or ‘we’, ‘they’, and in this

you could just use whatever you want”.

160

At interview, Student 24 admitted that she normally finds science quite difficult,

however, her BioStories’ experience was quite different:

Excerpt 6.4.27

Researcher What did you think about the writing tasks?

Student 24 They were actually pretty interesting. I was dreading doing it but then once I did it, it was actually interesting.

Researcher Why were you dreading it?

Student 24 I don’t know, it just sounded so hard when he [Mr. Peters] explained it to us, but when we were doing it, it wasn’t, ‘cause we just get all the information on the Internet.

Once again, BioStories appeared to enhance the accessibility of science learning for

this particular student.

In Excerpt 6.4.28, Mr. Peters explained that BioStories engaged some of his students

that aren’t particularly high achievers in science, as their creativity enabled them to

experience a sense of achievement as they could write a good story:

I honestly think the kids enjoyed it, especially some of the kids who

came to me and I read their story and said, ‘That’s really good, what

you’ve done there’, they were really chuffed about it. Some of those kids

weren’t the highest performers in the class either, but they’ve got a good

imagination, and they could do something better than maybe some of the

other kids who are really bright, but don’t have as good imagination in

terms of their creativity to write a story. Some of those kids were just

interested in writing a story, even if their science wasn’t brilliant.

(Excerpt 6.4.28)

Another teacher also believed that some of her students who don’t normally achieve

relatively well in science were able to experience success in writing a story, which

she believed was a strength of the project:

I thought it was really good that a lot of the students who are not

necessarily good at science, really had a good go at it. Of course, those

161

students who have very good English skills seemed to do very well

anyway, but generally speaking, the stories written by students who are

not necessarily the best in science normally, were some of the better

stories, I found. (Excerpt 6.4.29)

For students who claimed they don’t normally enjoy science, writing a story in

science was engaging, particularly if they enjoyed English. As Student 9 explained,

“I found it really interesting because the term before I had to do a story in English,

and so this way was kind of like an English assignment in a science way, because it

was more about science than English. So it was really fun.” One of the science

teachers also found that some of his students who don’t normally seem to enjoy

science engaged with BioStories as they could incorporate humour into their stories:

“A few students took that sort of comic approach to their story. They really enjoyed

it and were fully into it, and they don’t normally enjoy science as much”. In addition

to making learning more enjoyable, engaging students’ sense of humour in

imaginative ways can also help to promote more meaningful learning (Egan, 2008).

Collectively, these comments indicate that writing BioStories engaged diverse

learners by enhancing the accessibility of science learning and appealing to a broader

range of interests, thus enabling students to experience success in completing the

tasks. This is likely to be a reflection of students’ enhanced feelings of self-efficacy

(i.e., their perceived capacity for science-related tasks) as indicated by the BioQuiz

results (see Section 7.4.1).

6.4.1.5 Accessing Information Technologies

Four students commented at interview that they enjoyed accessing information

technologies through their participation in the project; namely, using computers to

access the Internet and type their stories. In Excerpt 6.4.30, Student 1 explained that,

in addition to writing stories, he enjoyed using the Internet, and uploading his

BioStories to the website.

Excerpt 6.4.30


Student 1 Writing the story, ‘cause it’s not normally what we have to do all the

162

time. It’s different.

Researcher So you enjoyed writing stories?

Student 1 Yeah.


Student 1 It was pretty cool having the Internet, like we just do it [i.e., write BioStories] on paper, but you had to load it on the Internet. That was pretty cool.

It is likely that Student 1 appreciated uploading his BioStories to the website as,

unlike the majority of student writing in science, the intended audience was more

than his teacher; his peers would be viewing and evaluating his work (Langer &

Applebee, 1987).

Student 11 also enjoyed the project, not only because it was different to the work he

normally did in science, but also as he was able to access computers, which differed

to what his perception of science was normally like:

Excerpt 6.4.31


Student 11 I enjoyed it mostly because we got to work on the computers, and we don’t normally get to in science. It was a bit different and a different assignment, so it gave a break from the other stuff and it was just different to all the other stuff we do in science normally.

One of the science teachers also felt that his students enjoyed the project, as it was a

new experience that required computer access: “It’s not the norm, and they’re using

information technologies, which the students really enjoy”. Student 18 commented

that, “it was fun to get on the computer and type your stories up”.

Student 17 explained in Excerpt 6.4.32 that he appreciated the way in which the

BioStories’ website was organised, as it contained detailed information that,

presumably, enabled him to complete the tasks successfully. He also drew a

comparison between the relative ease of uploading his work to BioStories’ website,

compared to his experiences in another subject at school (i.e., Civics):

Excerpt 6.4.32

Researcher Okay, is there anything else you enjoyed?

163

Student 17 I liked how the website was set up. It was really detailed and it had lots of stuff on it. We did something similar in Civics, where we had to submit stuff online, and it was just really hard, where as this one, you could submit stuff no problems whatsoever.

For these students, their participation in an online writing-to-learn science project,

which required access to information technologies, enhanced their enjoyment of the

BioStories’ project.

6.4.2 Issues Arising from Project Design and Implementation

Most features of the project that students cited as not being enjoyable were aspects

that did not specifically pertain to the learning of science through BioStories, but

rather, to project design and implementation. The two main issues that arose at

interview were the BioStories’ task requirements (particularly for Part C), and the

time allocated to the project. Other incidental issues were also raised. For example,

Student 22 experienced technical difficulties logging-on to the website, therefore,

this was the aspect of the project she enjoyed the least.

Six students were critical of the task requirements for Part C; specifically, the

inclusion of the biological incursions from Parts A and B into a single culminating

story, and the amount of writing that was required. Although the task requirements

stipulated that Part C should not exceed 1500 words, some students interpreted this

guideline as the required word limit. For example, when asked what he didn’t enjoy

about the project, Student 12 replied, “The word limit. It was over a thousand”.

Similarly, when asked the same question Student 19 disliked the volume of writing

necessary for Part C: “Probably the amount of writing we had to do. We had to write

a fair bit for C. Parts A and B wasn’t much, but C was a fair bit”.

With respect to the level of difficulty of Part C, three students explained that writing

about two biological incursions in a single storyline was challenging. For example,

Student 4 explained, “It was definitely harder. Not only did they not start it [the

story] for you, but you had to find a way to put the two [biological incursions]

together. I didn’t really want to have frogs infect a chicken [with chytrid fungus].

Yeah, it was a challenge”. In Excerpt 6.4.33, Student 5 agrees with this sentiment:

164

Excerpt 6.4.33

Researcher What did you enjoy the least about BioStories?

Student 5 Um, (4) the third one, where you had to kind of add all the things together.

Researcher Combine the two incursions into one story?

Student 5 Yeah.

Researcher Was that difficult for you?

Student 5 No, it was just different.

Mr. Peters recognised this tension among some of his students, and suggested a

different approach to the Part C task, in Excerpt 6.4.34:

Part C, I would have probably done it in a way that was more open-

ended. The students get to choose through whatever research means their

own quarantine issue to have a look at, rather than having to re-do the

other ones. Some struggled with the idea, you know, ‘Why are we doing

these things again, we just did those, can we do something else?’ but the

parameters didn’t allow for that. (Excerpt 6.4.34)

For some students, the difficulty of writing about two incursions in one story was

overcome by inventing extraordinary storylines. Student 3, for example, wrote about

avian influenza and fire ants affecting a single farm in the same week in his Part C

story:

Excerpt 6.4.35

Researcher Your Part C was quite interesting and entertaining. You had the two incursions on the one farm. How did you come up with that idea?

Student 3 I don’t think that it could ever happen, though, having fire ants happen in the same week that you find out that avian influenza is on your chickens.

Researcher So you just came up with that for the purpose of the story?

Student 3 I had to run with that because that’s what we were given and we can’t really choose.

Students’ opinions were divided regarding the difficulty of Part C; some students

believed that the lack of a starting scenario enabled them to be creative in writing a

165

completely new story, while others believed that inventing a new story was more

difficult, compared to Parts A and B. Student 2 stated, “It was probably harder

because you had to think of it off the top of your head”. Student 15 explained this

notion further: “Well, A and B, the storyline was easy to make up and you already

had a subject to go on, so research was easy, but overall, this one [Part C] was a lot

harder, not because of the scientific input, but because of the story-writing input”.

While most students identified that the provision of a starting scenario in Parts A and

B assisted their story writing, a number of students found that the opposite to be true.

“I liked Part C better, because you could write about whatever you wanted to”

(Student 10). As Student 3 explained, “Part C was kind of easier because we could

make the storyline up ourselves. Part A and B were harder because you already had a

given story line and had to work with what you were given”. Student 1 agreed that

continuing the given scenario was difficult: “Researching it was easy, but then trying

to get it into the story, to carry on from on, like… with Part A you had the start of the

story, and then to keep going with the characters and stuff, I found that pretty hard”.

The issue of time allocated to the BioStories’ project was one that was raised by both

students and teachers at interview. Student 24 complained that the BioStories’ project

was “too long”, as it was stretched over a seven-week period, however, for two of

these weeks, the students did not work on the project, as time was allocated in

science classes to prepare for and complete the end-of-unit examination. This

opinion was in stark contrast to those of the science teachers, and even some of the

students, who believed that not enough time was provided to complete the project:

Excerpt 6.4.36

Researcher What didn’t you enjoy as much?

Student 4 Probably the time we had to do it. It was a bit short for me to write it and get [Mr. Peters] or you to read it and post it on the website.

When asked what she thought of the writing tasks, Student 13 also commented on

the available time in saying, “It was pretty tricky because we only had a little bit of

time”.

166

At interview, Mr. Peters reflected on the inadequate time that he (as Middle School

Science Coordinator) had allocated to complete the project:

I think just having a block of time [within in which to complete the

project] would have made it easier, so we could actually spend time just

talking about it first, and then having another lesson straight after it

where we could actually then implement it as such. That would have

been a better way of doing it. I think if you were going to do it as part of

a unit, you have it as a block part of the unit and do it that way, rather

than trying to do it as something that’s been integrated throughout,

because it just doesn’t allow you enough time. We had trouble with time

and trying to fit it into what we’ve already got in terms of existing

content that we had to cover. (Excerpt 6.4.37)

Due to time constraints posed by the school’s existing ecology unit, the students

were given one week to complete Part A of the BioStories’ project. During this time,

only two 50-minutes lessons of class time were provided to work on the task. In the

first lesson, the Part A task was introduced, and although Mr. Peters had previously

allocated the entire lesson to the BioStories’ project, only 25 minutes of the lesson

was spent explaining the task, as the first half of the lesson was taken up by an

explanation of the previous night’s homework. By the end of the second lesson (one

week after the initial lesson in which the task was introduced), the students were

required to have uploaded their stories. During this lesson, Mr. Peters reminded the

students to ensure that they had met all of the task requirements (which later served

as criteria for the derived scientific literacy matrix), before they uploaded their

stories. Students were required to ensure that they completed the majority of the

work in their own time.

The issue of inadequate time was raised by six of the seven participating science

teachers. In Excerpt 6.4.38, one of the science teachers explained that the limited

available time did not allow her to focus on developing her students’ technical

literacy skills, as she was unable to check the students’ drafts and provide feedback:

167

Excerpt 6.4.38

Researcher What about literacy aspects of the project? Do you think it was beneficial in terms of the students’ writing or how they communicate?

Teacher Um (5), I don’t think there was enough for us to be able to do that. If we had a lot more time in class to be able to proof-read and draft check and give that sort of feedback to the students first, and structuring of that literacy component, then that would have been more beneficial to them.

Researcher Did you have much time to read the students’ stories and provide feedback?

Teacher No. I read all of the students’ Part A when I marked them, but not draft-checking, no.

Another teacher explained, “because it [the project] was embedded into other stuff, it

was kind of rushed. I think it should have been stand alone, instead of put in there

when you’re trying to do other assessment pieces. We finished everything, but I

could’ve had more time to give them [i.e., the students] more guidance”. Student 10

confirmed this sentiment in saying, “I think it was a lot on top of the other

assessment because everything was due at the same time, and there wasn’t enough

time”. Only one of the teachers commented that adequate time was provided: “The

timing was probably ample, they had heaps of time”.

When asked if he approached the BioStories’ project differently to any other science

unit, in terms of ensuring it was implemented successfully across all of the Year 9

science classes, Mr. Peters once again referred to the time constraint, and admitted

that the regular curriculum took priority over the project: “I would say I did do it

slightly differently, because my comments to some teachers when they were really

stressing out, again, due to time, were, ‘Regardless of what’s happening with

BioStories, they [i.e., the students] have got an exam to do in Week 8, that is their

priority’”. Despite this message, all of the classes were able to successfully complete

the project (with the exception of one, as these students required more time to

complete Parts A and B, and did not begin Part C). Furthermore, as evidenced by the

BioQuiz and BioStories’ results (Chapters 5 and 6), and students’ conceptual science

understandings articulated at interview, there were nonetheless impressive gains in

the development of the students’ scientific literacy.

168

6.4.3 Summary of Participants’ Perceptions of their Experiences in the Project

The preceding interview data provide evidence to support three claims in relation to

the students’ interest and enjoyment over the course of the project: (1) students’

comments at interview suggest that many of them enjoyed writing stories in science

as it presented a new way of writing in science lessons that enabled them to exercise

their imagination and creativity while learning new concepts pertaining to

biosecurity; (2) the writing of BioStories enabled students to take ownership and play

an active role in the learning process, which enhanced their interest and enjoyment in

the learning activities, as well as the development and retention of students’

conceptual understanding relating to biosecurity; and (3) the BioStories’ project

engaged diverse learners as it enhanced the accessibility of science learning,

particularly for students who identified themselves as not enjoying science, or

experiencing difficulty in science.

Both student and teacher interview data provided abundant evidence that students

enjoyed writing stories in science, using their imagination and creativity, and writing

differently in science while learning about something new (i.e., biosecurity).

Students also enjoyed accessing information technologies in order to research,

construct and upload their BioStories. Students’ comments indicated that BioStories

engaged diverse learners by enhancing the accessibility of science learning for those

students who admitted to not enjoying science, and those that found regular science

quite difficult. These students felt that they enjoyed and could better grasp the

concept of writing a narrative that incorporated scientific information, as opposed to

writing a scientific report. Furthermore, the student-centred nature of the BioStories’

project, in which students researched and authored their own stories about

biosecurity, not only enhanced their interest and enjoyment of the project, but also

appeared to contribute to the development and retention of conceptual science

understanding, as evidenced by the students’ recall and elaboration of relevant

concepts pertinent to biosecurity at interview. The following chapter will discuss the

implications of these findings, and the quantitative results presented in Chapter 5,

and synthesise claims from the analyses of these results. The implications for

curricular design and implementation and educational theory are also discussed.

169

Chapter 7

DISCUSSION

7.1 Introduction

In light of growing evidence of students’ waning interest in school science, the

current study investigated the implications of a writing-to-learn science project on

students’ developing scientific literacy. This chapter will revisit the aims of the

study, and discuss its findings and their implications. Section 7.2 presents a review of

the aims of the study, the research methodology adopted, and the research questions

that were investigated. Sections 7.3 and 7.4 present and discuss two claims that have

arisen from the data, and in doing so, provide answers to the three research questions

that have guided the study. These claims refer to the enhancement of students’

awareness and conceptual understanding of issues relating to biosecurity through

their participation in the BioStories’ project, and the improvement in particular

aspects of their attitudes toward science and science learning. In justifying these

claims, particular results have been re-stated for the reader’s convenience, where

necessary. The limitations of the study are discussed in Section 7.5, while the

implications for curricular design and implementation, and educational theory, are

presented in Section 7.6.

7.2 Review of Aims, Research Methodology and Research Questions

The principal aim of this research project was to investigate the development of Year

9 students’ scientific literacy through the creation of hybridised short stories that

merge scientific and narrative genres, with the support of online resources. The study

was conducted with the cohort of Year 9 science students at an urban, coeducational

college. A triangulation mixed methods design that generated both qualitative and

quantitative data was employed, and the learning experiences of a single case study

class were investigated in greater detail. Specifically, Year 9 science students wrote a

series of three BioStories (i.e., hybridised short stories about biosecurity), with the

support of a dedicated website. The students also completed the BioQuiz, a Likert-

style questionnaire that examined selected aspects of the students’ attitudes toward

science and science learning; more specifically, their interest in learning science,

science self-efficacy, their perceived personal and general value of science, their

familiarity with biosecurity issues, and their attitudes toward biosecurity.

170

Quantitative analyses were performed to measure attitudinal shifts across all classes

that participated in the study (i.e., analysis of BioQuiz responses, pre- and post-

intervention, N=152), and examine the development of the students’ scientific

literacy (as evidenced by the written artefacts, i.e., BioStories, produced by the

students in the case study class, N=26). Analysis of semi-structured interviews of the

case study students, classroom observations, and post-project interviews with seven

participating science teachers, served as the focus of the qualitative component of the

study, in order to gain a more fine-grained perspective of the development of the

students’ scientific literacy and their learning experiences in a single classroom. The

study was guided by the investigation of the following research questions:




biosecurity demonstrate conceptual understanding of related scientific

concepts through their written artefacts and in interviews about the artefacts?



In seeking answers to these questions, two claims have been synthesised from the

results of data analyses presented in Chapters 5 and 6:

1. Students’ awareness and conceptual understanding of issues relating to

biosecurity were enhanced through their participation in the BioStories’

project.

2. Students’ attitudes toward science and science learning (specifically, their

interest in learning science, science self-efficacy, and their perceived personal

and general value of science) improved through their participation in the

BioStories’ project.

Claim 1 encompasses research outcomes related to Research Questions 1 and 2,

while Claim 2 responds to Research Question 3. These claims are discussed in the

following two sections.

171

7.3 Claim 1: Students’ Awareness and Conceptual Understanding of Issues

Relating to Biosecurity were enhanced through their Participation in the

BioStories’ Project.

Evidence of students’ awareness and conceptual understanding of issues relating to

biosecurity was generated from three data sources: students’ responses to Subscale 4

of the BioQuiz (i.e., familiarity with biosecurity issues), pre- and post-intervention

(from the entire Year 9 science cohort); written artefacts (i.e., BioStories) authored

by the students in the case study class; and semi-structured interviews with these

students. In response to Research Question 1, these data provide evidence to support

the claim that the students’ awareness and conceptual understanding of biosecurity

issues improved through their participation in the project.

Subscale 4 of the BioQuiz examined students’ familiarity with biosecurity issues

through the inclusion of five items; that is, threats to biodiversity, the need for

biosecurity, the role of Quarantine regulations, why vectors need to be identified to

control animal disease, and the possible consequences of introducing exotic species.

A paired-samples t test found a significant improvement in students’ scores for this

subscale, pretest to posttest [t(152) = -4.40, p < .01, d = .33]. A statistically

significant improvement was expected for this particular BioQuiz subscale, as many

students admitted at interview that, prior to their participation in the project, they

knew little about biosecurity, and had not learnt about this topic in school. For

example, Student 7 explained that BioStories was a challenge, as he learnt about

something he knew little about (i.e., biological incursions). Excerpts 6.4.3-6.4.6

provide a number of other examples where students explained that they had learned

about entirely new concepts relating to biosecurity. It could be reasonably expected,

then, that students’ participation in a project that featured biosecurity would have a

significant impact on their awareness of the topic. In the context of the current study,

the development of students’ familiarity with biosecurity issues served as an

important co-requisite for the development of conceptual science understandings, as

they were learning something new.

Analysis of the BioStories written by the students in the case study class revealed a

significant improvement in their derived scientific literacy scores from Parts A to B

of the BioStories’ tasks, and from their pre-writing sample to Part B. The derived

172

scientific literacy score sought to reflect the students’ derived sense of scientific

literacy (i.e., their conceptual science understanding relating to biosecurity) (Norris

& Phillips, 2003). This indicates that the students demonstrated greater conceptual

understanding in their Part B BioStories, compared to their pre-writing sample and

Part A. Importantly, a large effect was observed in each case (i.e., d=0.85 and

d=1.25, respectively), which indicates a large standardised difference between the

mean scores (Cohen, 1988; Green & Salkind, 2005). This represents a strong positive

improvement in the students’ derived scientific literacy scores from pre-writing to

Part B, and Part A to Part B; a significant result in the context of educational

research, as research in such settings has a propensity to produce smaller effects

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Together, these findings suggest that students’

participation in the BioStories’ project had a significant positive impact on their

science understandings.

These results support existing research that has shown that writing-to-learn science

activities, and in particular, those that utilise narratives, enhance students’ conceptual

understanding of science (Hand & Prain, 2002; Negrette, 2004; Ritchie, et al., 2008b;

Roach & Wandersee, 1995; Yore et al., 2003). In addition, the BioStories’ writing

tasks required students to manipulate new and unfamiliar content relating to

biosecurity. Langer and Applebee (1987) assert that writing such as this is most

valuable for learning, and in terms of the students’ conceptual science

understandings.

Due to time constraints posed by the school’s existing ecology unit, as described in

Section 6.3, the students were required to write much of their Parts A and B

BioStories in their own time. As the students had spent a relatively small amount of

in-class time on the BioStories’ project at that point, it is not surprising that no

statistically significant change was observed in their derived scientific literacy scores

from pre-writing to Part A.

For Part B, the students were allowed two weeks in between the introduction of the

task, and uploading their work to the BioStories’ website. Due to a science

examination that was scheduled during this time, students were again allocated only

two lessons of in-class time to work on their stories. Discussions with individual

173

students during these lessons revealed that they conducted all of their research

outside of class time, and began writing their stories as homework. This enabled

them to have their drafts reviewed by Mr. Peters and the researcher at school, before

completing and uploading their stories in the time provided. Observations of the case

study class and discussions with individual students as they worked on Part B

revealed that the students were more confident of what was required of them,

compared to Part A. Consequently, the students reported they felt that they could

work more quickly and efficiently, while meeting the task requirements.

Furthermore, the students reviewed stories written by their peers that had been

uploaded to the website. It appears that this experience and their increased familiarity

with expectations might have contributed to improved derived scientific literacy

scores for Part B. For example, as Student 6 explained, “it did seem easier because

you had done it a few times over”.

Statistically significant reductions were found in the derived scientific literacy scores

from pre-writing to Part C, Parts B to C, and Parts A to C. Although disappointing, a

combination of two factors are likely to account for these outcomes. Part C required

the students to compose an entirely new story that incorporated the scientific

information from their Parts A and B BioStories. Unlike Parts A and B, the task

requirements did not specify exactly what scientific information should be included

in the story; rather, it instructed students to use the information from their preceding

stories to compose a new story. Both Mr. Peters and the researcher made it clear to

the students during class time that they were not required to research new scientific

information, as they simply needed to rework this information into a story of their

choice. The researcher expected to encounter much of the students’ prior research

from their Parts A and B stories, in their Part C work (i.e., it seemed reasonable to

assume that the students would write what they knew). This, however, was not the

case, and the majority of the students did not include the required information,

resulting in poor derived scientific literacy scores. Perhaps if specific instructions

were provided to emphasise what scientific information should be included, the task

would have been completed to a standard comparable to, if not better than, the

preceding stories.

174

Confounding this issue was the fact that Part C was completed and submitted in the

final two weeks of Term 2. The students had completed their summative science

assessment for the term just prior to commencing this task, so their motivation to

complete “extra” work in the subject appeared to wane. As both teachers and

students commented during interview, the BioStories’ tasks were a considerable

amount of work, in addition to the other science assessments they were required to

complete (e.g., Student 10: “I think it was a lot on top of the other assessment

because everything was due at the same time”).

Based on the students’ preceding stories, and their conceptual science understandings

expressed at interview, it is clear that the statistically significant reduction in the

students’ derived scientific literacy scores across Parts A and C, and Parts B and C,

was not the result of a lack of understanding. Rather, it was more likely that the

students did not sufficiently express their understandings through their writing (i.e.,

they neglected to include much of the expected scientific information specified in the

task description). The students’ stories alone simply did not accurately reflect their

levels of scientific literacy, in light of the conceptual understandings articulated at

interview.

This observation has implications for assessing students’ scientific literacy in a

writing-to-learn context, as written artefacts alone do not accurately represent the

level of students’ conceptual science understandings. A combination of assessment

strategies, in this case, an examination of written artefacts alongside interviews about

the students’ written work, appears to provide a more comprehensive assessment of

their developing scientific literacy, as suggested by White and Gunstone (1992).

The semi-structured students interviews that were conducted by the researcher

sought to bring the students’ conceptual science understanding related to biosecurity

to the fore. These interviews were used to obtain global estimates of the quality of

the students’ conceptual science understandings. Most importantly, in response to

Research Question 2, the student interviews revealed a different depth of

understanding than was evident in the BioStories. Although the researcher expected

that students’ levels of understanding would be reflected in what they wrote, it was

found that interviews with individual students about their BioStories showed deeper

175

conceptual understandings, and at the same time in some cases, they also identified

evidence of superficial or problematic understandings that were omitted from their

writing. Most significantly, 19 of the 24 students within the case study class

demonstrated deeper levels of conceptual understanding at interview, in that they

could correctly explain some of the environmental, social and economic impacts of

the biological incursions that featured in their BioStories; concepts that weren’t

elaborated, or, in some cases, evident in their writing. Furthermore, students’

awareness of biosecurity issues, such as the impact of introduced species, the

potential threat of biological incursions that are yet to reach our shores, and the need

for quarantine, increased through their participation in the project, and students

acknowledged their newfound awareness of such issues at interview. These rich

insights into the students’ developing scientific literacy could not have been gained

from the analysis of their written artefacts alone.

With respect to the students’ fundamental scientific literacy scores (i.e., an

amalgamation of the derived scientific literacy and writing scores), a significant

improvement was observed from Parts A to B, while the scores decreased

significantly from Parts B and C, and Parts A to C. When examined in isolation,

paired-samples t tests revealed no significant differences in the students’ writing

scores across all three of their stories; therefore, changes in the students’

fundamental scientific literacy scores can be attributed to significant changes in the

derived scientific literacy component of these scores, rather than the writing

component.

This finding indicates that the BioStories’ project had no significant impact on

students’ simple fundamental sense of scientific literacy (i.e., their ability to compose

stories about biosecurity – a technical literacy) (Norris & Phillips, 2003). This is not

surprising, for although a number of students did seek to have their drafts proof-read

by Mr. Peters or the researcher, no class time was specifically allocated to

scaffolding the students’ story-writing, nor to the teaching of relevant technical

literacy skills, such as the punctuation of dialogue. Again, the decrease in the

fundamental scientific literacy scores from Parts A to C, and Parts B to C can be

attributed to the derived scientific literacy component of the students’ fundamental

176

scientific literacy scores, as they neglected to include much scientific information in

their Part C stories.

Despite the lack of any obvious gains in the students’ simple fundamental scientific

literacy, it can be said that their expanded fundamental sense of scientific literacy did

indeed develop through their participation in the project, as the students successfully

interpreted and transformed scientific information in order to construct hybridised

scientific genres. In this way, the boundaries between the expanded fundamental and

derived senses of scientific literacy become blurred, as suggested by Sadler (2007),

as it was through this process of interpretation and transformation that the students

developed conceptual understandings of biosecurity. Thus, while important cognitive

attributes were developed, in keeping with a cognitive perspective of derived

scientific literacy (i.e., conceptual understanding, as illustrated in the following

section), language played a central role in this context, as it was more than simply a

medium for communicating knowledge; it acted as a resource for meaning-making,

as students transformed and re-represented scientific information in the context of

their BioStories. This transformation contributed to their expanded fundamental

sense of scientific literacy. These findings support a hybridised perspective of the

derived sense of scientific literacy proposed by Sadler (2007), as the BioStories’

project offers a way of developing students’ cognitive attributes in a context that

centralises the role of language in an authentic, socioscientific context.

7.4 Claim 2: Students’ Attitudes toward Science and Science Learning

(Specifically, their Interest in Learning Science, Science Self-efficacy, and

their Perceived Personal and General Value of Science) Improved through

their Participation in the BioStories’ Project.

Evidence of students’ attitudes toward science and science learning (an important

dimension of scientific literacy) (OECD, 2006) was generated through their

responses to Subscales 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the BioQuiz, pre- and post-intervention, and

semi-structured interviews. In response to Research Question 3, these data provide

evidence to support the claim that the students’ attitude toward science and science

learning (specifically, their interest in learning science, science self-efficacy, and

their perceived personal and general value of science) improved through their

participation in the BioStories’ project.

177

As described in Chapter 3, the current study adopted a triangulation mixed methods

research design, so that quantitative techniques could be used to understand trends in

the development of the students’ scientific literacy, and complement the in-depth

understanding of the students’ learning and their experiences of the project gleaned

from qualitative techniques (i.e., student and teacher interviews, and classroom

observations). In particular, this combination of both qualitative and quantitative

analyses seeks to strengthen the interpretation of the BioQuiz results, in response to

concerns that quantitative analyses in attitudinal studies can restrict the collection of

data. The chosen research design strives to counteract this concern by developing a

deeper understanding of the students’ attitudes toward science and science learning

through the analysis and interpretation of both qualitative and quantitative data.

Analysis of the BioQuiz data revealed a statistically significant improvement in the

interest in learning science [t(152) = -5.66, p < .01, d = .42], science self-efficacy

[t(152) = -3.11, p = .002, d = .23], personal value of science [t(152) = -3.06, p = .003,

d = .23], and general value of science [t(152) = -4.59, p < .01, d = .34] items. These

results suggest that the students’ interest in science, science self-efficacy, personal

and general value of science, and familiarity with biosecurity improved through their

participation in the BioStories’ project. Small to modest effects were observed in

each case, the largest of which was observed for interest in learning science (d =

0.42), which represents the greatest improvement pretest to posttest.

The following sections discuss the BioQuiz findings in light of relevant literature,

interview data and classroom observations. Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 examine the

students’ science self-efficacy, and perceived personal and general value of science,

and their attitudes toward biosecurity, respectively. Section 7.4.3 examines students’

perceptions of learning science through the BioStories’ project, which provides

supporting evidence for the statistically significant improvement in the interest in

learning science BioQuiz subscale.

178

7.4.1 Students’ Science Self-Efficacy, and Perceived Personal and General

Value of Science

Self-efficacy may be defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute

courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997; p. 3), and

is a reflection of students’ perceived capabilities. Bandura (1986, 1997) proposed

four sources of self-efficacy (mastery of experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal

persuasion, and emotional/physiological states), of which, mastery of experience is

the most salient source. In other words, students’ self-efficacy improves when they

gain more successful experience (Bandura, 1997). An important implication of this is

that self-efficacy has been shown to correlate positively with students’ engagement

(Lau & Roesner, 2002; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) and achievement (Britner &

Pajares, 2001; Kuppermintz, 2002; Lau & Roeser, 2002) in science; therefore, tasks

in which students experience success enhance their perceived science self-efficacy

are likely to impact positively on their engagement with learning, and subsequent

science achievement.

This research offers an explanation for the statistically significant improvement in

students’ responses to the science self-efficacy BioQuiz subscale. A number of

students (e.g., Students 20, 22 and 24) commented at interview that they found the

BioStories’ tasks “easier” than regular science (i.e., the project enhanced the

accessibility of science learning for these students, a notion that is discussed further,

later in this section). Interestingly, a comparison of the students’ Semester 1 science

results and their fundamental scientific literacy scores for Part B (the task in which

students performed best) (Table 7.1) shows that students achieved quite well in

BioStories, irrespective of their science achievement. Of particular interest is the fact

that D- and E-level students successfully achieved a higher score in their Part B

stories. A number of students (e.g., Students 1, 5, 14, 17, 20 and 23) also achieved

much higher in BioStories than they otherwise do in science. This comparison

illustrates that students did indeed experience success in the context of the

BioStories’ tasks, and hence this mastery of experience, as suggested by Bandura

(1997), is likely to have impacted positively on the students’ science self-efficacy, as

evidenced by the BioQuiz results. Furthermore, previous studies into the impact of

hybrid imaginative genres in the science classroom have shown that such writing

tasks can serve to motivate students and cater for a broad range of abilities in

179

science, while improving learning outcomes (Hildebrand, 1998, 2004). In the context

of the current study, and in light of the comparison presented in Table 7.1 (as well as

evidence discussed in the following section), it appears that BioStories did cater for a

broad range of abilities, as students who do not normally experience a great deal of

success in science were able to learn successfully about biosecurity issues through

the creation of their short stories.

Table 7.1. A comparison of the case study students’ science results for Semester 1 and their fundamental scientific literacy scores for Part B of their BioStories.

Student Semester 1

Science Result

Fundamental Scientific

Literacy Score Part B (%)

Student Semester 1

Science Result

Fundamental Scientific

Literacy Score Part B (%)

22 A 100.0 8 C 68.4 4 A 94.7 6 C 68.4 2 A 84.2 25 C 68.4

10 B 89.5 19 C 63.2 15 B 84.2 13 C 57.9 16 B 78.9 26 D 78.9 9 B 73.7 11 D 68.4 7 B 68.4 18 D 63.2

24 B 42.1 3 D 57.9 17 C 84.2 12 D 52.6 20 C 84.2 23 E 57.9 1 C 78.9 5 E 94.7

14 C 78.9 21 E 63.2

An improvement in students’ perceived personal and general value of science may be

attributed to their engagement with a contemporary socioscientific issue. By their

very nature, such issues are important real-world, social problems with conceptual or

technological links to science; so, it seems reasonable to expect that engaging

students with socioscientific issues, such as biosecurity, would increase their

awareness and appreciation of the value of science to both themselves and society.

The results from the current study can be compared with the results from the PISA

study where a similar instrument was applied to a larger cohort of Australian and

Queensland students. Table 7.2 compares the percentage of positive responses (i.e.,

agree and strongly agree, or their equivalents) to items shared by the PISA 2006

testing (Fensham & Maxwell, 2008), and the BioQuiz. ‘Australia’ represents the

180

percentage of students who responded positively across all Australian states.

Table 7.2. A comparison of percentages of positive responses to items shared by the PISA 2006 testing, and the BioQuiz.

Subscale Item Australia BioQuiz N=153

Pretest Posttest 1. Interest in

learning science.

1a. I generally have fun when I am learning science topics.

58 68 84

1b. I like reading about science. 43 47 58 1c. I am happy writing about science. 49 41 63 1d. I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in

science. 67 70 85

1e. I am interested in learning about science.

61 73 78

Mean 56 60 74 2. Capacity

for particular science-related tasks.

2a. Identify the science that underlies a newspaper report on an environmental issue.

78 76 87

2d. Predict how changes to an environment will affect the survival of certain species.

75 81 88

Mean 77 79 88 3. Personal

relevance and use of science.

3a. Some concepts in science help me see how I relate to other people.

62 64 77

3b. I will use science in many ways when I am an adult.

63 73

75

3c. Science is very relevant to me. 55 67 77 3d. I find that science help me to understand

the things around me. 74 77 88

3e. When I leave school there will be many opportunities for me to use science.

60 71 78

Mean 63 70 79 4. General

relevance and use of science.

4a. Advances in science and technology usually improve people’s living conditions.

90 86 94

4b. Science is important for helping us to understand the natural world.

94 94 96

4c. Advances in science and technology usually help improve the economy.

85 81 87

4d. Science is valuable to society. 89 88 89 4e. Advances in science and technology

usually bring social benefits. 68 77 83

Mean 85 85 90

‘BioQuiz’ represents the percentage of students who responded positively across the

Year 9 cohort of science students, pre- and posttest. Items that were significantly

changed from the original PISA items, or those that were developed specifically for

the BioQuiz, do not appear in this table, as a comparison cannot be made. It can be

seen in the table that the average number of students who responded positively to

items in each subscale in the BioQuiz at pretest was comparable to the average

number that responded positively in the PISA testing. At posttest, however, the

181

attitudes of the participants in the BioStories’ project were more positive that those

of Australia’s PISA participants. This provides further evidence that students’

participation in the BioStories’ project enhanced their attitudes toward science and

science learning because the nature of the items are unlikely to be maturatation

dependent.

7.4.2 Students’ Attitudes toward Biosecurity

No statistically significant change in the attitudes toward biosecurity items of the

BioQuiz was observed from pretest to posttest [t(152) = -0.23, p = .82], which

indicates that the students’ participation in the project did not influence their attitudes

toward biosecurity. As described in the previous section, the students’ familiarity

with biosecurity issues, however, did show a statistically significant improvement.

The attitudes toward biosecurity subscale was developed and validated specifically

for use in the current study (see Chapter 4), as it was anticipated that students’

general attitudes toward science and science learning (i.e., Subscales 1-4) may not

change over the relatively short period of time over which the project was conducted.

Alternatively, it was anticipated that more specific attitudes toward biosecurity might

change, as the students were focused on biosecurity. Interestingly, this did not prove

to be the case, and students’ general science attitudes did improve from pretest to

posttest, with their attitudes toward biosecurity demonstrating no statistically

significant change.

This particular subscale contained four items that asked students how interested they

were in learning about particular issues pertaining to biosecurity, such as knowing

more about how introduced species can threaten ecosystems in Australia. The mean

score for this subscale was 2.81 at pretest, and 2.83 at posttest (higher scores

approaching 4.0 are indicative of more positive attitudes). At pretest, the mean score

for this scale was quite high, consistent with a ‘medium interest’ in learning more

about these issues. As the students admitted at interview as having known very little

about biosecurity at the onset of the project, it is not surprising that their interest in

learning more about biosecurity, a new and interesting socioscientific issue for

school curricular, was quite high. However, by the end of the project, having spent a

number of weeks working on their stories, it is likely that the students felt that they

182

were relatively satisfied with what they had already learnt. So, while they were more

aware of biosecurity issues, their interest in learning more was no greater than it was

at the onset of the project. It would be interesting in subsequent studies to assess

students’ attitudes to a range of scientific topics, to establish whether or not

immersing students in a particular socioscientific context enhances their desire to

learn about other topics.

7.4.3 Students’ Perceptions of Learning Science through the BioStories’ Project

The following section discusses evidence to support the claim that students’

participation in the BioStories’ project enhanced their interest in learning science.

Section 7.4.3.2 discusses students’ perceptions of challenges presented by the

project, including aspects that they did not enjoy.

7.4.3.1 Aspects of the Project that Enhanced Students’ Interest and Enjoyment

of Learning Science

Students’ comments at interview revealed extensive evidence to support the

statistically significant improvement in the interest in science BioQuiz subscale, and

suggest that they enjoyed writing stories in science as it presented a new way of

writing in science lessons that enabled them to exercise their imagination and

creativity while learning new concepts pertaining to biosecurity (refer Section 6.3.1).

The novelty of writing stories in science, for instance, served to enhance students’

interest in learning science. A number of students specifically cited story writing as

an aspect of the project they enjoyed, as they hadn’t written a story in science before

(e.g., Excerpt 6.4.1). For other students, simply writing differently in science was a

source of enjoyment (e.g., Excerpts 6.4.3, 6.4.5).

Learning about something new (i.e., issues pertaining to biosecurity) also was a

significant talking point at interview, in addition to the notion of writing stories in

science. For example, Students 4 and 17 explained that they didn’t know what citrus

canker was prior to the project; Student 13 enjoyed learning about avian influenza

and chytrid fungus; and Student 8 simply enjoyed learning new things. For the

majority of these students, it was the combination of writing differently in science

and learning something new that enhanced their interest in the project, as

exemplified by Student 10, who commented that the BioStories’ tasks “were quite

183

interesting because you got to learn about different things, and it was a different way

to do science because you got to do story-writing”.

For some students, the prospect of writing a story in science appeared unusual at

first, for it was an activity that they did not associate with science learning. As

Student 3 explained, he was perplexed when Mr. Peters explained that the class

would be writing stories, as science is a “hard-core smart subject … and it’s not

really subject where you can write a creative story”. One of the science teachers

commented that the students initially appeared apprehensive about writing stories in

science, as “it was as though they couldn’t see the relevance behind it”, and indeed,

the use of hybrid imaginative genres in the science classroom can be met by

resistance from both students and teachers when they are perceived to oppose the

prevailing classroom norms (Hildebrand, 1999). Student 24 even suggested that

writing a story in science was “weird”; however, she found the project to be easier

than she anticipated, particularly as she normally experienced difficulty in science.

In light of the unusual nature of writing stories in science, a number of students

commented at interview that they appreciated engaging with a different genre.

Notions of chemistry, performing experiments, writing scientific reports, and

learning “theory” dominated students’ perceptions of what learning science is

normally like (e.g., Students 5, 21, 16, 11). Student 11 also explained that the

socioscientific focus of BioStories was more like SOSE or English.

One of the science teachers commented that BioStories was valuable in broadening

students’ perspective of what constitutes science, because “they got to see a different

way of doing science, and they learnt that science isn’t just reports and exams”. Mr.

Peters commented that the concept of writing BioStories had the potential to broaden

the range of assessment genres with which the students engage in Year 9, as they had

already completed a number of extended experimental investigations and written

tests. This may have contributed to the students’ perceptions that scientific reports

were the primary genre with which they engaged in science classes, as extended

experimental investigations culminate in the submission of a written report.

184

For many students, the opportunity to use their imagination and creativity enhanced

their enjoyment of learning science, rather than if they were simply required to write

information about the biological incursions (e.g., Excerpts 6.4.13, 6.4.14). Some of

the science teachers also recognised the benefit of exercising students’ imagination at

interview, including Mr. Peters, who commented that BioStories offered students the

opportunity to learn valuable science, while participating in something that was

exciting and imaginative.

For the students, the opportunity to use their imagination and creativity meant more

than simply enhancing their enjoyment in the science classroom; students also

appreciated the ownership that it afforded over their own learning (e.g., Excerpt

6.4.15). Students’ comments at interview acknowledged the fact that writing

BioStories enabled them to play an active role in the learning process. The student-

centred nature of the project was, for some students, a source of interest and

enjoyment itself, as the students were required to research the required information,

and construct their own subsequent BioStory. Student 18, for example, commented

that she appreciated not having “the information thrown at you”. Through the

construction of their stories, students were able to write creatively, not just

scientifically, again, making it “theirs” (e.g., Excerpt 6.4.16). These students’

comments support research that diversified writing tasks, and in particular, hybrid

scientific/narrative genres, motivate students and promote a sense of ownership over

their writing, as they are able to use their own imagination (Hildebrand, 1998, 2004;

Prain & Hand, 1999).

At interview, three of the science teachers admitted that the student-centred nature of

the project contrasted with the types of science instruction they commonly used in

their classrooms. For example, one of the teachers commented that it was different

from the usual approach of performing and reporting an experiment (Excerpt 6.4.17).

Another commented that BioStories positioned the teacher differently, in that their

role was one to provide guidance, rather than serve as an instructor.

The student-centred nature of the project also appeared to contribute to the

development and retention of conceptual science understanding, as evidenced by the

students’ recall and elaboration of relevant concepts pertinent to biosecurity at

185

interview, but according to one teacher, whose class consisted of a number of

students with learning and behavioural difficulties, the student-centred nature of the

project enhanced their engagement, while facilitating more effective learning.

Only one student in the case study class (i.e., Student 13) articulated that she would

have preferred being provided with the required scientific information in the form of

notes in her workbook, rather than being required to research the information herself.

This student expressed a lack of motivation in locating the information, and although

the researcher anticipated that this attitude might have been commonplace in the

context of middle school children, this did not prove to be the case, and the students

largely responded positively to the expectation of working for themselves.

The students also revealed at interview that the writing of BioStories enhanced their

interest in learning science as it increased the accessibility of science learning,

particularly for students who confessed to not enjoying science, or experiencing

difficulty in science. This supports Prain and Hand’s (1996) finding in which

diversified writing-to-learn tasks were perceived by teachers as being an accessible

way for their students to demonstrate new understandings, particularly in comparison

to writing traditional scientific reports. In the current study, students’ comments

suggest that they enjoyed and could grasp better the concept of writing a narrative

that incorporated scientific information. Students 20 and 22, for example, explained

that writing a BioStory was “easier” than writing a scientific report (e.g., Excerpts

6.4.25, 6.4.26), and Student 12 felt that this was the case as it was acceptable to write

in the first-person when composing a BioStory. It has been suggested that stressing

the rules of formal scientific language can serve to disengage students, as it is “a

recipe for dull, alienating language” (Lemke, 1990, p. 1999), and in these examples,

it appears that the students felt they were more capable of writing a BioStory, which

merged science with narrative genre, than a scientific report. Student 12’s comment

about being able to use first-person language such as ‘I’ and ‘we’ when writing

BioStories supports Wellington and Osborne’s (2001) claim that students often

encounter difficulties writing in the passive, or third-person style typical of scientific

genres, which can, in turn, discourage them from writing in science.

186

In Excerpt 6.4.28, Mr. Peters commented that BioStories engaged the students in his

class who “weren’t the highest performers”, but were interested in writing a story,

and possessed a good imagination. One of the other science teachers made a similar

observation in her own class, in that some of the better stories were written by

students in her class who were “not necessarily the best in science” (Excerpt 6.4.29).

Engaging students with narratives in science offer opportunities to connect personal

experiences with science ideas, which is useful for students who find it difficult to

write scientifically or engage with the scientific genre (Hand et al., 2001). Similarly,

as narratives are the genre with which most students are familiar, they can be used to

“initiate writing in science in a manner which is enjoyable” (Wellington & Osborne,

2001, p. 76). Narratives link human experiences to science ideas (Bruner, 1985).

This means that students who author BioStories are more likely to be personally

engaged in meaningful learning. As BioStories enhanced the accessibility of science

learning for these students, it is likely that this impacted positively on their science

self-efficacy, as demonstrated by the statistically significant improvement in the

relevant BioQuiz items. As discussed in the previous section, students’ success in

authentic tasks has the greatest impact on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

For students who admitted to not enjoying science, writing a story enhanced their

interest and engagement. Student 9, for example, enjoyed English, and thus engaged

with BioStories as the project “was kind of like an English assessment in a science

way”. Another science teacher commented that the students in his class who don’t

normally enjoy science engaged with the project, as they were able to incorporate

humour in their stories.

7.4.3.2 Students’ Perceptions of Challenges Presented by the Project

With respect to researching information, a number of students expressed a sense of

frustration about difficulties they encountered in locating what was required

(Students 6, 21 and 2). Although web links to resources specifically selected by the

researcher were provided on the BioStories’ website, some of these students elected

to search other websites (e.g., Student 6). Largely, however, students encountered

difficulties locating the required information in the designated websites. During

BioStories’ lessons with the case study class, the researcher frequently assisted

students who couldn’t locate what they were looking for within a website; however,

187

the problem did not lie in the fact that the information was not present, but rather, the

students had difficulty identifying the desired information within the web document.

None of the web resources linked to the BioStories’ websites was specifically

designed for students. The majority of them were government websites with links to

fact sheets that may have been designed for the general public, or, they may have

been more scientific in nature. In some cases, the information was presented in the

form of news articles. From the researcher’s observations, the students encountered

difficulty in identifying the required information because it was embedded

throughout the text, rather than highlighted, for example, as the answer to a specific

question, or as a bullet point. This experience suggests that students’ information

literacy skills require a certain level of development if they are to competently locate

information in any given text. Perhaps the students in the case study had had

insufficient prior experience in locating information in scientific texts, or were

accustomed to being provided with the information they required. In the context of

the project, Mr. Peters could have used a web document about a different biological

incursion in order to model this process with the students, and given them an

opportunity to work through another example with a partner, before attempting it on

their own, for the purposes of their BioStories.

Six students in the case study class wrote one or more of their BioStories in such a

way that was not consistent with the narrative genre. These students either presented

a piece of text that was entirely expository in nature (in some cases, all within a

single set of quotation marks, as though it was being spoken by a single character),

or largely expository, with a few instances of evidence within the text of an attempt

to make the writing appear as a narrative (e.g., “said Steve” may have been inserted

at the end of an extended expository paragraph). Of these six students, Student 26

copied the information directly from a number of websites. The other students

attempted to put the information into their own words; however, the researcher easily

identified the original sources of information because the wording had not altered

sufficiently. Only Student 12 explained at interview that his Part A “story” was

written in expository form as he “didn’t really know how to write a story”; however,

he understood better what was expected of him when it came time to write Part B,

after having viewed Part A stories written by his peers. None of the other students

sufficiently explained why they did not write in narrative form. Perhaps they simply

188

lacked the motivation to do so, as it requires “more thought”, as the students needed

to consider how the characters would communicate the information through dialogue

(as suggested by Students 9 and 15 in Excerpts 6.4.23 and 6.4.24, respectively).

When questioned about this phenomenon at interview, Mr. Peters was not conscious

that any of his students experienced difficulty in composing a story; however, one of

the other science teachers did identify this as an issue:

Excerpt 7.4.1

Teacher I did have some students who really did struggle with the whole idea of writing a story, where they had to give a dialogue as such.

Researcher Can you give me an example of what these students may have written?

Teacher Some students wrote three paragraphs, and put that all in one set of quotation marks. I think they needed some lead-up time in doing the story-writing aspect of it.

These students may have experienced difficulty writing a story, as suggested by this

teacher; however, for some students, their information literacy skills may have once

again limited their extraction of key information from a given resource, and

transform it into narrative form. Modeling this process to the class prior to them

writing their own BioStories may have proven beneficial in overcoming this problem

for students.

A number of students (e.g., Students 9, 14 and 23) identified the incorporation of

scientific information into fictional storylines as a challenge (Excerpts 6.4.21-

6.4.23). As Student 14 explained, “it was difficult to try and put it [the scientific

information] in a way that it’s not all just facts, facts, facts, but like it’s being said

and stuff”. Student 9 articulated a similar sentiment: “It didn’t always fit because

there was all this information and you had to get it into their words, like, you had to

hear someone say it. You just couldn’t just take it straight off the Internet. You had

to think about it first”. Student 15 agreed with this notion, and went so far as to say

that scientific writing (presumably, writing scientific reports), is “easier” in

comparison to writing a BioStory, as the writer is not required to incorporate a

storyline in order to present the “facts and figures” (Excerpt 6.4.24).

189

In constructing their BioStories, the students transformed the scientific information

within the websites, shaped their emerging understandings of this information, and

re-presented these understandings in a new context – hybridised narratives about

biosecurity. Through the process of producing new constructions and representations

of reality, the students transformed and reproduced particular conventions of the

available resources (i.e., government websites containing scientific information, the

narrative genre, and students’ natural, everyday discourse), through the creative

application and combination of these conventions. It is not surprising that a number

of students felt that this process of transformation was a challenging process, as they

had never written hybridised scientific narratives prior to their participation in the

project. In particular, they were transforming scientific information and re-presenting

their understandings in the form of short stories, an entirely new context, far

removed from the original genre in which the information was presented. When

students are required to utilise scientific resources to reproduce scientific genres,

transformation is minimised, as students can simply reproduce information that they

may not understand in a similar context or genre. In contrast, writing a short story

that contains scientific information requires considerable transformation, as

explained by Students 9 and 14, as they are required to merge their developing

scientific understandings with their everyday, natural discourse.

Encouragingly, the few less enjoyable features of the BioStories’ project that some

students identified in the interviews did not directly relate to the learning of science

through the writing of BioStories (see Table 6.2). Instead, they included such

technical difficulties encountered in logging-on to the website (an isolated incident),

typing up the stories (Student 7), doing the work required (Students 3 and 8), and the

length of the project (i.e., too long, Student 24). Student 20 was the only student who

admitted that she didn’t like to write stories, and Student 21 was the only student

who identified the incorporation of scientific information into fictional stories as an

aspect that she didn’t enjoy.

The time made available to the BioStories’ project at school was a contentious topic

at interview, and an issue raised by many students and teachers. As Student 4 best

explained, the class time allocated was too short for the students to write their

BioStories, have them reviewed by a teacher, and post them to the website (Excerpt

190

6.4.36). Although the researcher had intended for the BioStories’ project to be the

focus of teaching and learning during the time it was implemented, this could not be

negotiated with Mr. Peters (the Middle School Science Coordinator), and the project

was dispersed over a seven-week period (and nine 50-minute lessons), during which

time the existing ecology and human genetics unit was taught. In hindsight, Mr.

Peters conceded that it would have been “easier” to implement BioStories in a block

of time, rather than integrating it into an existing unit, among all of the other content

that needed to be taught (Excerpt 6.4.37).

Interestingly, Mr. Peters commented at interview that he approached the

implementation of the BioStories’ project differently from the regular curriculum,

and instructed the other science teachers accordingly, as preparation for the science

examination for the ecology and human genetics unit took priority. Collectively,

these comments highlight a common tension that exists in classrooms between

implementing new and innovative approaches to the curriculum, and the pressure of

delivering a content-based curriculum that is valued by school communities and

Alexander High, in particular. Mr. Peters wanted to ensure that the content of the

school’s existing ecology and human genetics unit was taught so that the students

were adequately prepared for a subsequent science examination, and indeed, tests

and examinations tend to define the content of the curriculum to a large extent (Stake

& Easley, 1978; Tobin, 1987). Curricular innovations must be supported by a vision

of what science ought to be like, and a commitment to change (Tobin, Briscoe, &

Holman, 1990); however, this requires both time and effort, and “the allocation of

scarce instructional time and resources is no small issue” (Sadler et al., 2007, p. 372).

With respect to writing-to-learn strategies, in particular, there is also concern that

teachers’ perceived lack of preparation in employing such practices, and a lack of

understanding regarding their effectiveness, present a major barrier to their

widespread implementation (Hildebrand, 2002; Prain & Hand, 1996a; Rivard, 1994).

It is unsurprising, therefore, that the BioStories’ project was not afforded high

priority in the Year 9 science curriculum at Alexander High. Despite this, seven of

the eight participating science classes were able to complete successfully the project,

and there were nonetheless impressive gains in the development of the students’

scientific literacy, as evidenced by the BioQuiz and BioStories’ results (Chapters 5

191

and 6). One of the classes was unable to complete Part C, as the students required

more time to complete the preceding two stories.

Students’ interest and enjoyment of the Part C BioStories’ task (in which students

were required to compose a completely new story of their choice, that incorporated

the scientific information from their Parts A and B stories) appear to have been

influenced by the task requirements and the amount of writing that was required. For

example, while the task requirements stipulated that Part C should not exceed 1500

words, some students interpreted this guideline as a word limit that they were

required to meet (e.g., Student 12). Others (e.g., Student 19) simply disliked the

amount of writing that was required, compared to Parts A and B (which required

significantly less).

With respect to incorporating information about the Parts A and B biological

incursions into a single story, a number of students commented this was challenging,

particularly devising a storyline that could accommodate two very different

incursions. As Student 4 exemplified, “It was definitely harder. Not only did they not

start [the story] for you, but you had to find a way to put the two [biological

incursions] together. I didn’t really want to have frogs infect a chicken [with chytrid

fungus]. Yeah, it was a challenge”. A number of students (e.g., Students 3, 7 and 16)

did indeed invent extraordinary Part C stories in which avian influenza and some

other incursion from Part A were discovered simultaneously on a single farm. At

interview, these students acknowledged that these scenarios were invented purely for

the purposes of their stories, and were unlikely to take place (particularly as their

stories were set on Australian farms, and Australia is currently free from avian

influenza) (e.g., Excerpt 6.4.35). Other students wrote stories that incorporated the

two biological incursions by presenting a story that contained two storylines running

concurrently, while others also invented extraordinary storylines, but were unable to

comment on the likelihood of such scenarios taking place, without being probed

excessively at interview.

In order to overcome this challenge, Mr. Peters suggested that the students could

have chosen their own quarantine issue to research and write about for Part C

(Excerpt 6.4.33). This suggestion was taken up in the design of a follow-up study

192

conducted with Year 6 students at the same school (Tomas & Ritchie, 2009). Other

implications for future research are discussed in Chapter 8.

Students’ opinions at interview were divided as to whether the lack of a starting

scenario for Part C rendered the task more difficult or not. Students 2 and 15, for

example, explained that Part C was more difficult compared to the preceding tasks,

as the students were required to invent their own stories. Alternatively, a number of

students (e.g., Students 1, 3 and 10) felt that Part C was “easier” than Parts A and B

as they weren’t constrained by a starting scenario; the story was entirely up to them.

Interestingly, some of the students who felt that Part C was difficult in that they had

to begin their own stories without the help of a given scenario (e.g., Student 2) cited

using their imagination as an aspect of the project they enjoyed. It seems that these

students valued the opportunity to be imaginative and creative; however, they also

appreciated the parameters provided by Parts A and B. The open-ended nature of

Part C presented a challenge for these students to negotiate. Based on the students’

comments, it is likely that this challenge was exacerbated by the requirement to write

about two biological incursions in one story, rather than write about a single

incursion of their choice.

7.5 Limitations of the Study

The adoption of a mixed methods research design reduced potential limitations of

this study. While qualitative methods were employed to illuminate and gain a deep

understanding of the students’ experiences as they constructed hybridised short

stories about biosecurity, quantitative methods were introduced to complement this

understanding. Quantitative techniques were used to understand trends in the data,

particularly with respect to the students’ conceptual science understanding, as

evidenced by their BioStories, and their attitudes toward science and science

learning, complementing the in-depth understanding of student learning gleaned

from qualitative techniques. Together, both qualitative and quantitative techniques

developed a richer understanding of the students’ developing scientific literacy than

either approach would individually.

This mixed methods design sought to strengthen the interpretation of the BioQuiz

results, in response to concerns that quantitative analyses in attitudinal studies are

193

restricted by a narrow range of responses based on the researcher’s perspective of the

problem, thus limiting their usefulness as a data source (Kaya et al., 2009; Osborne

et al., 2003; Piburn & Baker, 1993). The triangulation mixed methods design adopted

in this study strove to counteract this concern by developing a deeper understanding

of the students’ developing attitudes toward science and science learning over the

course of the project, through both qualitative and quantitative analyses.

As with much research conducted within bounded naturalistic settings, it is

problematic to generalise beyond the context from which the results emerged. To

some extent, this limitation was offset by comparing the attitudinal data with results

obtained from the PISA study conducted in Queensland, Australia (see Section

7.4.1). At the same time, the detailed descriptions of the organisation of the study,

school context, class case study, and methods of data generation and analysis

provided in Chapter 3, all serve to enhance the transferability of this study (i.e., the

extent to which its findings will be useful in other similar contexts) (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). These descriptions seek to assist the reader in making an informed

judgment about the transferability of the findings to his/her own particular context.

An important strength of BioStories was the interest and enjoyment generated

through the project. As outlined in Section 6.4.1, the project engaged diverse learners

as students appreciated writing differently in science, exercising their imagination

and creativity, playing an active role in their learning, and accessing information

technologies. As well as enhancing students’ interest and enjoyment of learning

science in this context, these aspects of the project appeared to contribute to the

development and retention of conceptual science understandings articulated at

interview. As this particular study investigated the learning experiences of a single

cohort of Year 9 students as they participated in the BioStories’ project (and a single

case study class), it is not possible to determine whether the gains in students’

conceptual science understandings and attitudes toward science and science learning

are more or less than those that may be achievable through any other novel, student-

centred approach to the teaching and learning of biosecurity. Nonetheless, although

this study does not offer a comparison to other such approaches, its findings provide

strong evidence that the writing of hybridised scientific narratives about biosecurity

194

can be effective in developing students’ conceptual science understandings and

improving their attitudes toward science and science learning.

In response to the study school’s requirements that all students undertake the same

program of study, all of the students in the Year 9 science cohort participated in the

BioStories’ project. The researcher had intended to implement a quasi-experimental

design, whereby four of the eight science classes completed the project, and the

remaining classes participated in the regular science curriculum. This would have

facilitated a comparison between the BioQuiz responses of the two groups, and

allowed any possible interaction effects caused by the students’ participation in the

project to be explored.

Limitations of the study were also minimised by investigating possible class and

gender interaction effects that may have influenced BioQuiz scores. No significant

effects were found, which suggests that the BioStories’ project was implemented

uniformly across classes, and had a similar impact on both boys and girls. This

enhanced the validity of claims made about the students’ attitudes toward science

and science learning, based on the BioQuiz results.

Lesson timetabling and time constraints made it difficult for a single researcher to

make detailed observations of more than one class, therefore, the development of the

students’ conceptual understanding relating to biosecurity was investigated in the

context of a single case study class, and not the entire cohort of Year 9 students.

Once again, claims made in relation to this aspect of the project cannot be

generalised beyond the case study class. This presents an avenue for further research

and more extensive data collection, in order to investigate whether these particular

findings can be replicated in larger population samples. Recommendations for

further research are identified in the final chapter.

7.6 Implications of the Study

The current study extends both national and international research regarding the

impact of writing-to-learn science strategies on students’ developing scientific

literacy. The results presented and discussed in this and preceding chapters (i.e.,

Chapters 5 and 6) suggest that students’ participation in the BioStories’ project, in

195

which they were required to compose a series of hybridised short stories about

biosecurity, enhanced their awareness and conceptual understanding of biosecurity

issues and related biological concepts, and improved their attitudes toward science

and science learning. The following subsections present the implications of these

findings for curricular design and educational theory.

7.6.1 Implications for Curricular Design and Implementation

The results of the study support existing research into the benefits of writing-to-learn

science strategies presented in Chapter 2, particularly the utilisation of more

diversified writing tasks. Although extensive research into the value of writing-to-

learn strategies has long-established their place in the science classroom (e.g., Barber

et al, 2006; Hand et al., 2004; Hildebrand, 1998; Keys, 1999a; Rivard, 1994;

Warwick et al., 2003; Wellington & Osborne, 2001), there is little consensus as to

what writing practices should be advocated (Prain, 2006). The gains in students’

conceptual science understandings and attitudes toward science and science learning

reported in this study provide a compelling argument for the inclusion of writing

practices that engage students in the construction of hybridised narrative genres in

the science classroom.

The findings discussed in this chapter support the body of literature that diversified

writing tasks, including more imaginative writing, assists in the development of

conceptual understanding, have motivating effects, and impact positively on

students’ attitudes and engagement (e.g., Hand & Prain, 1995; Hanrahan, 1999;

Hildebrand, 1998, 1999, 2004; Prain & Hand, 1996, 1999); however, as described in

Chapter 2 some researchers have expressed scepticism toward the inclusion of

creative writing in the science classroom. Keys (1999a), for example, argues that:

Creative writing not only takes precious time away from other kinds of

science learning, but it may actively work against many of the goals for

reasoning, learning about the nature of science, and communication

recognised by the majority of science educators … Second, teaching

creative writing rather than scientific writing reinforces the idea that

scientific writing is inaccessible to most people and is inherently boring.

Rather than capitalising on the excitement of discovery and curiosity in

196

science, creative writing assignments communicate to students that

science is not intrinsically interesting, but must be infused with artificial

excitement. (p. 124)

Although hybridised scientific narratives may not be classified as purely creative

writing, as they require students to transform and communicate scientific knowledge

in such a way that more closely aligns with their everyday language, they

nonetheless introduce an element of creativity and imagination in the construction of

narrative storylines. The results of this study indicate that the writing of BioStories is

a valuable activity with which students can engage in the science classroom, and

therefore supports Prain’s (2006) calls for the inclusion of more diversified writing

tasks that require students to communicate to actual readerships for meaningful and

varied purposes

In contrast to Keys’s statement above, the writing with which the students engaged in

the current study, although creative to some extent, did not infuse the science with

artificial excitement. The BioStories’ tasks were inherently engaging as they were

based on a contemporary socioscientific issue that was relevant and contextualised,

and in addition, they engaged students’ imagination; a powerful means of promoting

effective teaching and learning as students come to understand the world around

them (Egan, 2008). Furthermore, as described in Section 2.2.3, the nature and

structure of writing-to-learn science approaches (such as writing heuristics) that

engage students in inquiry-based science (e.g., Hand et al., 2004; Keys et al., 1999;

Warwick et al., 2003) deem them inappropriate for learning about non-inquiry-based

science or scientific issues that cannot be learnt by undertaking laboratory

investigations, such as biosecurity. As the current study has shown, creative,

hybridised science writing offers teachers a useful means of engaging students in the

investigation and learning of socioscientific issues, that might otherwise, if at all, be

taught in less engaging ways (e.g., traditional ‘chalk and talk’ and descriptive

reports).

It has also been suggested that creative writing in science detracts the learner’s focus

from science understandings, and fails to develop the skills necessary to engage with

the reading or writing of “mainstream scientific texts” that students will encounter in

197

higher education (Keys, 1999a, p. 124). In the context of this study, engaging

students in creative, hybridised writing did not detract their focus from science

understandings; rather, it afforded an opportunity to develop conceptual knowledge

in a meaningful way that enhanced their interest and enjoyment in learning science.

Furthermore, an over-emphasis on the development of the skills necessary to engage

with the reading or writing of mainstream scientific texts, with the view of preparing

students for higher education, can be problematic, particularly if they are not exposed

to alternative writing-to-learn strategies. Sole emphasis on scientific genres in the

classroom arguably “not only constrains students’ thinking, but also turns them off

science more than it facilitates their participation in the discourse of science”

(Hildebrand, 2002 p. 4). This approach does not support expanded notions of

scientific literacy whereby students are required to communicate to diverse audiences

for diverse purposes (Hand et al., 1999), and contradicts the notion of “science for

all” (Fensham, 1985), and a socioscientific perspective of scientific literacy (Roberts,

2007). Alternatively, it supports what is traditionally viewed as the primary purpose

of science education, to provide academic students with pre-university science

training. Hybridised science writing tasks, then, can be a valuable inclusion in the

science curriculum if it enables students to exercise their creativity and imagination

are a valuable inclusion in the science curriculum, in order to enhance student

interest in learning science, and the accessibility of science learning for a broader

audience, while at the same time, fostering the development of conceptual science

understandings, as shown in the current study.

Notwithstanding the importance of engaging students in the reproduction of

traditional scientific genres (such as laboratory or research reports), different

combinations of writing tasks lead to different learning outcomes, and the utilisation

of contrasting genres and different kinds of writing tasks in science will eventuate in

different kinds of learning, and achieve very different agendas (Prain & Hand,

1996a, 1996b; Schumacher & Nash, 1991). Diversifying the range of writing-to-

learn science activities in which students participate, therefore, will afford teachers

the opportunity to implement different activities with the goal of achieving different

learning outcomes. For example, the construction of traditional scientific texts fosters

the development of language and writing skills that are subject-specific, such as

structural and functional features of scientific writing, and scientific vocabulary, a

198

knowledge of which is required in order for students to understand and reproduce

scientific genres (Baker & McLoughlin, 1994; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Martin &

Veel, 1998; Schibeci & Kissane, 1994; Sturgiss, 1994; Unsworth, 1997, 1999). The

development of these skills would be of greatest value for science-bound students, as

they prioritise the importance of science subject matter, and support a vision of

scientific literacy viewed from a scientists’ perspective (i.e., Vision I) (Roberts,

2007). Alternatively, hybridised scientific narratives (such as BioStories), while

developing conceptual understanding, better supports citizenship education as a goal

of scientific literacy; a socioscientific view of scientific literacy that acknowledges

the role science plays in human affairs. The inclusion of diverse writing-to-learn

strategies in the science classroom, such as the BioStories’ tasks, “can also promote

students’ scientific literacy by developing their interest in and capacity to apply

scientific thinking to social issues for the purposes of informed action, where the

students can learn to cross borders between specialist and more popular genres and

readerships” (Hand & Prain, 2002, p. 742).

As discussed in Section 7.3, the findings of the current study also have implications

for the assessment of scientific literacy in a writing-to-learn context. The student

interviews revealed a different depth of understanding than was evident in the

BioStories, which suggests that multiple assessment strategies are required in

combination in order to gain a fuller picture of the students’ developing scientific

literacy. Although the researcher expected that students’ levels of understanding

would be reflected in what they wrote, it was found that interviews with individual

students showed deeper conceptual understandings, and at the same time, they also

identified evidence of superficial or problematic understandings that were omitted

from their writing.

Interviews are useful tools for revealing alternative conceptions, and can also provide

positions to serve as the basis for debates, which can help to resolve opposing

conceptions (White & Gunstone, 1992). In a classroom situation, interviews may

provide students with a useful forum through which to verbalise their science

understandings in a way that cannot be fully realised through writing.

199

According to Tytler (2007), a re-imagined science curriculum should promote

student engagement by including assessment practices that utilise meaningful

activities. Although the students’ BioStories were not utilised for the purposes of

their formal science assessment in the current study, they nonetheless represent a

useful authentic, alternative assessment strategy. As Mr. Peters explained at

interview, BioStories could be used to broaden the range of assessment tasks that the

students complete in Year 9 at the school: “I think it’s probably something we could

use a little bit more in terms of a more research-type of assessment for the students.

You know, we do a lot of extended experimental investigations, especially in Year 9,

and written tests”. Using students’ BioStories for the purposes of assessment

simplifies the alignment of an innovative writing-to-learn science strategy and

subsequent assessment, which can be problematic for teachers. At the same time,

BioStories can be used to examine how students use and produce science knowledge

to respond to a need or concern pertinent to their individual or community’s future,

which better aligns the goals of scientific literacy, as discussed in Chapter 1, with the

way in which success is defined and science learning is assessed at school.

By uploading their work to the BioStories’ website, the students’ audience was

broadened to beyond that of simply their classroom teacher, which supports

expanded notions of scientific literacy whereby students communicate to diverse

audiences for diverse purposes (Hand et al., 1999). In doing so, this also enhances

the relevance and authenticity of the BioStories’ tasks, which strengthens their value

as a meaningful assessment strategy.

In their discussion of writing heuristics in the science classroom, Warwick et al.

(2003) suggested that heuristics can constrict students’ imagination or thinking, and

elicit formulaic responses that do not extend far beyond the prompts or guiding

questions provided. This notion may be of relevance in the context of the BioStories’

project. Each BioStory task stipulated a number of requirements in terms of the

scientific information that the students’ stories should contain. Part A, for example,

needed to include:

The biological incursion’s country of origin.

200

How the biological incursion entered Australia.

The problems the biological incursion has caused or continues to cause

native and/or commercial species or eco-systems (environmental, social

and economic impacts).

The difficulties scientists and farmers face controlling the pest, or how

the pest was brought under control.

Despite the requirements to discuss the environmental, social and economic impacts,

for example, the majority of students did not address all of the reasonable impacts of

their biological incursions, nor did they explain these in as much detail as they did at

interview. When this notion was discussed at interview, Mr. Peters suggested a way

in which this could be overcome:

Excerpt 7.6.1

Mr. Peters Well, maybe in those task requirements, you could actually state, you know, to achieve at a higher level you need to go further with your explanation. You need to talk about the ecology associated with food chains or food webs. Maybe that would help.

Researcher I see. Focus their writing a little more.

Mr. Peters Yeah, I mean they were taught and tested on that ecology unit, and they did alright. Maybe teasing out those task requirements will assist in terms of scaffolding. Probably at this year level, they do need that, and those students that did give that extra information, they are probably your higher-achieving students. If you’re trying to get that out of every student, if they aren’t really strong at science and their literacy isn’t excellent, then you’re not going to get much more than exactly what you’ve written on that page out of them. You might not even get that.

In the current study, it does appear that the task requirements elicited responses that

did not extend far beyond the prompts provided. If a BioStory is to be assessed for

evidence of students’ conceptual understanding, then the task requirements should be

sufficiently detailed to scaffold students’ writing such that it encourages them to

demonstrate their level of understanding to the desired extent.

7.6.2 Implications for Educational Theory

As described in Chapter 2, socioscientific issues education served as the theoretical

framework for this study, as the ability to negotiate socioscientific issues in making

201

informed decisions may be considered an important component of scientific literacy

(Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; Driver et al., 1996; Kolstø, 2001; Sadler, 2004b). For

example, Zeidler (2007) reasons that, “The Socioscientific Issues (SSI) framework

seeks to involve students in decision making regarding current social issues with

moral or ethical implications embedded in scientific contexts” (p. 72). The current

study sought to refine selected aspects of SSI education; namely, the emphasis

placed on argumentation, and the role of positive attitudes in engaging students in the

negotiation of socioscientific issues.

The literature relating to SSI education emphasises the importance of informal

reasoning in the negotiation of socioscientific issues. The development of students’

argumentation skills (i.e., the capacity to evaluate evidence, assess alternatives,

establish the validity of claims, and address counter positions) has been identified as

an important goal of SSI education, as argumentation is an expression of informal

reasoning. Furthermore, it has been argued that contextualised argumentation in

science education should be viewed as an instance of citizenship education, so

students should be exposed to moral and ethical issues, arguments and evidence that

support scientific decision-making from a humanistic perspective (Zeidler, 2007). In

light of this stance, SSI education emphasises the cultivation of students’ cognitive

and moral reasoning for both character development, and socioscientific decision-

making.

SSI education also emphasises the role of emotion and affect in engaging students in

negotiations of socioscientific issues that present moral and ethical dilemmas, and a

number of studies (e.g., Sadler & Zeidler, 2004, 2005) have investigated the role of

emotion (particularly empathy) in informal reasoning in the context of genetic

engineering issues. For example, empathy has been shown to facilitate students’

engagement with controversial socioscientific issues, such as reproductive cloning,

as it enables students to adopt multiple perspectives and identify with the characters

(such as an infertile couple) in the given scenarios (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).

The major theoretical contribution made in this thesis is that the types of written

discourse with which students should engage in the negotiation of socioscientific

issues can be broadened to include hybridised scientific narratives, as they present a

202

legitimate and valuable way of negotiating such issues. Traditionally, argumentation

has been used in the science classroom to enhance students’ thinking and develop

their scientific discourse (Kuhn, 1993; Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004); however,

in the context of SSI education, it promotes the development of functional scientific

literacy by advancing understanding of the human condition (Zeidler, 2007). The

writing of hybridised scientific narratives, as described in the previous section, also

supports a socioscientific view of scientific literacy, a humanistic approach “intended

to prepare future citizens to critically and rationally assess science and technology”

(Aikenhead, 2007, p. 881). In this way, the utilisation of these contrasting genres in

the science classroom can be rationalised by a common goal.

The significance of this theoretical development is that the writing of hybridised

scientific narratives in the context of the study site has been shown to enhance

students’ attitudes toward science and science learning, while at the same time,

developing their conceptual science understandings. Notwithstanding the importance

of argumentation in the context of SSI education, and role of empathy in the

decision-making process, the researcher is not aware of any current literature that

associates argumentation with positive emotions or attitudes toward science. There is

a risk, then, that engaging students in argumentation alone in the context of

socioscientific issues may “turn them off science more than it facilitates their

participation in the discourse of science” (Hildebrand, 2002, p. 4). The findings of

this study, however, support extensive research that has shown that diversified

writing-to-learn strategies, including those that utilise creative hybridised scientific

genres, impact positively on students attitudes toward science and science learning

(refer Chapter 2).

In the context of this study, the writing of hybridised scientific narratives and the

development of positive attitudes toward science and science learning are intimately

intertwined, as the construction of short stories about biosecurity enhanced students’

interest and enjoyment in the learning of science. When compared to argumentation,

this may be attributed to the type of discourse with which the students engaged, and

how they positioned the learner. Argumentation (facilitated by empathy) positions

students to adopt an objectivist standpoint (i.e., that of an ‘outsider’), in relation to

the socioscientific issue. The construction of narratives, however, positions students

203

as ‘insiders’; particularly as they are able employ their natural, everyday discourse to

negotiate the issue. As Student 12 exemplified, “The writing we normally do in

science, you can’t say ‘I’ or ‘we’, ‘they’”. Students often encounter difficulties

writing in the third-person style typical of scientific genres, which can discourage

them from writing in science (Wellington & Osborne, 2001). As narratives are the

genre with which most students are familiar, they offer opportunities to connect

students’ personal experiences with science ideas, and thus encourage them to

express their thoughts in written language through being personally engaged (Hand

et al., 2001; Wellington & Osborne, 2001). The students are therefore more likely to

perceive their story-writing experiences as interesting and personally relevant (i.e.,

more ‘real’), which will, in turn, strengthen their engagement with the socioscientific

issue, and encourage the development of positive emotions (i.e., enjoyment) and

attitudes toward the learning of science.

This study found that while the students’ attitudes toward science and science

learning improved through their participation in the BioStories’ project, their

conceptual understanding of issues relating to biosecurity was also enhanced.

Research into the role of argumentation in the negotiation of socioscientific issues

(e.g., Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a) has shown that although the process of argumentation

can serve to develop students’ knowledge and understanding of socioscientific

issues, the quality of their informal reasoning (expressed via argumentation) is

related to students’ understanding of relevant content knowledge. The writing of

hybridised scientific narratives, such as BioStories, therefore, can be utilised to

develop students’ conceptual science understandings prior to their engagement with

argumentation.

In Section 2.4, two competing perspectives of the derived sense of scientific literacy

were presented: the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives (Sadler, 2007). It has

been argued that the cognitive perspective minimises the role of language, as the

development of cognitive attributes is prioritised. The sociocultural perspective seeks

to develop members of the scientific community through enculturation and practice

(i.e., doing science is a social practice in which understanding is negotiated via

written and spoken language). The former supports simple fundamental scientific

literacy, while the latter supports an expanded view of fundamental scientific

204

literacy. The findings of this study support a hybridised view of these perspectives,

rather than the artificial dichotomy they impose. The writing of BioStories developed

students’ cognitive attributes (i.e., conceptual science understanding and attitudes),

however, the role of language played a central role in this process. In this context,

language was not simply a medium through which the students communicated their

understanding; rather, they interpreted and transformed scientific information to

construct their BioStories. At the same time, the students’ writing was contextualised

in the socioscientific issue of biosecurity. Although the writing of BioStories does

not emulate the practices of the scientific community, it nonetheless offers an

authentic and meaningful context in which students can experience science concepts,

simultaneously developing their expanded fundamental and derived senses of

scientific literacy. Framing scientific literacy in such a way, as suggested by Sadler

(2007), blurs the boundaries between the expanded fundamental and derived senses

of scientific literacy, as the ability to infer meaning from written language and being

knowledgeable in science are closely intertwined.

7.7 Summary

This chapter discussed the results presented in Chapters 5 and 6, the limitations of

the study, and the implications of the key findings for curricular design and

implementation, and educational theory. Two claims were synthesised from the

quantitative and qualitative data generated by this study, in response to the research

questions articulated in Section 7.2: Students’ awareness and conceptual

understanding of issues relating to biosecurity were enhanced, and students’ attitudes

toward science and science learning improved through their participation in the

BioStories’ project. Quantitative analysis of the students’ written artefacts, and their

responses to the BioQuiz, demonstrated an improvement in selected aspects of their

attitudes toward science and science learning, and the development of conceptual

understandings pertaining to biosecurity. Qualitative analysis of both teacher and

students interviews provided triangulating evidence to support these findings,

particularly as the students could successfully articulate their conceptual

understandings and their experiences and perceptions of learning science through the

writing BioStories.

205

The results of this study support existing research into the benefits of writing-to-learn

science strategies, particularly the utilisation of more diversified writing tasks.

Specifically, the gains in students’ conceptual science understandings and attitudes

toward science and science learning provide a compelling argument for the inclusion

of writing practices that engage students in the construction of hybridised narrative

genres in the science classroom. Furthermore, the utilisation of different kinds of

writing tasks in science will eventuate in different kinds of learning, and promote

different views of scientific literacy. The students’ BioStories also represent an

authentic, alternative assessment strategy that simplifies the alignment of an

innovative writing-to-learn science strategy and subsequent assessment, which can

be problematic for teachers. At the same time, BioStories can be used to examine

how students use and produce science knowledge to respond to a need or concern

pertinent to their individual or community’s future, which better aligns with

expanded goals of scientific literacy.

The major theoretical contribution made in this thesis is that hybridised scientific

narratives present an alternative type of written discourse with which students can

engage in the negotiation of socioscientific issues. Although the utilisation of

argumentation and hybridised scientific genres in the negotiation of socioscientific

issues can be rationalised by a common goal (i.e., the development of functional

scientific literacy), the significance of this theoretical development is that the writing

of hybridised scientific narratives has been shown to enhance students’ attitudes

toward science and science learning, while at the same time, developing their

conceptual science understandings.

In contrast to argumentation (facilitated by empathy), which positions students to

adopt an objectivist standpoint, narratives position students as ‘insiders’, as they

offer opportunities to connect their personal experiences with science ideas, and thus

encourage them to express their thoughts in written language through being

personally engaged. The students are therefore more likely to perceive their story-

writing experiences as interesting and personally relevant (i.e., more ‘real’), which

will, in turn, encourage their engagement with the socioscientific issue, and the

development of positive emotions (i.e., enjoyment) and attitudes toward the learning

of science.

206

Concluding remarks for this study, including recommendations for future research,

are presented in the next chapter.

207

Chapter 8

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the school science genrist approach, other researchers …

have emphasised the value of expanding the purposes, writing types, and

readerships for writing in science beyond education into traditional

school genres. Writing here is viewed as a resource to enable learners to

understand science concepts, scientific methods, and practices beyond

the classroom. Educators … have asserted that students, in striving to

clarify networks of concepts in science topics, should be encouraged to

write in diverse forms for different purposes. (Prain, 2006, p. 184)

The current study pioneers the investigation of the development of Year 9 students’

scientific literacy through hybridised writing about a socioscientific issue. The

study’s findings presented and discussed in the preceding chapters support extensive

calls for the utilisation of diversified writing-to-learn strategies in the science

classroom, and for researchers of authentic classroom environments to understand

the writing-learning connection (Rivard, 1994). A triangulation mixed methods study

of Year 9 students’ learning experiences as they engaged with a unique online

writing-to-learn science project found that writing hybridised scientific narratives

about a contemporary socioscientific issue enhanced their awareness and conceptual

understanding of biosecurity issues, and their attitudes toward science and science

learning. The literature relating to writing-to-learn science strategies is inconclusive

as to the effects of different types of writing-to-learn activities, which kinds of

writing should be advocated, and the methods by which they should be taught (Hand

& Prain, 2002; Holliday, et al., 1994; Prain, 2006). This study therefore makes a

significant contribution to the writing-to-learn science literature, particularly in

relation to the use of hybridised scientific genres.

As articulated in Chapter 1, a view of scientific literacy as citizen preparation was

adopted in the current study, as the writing of short stories about an important

socioscientific issue best supports this view. Science curricula guided by this vision

seek to develop informed future citizens who use natural, scientific and technological

resources responsibly for a sustainable future. As no single writing task can be used

208

to engage all the dimensions of scientific literacy (Hand et al., 1999), this study

focused on three important aspects: conceptual science understandings (a derived

sense of scientific literacy, Norris & Phillips, 2003), the students’ ability to transform

scientific information and write stories about biosecurity (simple and expanded

fundamental senses of scientific literacy, Norris & Phillips, 2003), and attitudes

toward science and science learning. Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data

generated by the study suggests that students’ conceptual understanding and attitudes

improved through their participation in the project, and the writing of BioStories

contributed to their expanded fundamental literacy.

The majority of the students in the case study class could successfully elaborate on

the conceptual science understandings expressed through their writing at interview.

This demonstrates that they were able to interpret and transform scientific

information through the construction of their BioStories, and in doing so, learnt

concepts pertaining to biosecurity. This expanded fundamental sense of scientific

literacy ultimately contributed to the development of their derived sense. Holliday et

al. (1994) identified the need for a greater awareness of the practical relationship of

writing and science learning, fostered through “research into the type of explicit

instruction, cooperative activities, and writing tasks that stimulate knowledge

transformation and conceptual change” (p. 887). These findings enhance both the

awareness and understanding of this relationship.

Statistical analysis of the BioQuiz data revealed an overall improvement in students’

scores from pretest to posttest, with a medium effect (d = 0.48). This result is

encouraging, as educational research tends to produce smaller effects due to the fact

that it is difficult to impose experimental conditions in these settings (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2007). A specific improvement was observed in students’ interest in learning

science, science self-efficacy, and their perceived personal and general value of

science. These findings were also supported extensively by the interview data.

Students’ comments suggest that they enjoyed writing stories in science as it

presented a new way of writing in science lessons that enabled them to exercise their

imagination and creativity while learning something new; over the BioStories’

project, students expressed increased levels of interest in learning science, suggesting

it enhanced the accessibility of science learning, particularly for students who

209

identified as not enjoying science, or experienced difficulty in science; and writing

BioStories enabled students to take ownership and play an active role in the learning

process, which enhanced their interest in the learning activities.

Prior to the current study, the use of hybridised writing that integrates scientific

information with narrative storylines, and the role of positive attitudes in this context,

had not been investigated in the context of SSI education. This study makes a

significant theoretical contribution to SSI education. While argumentation and its

value in developing students’ functional scientific literacy features heavily in the

literature regarding SSI education, the results of this study have shown that the

construction of hybridised scientific narratives in the negotiation of a socioscientific

issue can be equally as valuable. Consequently, this study presents the argument that

the writing of hybridised scientific narratives can be used to complement

argumentation, as an alternative type of written discourse with which students

engage in the negotiation of socioscientific issues. In support of this argument are the

gains in students’ conceptual science understandings demonstrated in this study

(which has been identified as an important determinant of the quality of students’

informal reasoning) (Zeidler, 2007), and the development of positive attitudes toward

science and science learning.

At the time of this study, the researcher was unaware of any current literature that

associates argumentation with positive emotions or attitudes toward science.

Argumentation alone may discourage students’ participation in the discourse of

science; therefore, it is imperative to diversify the types of writing with which

students engage in the context of socioscientific issues, particularly if certain types of

writing are shown to develop positive attitudes toward science learning. This gap in

the literature regarding the role of argumentation in the development of students’

attitudes toward science and science learning could be explored via a comparative

study that investigates the cognitive and attitudinal outcomes of a writing-to-learn

science intervention that engages different groups of students with argumentation

and hybridised scientific narratives in the negotiation of socioscientific issues.

In the context of SSI education, a number of studies have shown that emotion and

affect not only engage students in the learning process, but emotional reactions,

210

particularly empathy, are also important in the exploration and resolution of

socioscientific issues (e.g., Zeidler & Schafer, 1984; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). The

findings of the current study demonstrate that students’ participation in the

BioStories’ project impacted positively on their attitudes toward science, and

enhanced their interest and enjoyment in learning science. This study therefore opens

the avenue for further research into the role of positive emotions in the negotiation of

socioscientific issues; in particular, the ways in which positive emotional responses

elicited by the writing of hybridised scientific narratives contribute to the resolution

of socioscientific issues.

Due to the emphasis on students’ developing attitudes toward science and science

learning, the moral and ethical issues relevant to socioscientific decision-making in

the context of biosecurity was not investigated; however, this could serve as the

focus of future research. While argumentation presents great utility in the

advancement of moral reasoning (Zeidler, 2007), the writing of hybridised scientific

narratives about socioscientific issues could potentially offer a useful alternative

means for this development. Biosecurity lends itself to the development of moral and

ethical reasoning. For example, it is unethical to bring products into the country that

are likely to affect adversely human health, and natural and agricultural ecosystems,

and an understanding of the related science is necessary to justify particular moral

decisions. The BioStories’ task requirements could be modified quite simply to

facilitate students’ exploration of these issues and the formulation of personal

standpoints through the construction of hybridised scientific narratives. It would be

interesting to investigate whether such an approach would be effective in developing

students’ moral reasoning, a key feature of the SSI framework, while promoting the

development of positive attitudes toward science and science learning, an important

finding of the current study.

While this study supports the inclusion of hybridised scientific narratives in SSI

curricula, the use of different genres in the context of other socioscientific issues

(e.g., weapons of mass destruction) could also be explored. While this and similar

studies (e.g., Ritchie et al., 2008a, 2008b) have been employed in middle-school

contexts, the utility of other writing-to-learn genres could be investigated with senior

students (e.g., electronic news reporting). Research of this nature would be valuable

211

in exploring the impacts of alternative genres that promote authentic learning

performances on the development of students’ scientific literacy in the context of SSI

education.

An important finding of this study was that the majority of the students in the case

study class expressed a deeper level of conceptual understanding at interview, than

they did in their BioStories. In addition, student interviews identified alternative

conceptions that weren’t expressed in the students’ writing. As articulated in the

previous chapter, this has implications for the assessment of scientific literacy in

writing-to-learn contexts, as written artefacts alone do not provide an accurate

representation of the level of students’ conceptual science understandings. An

examination of these artefacts in combination with interviews about the students’

written work appears to provide a more comprehensive assessment of their

developing scientific literacy, as suggested by White and Gunstone (1992).

In light of the findings that revealed a statistically significant reduction in the

students’ derived scientific literacy scores for Part C of their BioStories (as they

neglected to include much the required scientific information), further research is

required to investigate the relative importance students place on writing a “good”

story (i.e., one that is enjoyable or entertaining to read), and an informative story that

teaches the reader something about science. In the absence of specific guidelines for

Part C, it is conceivable that the students placed greater emphasis on writing an

interesting tale. As described in Chapter 6, a number of students also admitted to

inventing extraordinary storylines that were scientifically unlikely, in the interest of

creating a good story that fulfilled the task requirements. As supported by interview

data, the omission of scientific information was not indicative of a lack of

understanding in these cases. Again, as described above, this has implications of the

assessment of scientific literacy based on the students’ written artefacts alone.

This study did not find any statistically significant changes in the students’ simple

fundamental sense of scientific literacy, as evidenced by their writing scores. This

finding was not unexpected, as no class time was specifically allocated to scaffolding

the students’ story writing, or to the teaching of relevant technical literacy skills,

such as the punctuation of dialogue. In the context of a ‘busy’ curriculum with

212

limited available time, it is not surprising that the development of students’

conceptual understanding was of greater priority for Mr. Peters, than facilitating the

students’ story writing. It is clear, however, that the writing of BioStories, a literacy

activity, has the potential to develop this aspect of the students’ scientific literacy.

Future studies in similar writing-to-learn science contexts could more closely

investigate the impact of a project such as BioStories on students’ simple

fundamental sense of scientific literacy; however, this aspect must be afforded

greater priority in the science classroom, if such research is to be effective.

The sample size of the case study class did not facilitate a statistical investigation of

the relationship between the students’ science results and their BioStories’ scores;

however, this would be an interesting issue for future research. A larger sample of

students could be used to examine the relationship between their science results and

BioStories’ scores for each grade (i.e., A-E), or scores from students with higher

grades (e.g. A and B) could be compared to scores from students with lower grades

(e.g. D and E), to determine how BioStories might impact on students’ achievement

in science. The results from this study demonstrated that lower-achieving students

experienced greater success in the BioStories’ project, when compared to their

Semester 1 science results; however, it would be useful in further studies to examine

this relationship statistically.

At the onset of the project, it was intended that collaborative learning would be a

focus of the study, specifically, the ways in which the online learning community

supported student learning (cf. Ritchie et al., 2008b). As described in Chapter 3, the

students were required to upload their work to the BioStories’ website, where it could

be reviewed and commented on by other students, as writing-to-learn activities that

require students to write for their peers can enhance the development of conceptual

science understanding (e.g., Gunel, Hand, & McDermott, 2009). A number of

guidelines for effective peer review were provided to assist students in leaving useful

evaluative comments for their classmates, so as to assist students in improving their

work. Due to time constraints (i.e., adequate class time was only made available for

students to research and write their stories), peer review of the students’ BioStories

did not eventuate into a significant focus of this study. Furthermore, the researcher

213

had intended that the students would co-author their stories with a partner; however,

the school required that they complete and submit their work individually.

The researcher’s observations of the comments posted by students on the BioStories’

website revealed that despite the guidelines provided for effective peer review, the

majority of the students that participated in the study neglected to observe them, and

left trivial comments (e.g., “Cool story!”). These observations support similar

findings in the preliminary BioStories’ study (Ritchie et al., 2008b). An attempt to

address this issue was made in a follow-up study with Year 6 students. Five

scaffolding sentences (in addition to the original guidelines) adapted from a peer

evaluation strategy from the First Steps series of resources which link assessment

with literacy teaching and learning (Annandale et al., 2003) were provided to guide

the students’ comments. Initial observations suggest these scaffolding sentences did

improve the quality of students’ feedback. Educators have suggested that learning is

enhanced by diversified writing tasks that position students as ‘experts’, and require

them to create original and public products for actual readerships (Perrone, 1994;

Prain, 2006). In light of this, it is clear that these experiences in the current and

follow-up study warrant further research into the ways in which useful and respectful

peer evaluations can be facilitated, including the design of digital structures that

encourage and mediate effective participation in digital learning communities. Many

of the results of this follow-up study, including the quality of the students’ feedback,

are yet to be reported; however, Tomas and Ritchie (2009) and Ritchie, Tomas and

Tones (2009) examine the development of the Year 6 students’ conceptual science

understandings, and attitudes toward science and science learning through their

participation in the project.

This study investigated the development of Year 9 students’ scientific literacy

through their participation in an online writing-to-learn science project. Through

writing a series of short stories about biosecurity, a contemporary socioscientific

issue, three aspects of students’ scientific literacy were enhanced: selected aspects of

their attitudes toward science and science learning; their awareness and conceptual

understanding of issues relating to biosecurity (a derived sense of scientific literacy);

and their ability to transform scientific information in order to construct hybridised

scientific narratives (an expanded fundamental sense of scientific literacy). While

214

making a significant contribution to the literature regarding the utility of alternative

writing-to-learn strategies in the science classroom, this study has also explored the

value writing hybridised scientific narratives about a socioscientific issue. In doing

so, the findings of this study support the argument that the writing of hybridised

scientific narratives such as BioStories can be used to complement the types of

written discourse with which students engage in the negotiation of socioscientific

issues; namely, argumentation, particularly as they promote the development of

conceptual science understandings, and positive attitudes toward science and science

learning. While a number of avenues for further research have been raised in this

chapter, including alternative ways of writing in the context of SSI education, it clear

that writing differently about socioscientific issues by merging scientific and

narrative genres holds great potential for the development of scientifically literate

future citizens.

215

REFERENCES

Aikenhead, G. S. (1994a). What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon & G.

Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 47-59). New York: Teachers College Press.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1994b). Consequences to learning science through STS: A research perspective. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 169-186). New York: Teachers College Press.

Aikenhead, G. S. (2003). STS education: A rose by any other name. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education: Responding to the work of Peter Fensham (pp. 59-75). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 881-910). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A. G., & Fleming, R. W. (1989). Views on science-technology-society. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Department of Curriculum Studies.

Akkus, A., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765.

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 19-32), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Angrosino, M. V., & Mays de Perez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From methods to context. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 673-702). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Annandale, K., Bindon, R., Handley, K., Johnston, A., Lockett, L., & Lynch, P. (2004). First Steps: Linking assessment, teaching and learning. Port Melbourne, Victoria: Rigby.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 user’s guide. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (2003). Statistics for psychology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baker, F. (1994). Genre analysis and the secondary science classroom. Working Papers in Language Education, No. 2. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato Language Institute.

Baker, G., & McLoughlin, R. (1994). Teachers, writing and factual texts: Writing in the subject areas. Melbourne: Catholic Education Office.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of though and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barab, S. A., & Leuhmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum:

Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454-467.

216

Barber, J., Catz, K. N., & Arya, D. (2006, April). Improving science content acquisition through a combined science/literacy approach: A quasi-experimental study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association.

Bayliss, V. (1998). Redefining Work: An RSA initiative. London: RSA. Bearden, W. O., Sharma, S., & Teel, J. E. (1982). Sample size effects on chi-square

and other statistics used in evaluating causal models. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 425-430.

Bell, B. (2007). Classroom assessment of science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 965-1006.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.

Bereiter, C., & Scardmalia, M. (2009). Teaching how science really words. Education Canada, 49(1), 14-17.

Bingle, W.H. & Gaskell, P.J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision-making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185-201.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139.

Bollen, K. A. (1986). Sample size and Bentler and Bonnett’s nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika, 51(3), 375-377.

Bond, H. (1985). Society’s view of science. In G.B. Harrison (Ed.), World trends in science and technology education (pp. 10-13). Nottingham: Trent Polytechnic.

Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool (pp. 83-104). Amsterdam: Kluwer Press.

Bostrom, A. (2006). Sharing lived experience: How secondary school chemistry teachers and students use narratives to make chemistry more meaningful. Ph.D. thesis. Stockholm: Stockholm Institute of Education Press.

Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy: Beliefs in middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.

Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bruner, J. (1985). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing: 84th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educations (pp. 97-115). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed). South Melbourne, Victoria: Longman.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Christensen, C. (2001). Scientific literacy for a risky society. In P. Singh & E. McWilliam (Eds.), Designing educational research: Theories, methods and practices (pp. 141-154). Flaxton, Queensland, Australia: Post Pressed.

217

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.

Coe, R. M. (1994). An arousing and fulfillment of desires – The rhetoric of genre in the process era – and beyond. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genres and the new rhetoric (pp. 181-190). London: Taylor and Francis.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statstical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Connolly, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connolly and T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 1–14). New York: Teachers College Press.

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7). Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.

Crooks, T. (2002, December). Assessment, accountability and achievement: Principles, possibilities and pitfalls. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing Surveys: A guide to decisions and Procedures (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Darby, L. (2005, July). Having stories to tell: Negotiating subject boundaries in mathematics and science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Hamilton, New Zealand.

DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.

Dekkers, J., & De Laeter, J. R. (2001). Enrolment trends in school science education in Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 487-500.

Doran, R. L., Lawrenz, F., & Helgeson, S. (1993). Research on assessment in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 388-442). New York: Macmillan.

Dori, Y. (2003). From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: Students’ performance in the Matriculation 2000 project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 34-52.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

Ebbers, M. (2002). Science text sets: Using various genres to promote literacy and inquiry. Language Arts, 80(1), 40-50.

218

Egan, K. (1996). Competing voices for the curriculum. In M. Wideen & M. C. Courtland (Eds.), The struggle for curriculum: Education, the state, and the corporate sector (pp. 7-26). Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Institute for Studies in Teacher Education, Simon Fraser University.

Egan, K. (2008). The future of education. New Haven: Yale University Press. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S.F. (1996). Creating the conditions for

scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 261-295.

Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155-1173). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Fensham, P. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415-435.

Fensham, P. (1996). Post-compulsory education and science dilemmas and opportunities. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Science and technology education in the post-compulsory years, (pp. 9-30). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Fensham, P. (2001). Science as story: Science education by story. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 1-5.

Fensham, P. (2007, May). Competencies, within and without: New challenges and possibilities for scientific literacy. Paper presented at the Linnaeus Tercentenary 2007 Symposium, Uppsala University, Sweden.

Fensham, P. J., & Maxwell, G. S. (2008, November). How well prepared? What PISA 2006 Science revealed about Queensland 15 year olds. Volume 1: Report. Unpublished document, OECD.

Ford, D. J. (2004). Highly recommended trade books: Can they be used in inquiry science? In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 277-290). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.

Ford, D. J. (2006). Representations of science within children’s trade books. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 214-235.

Fraser, B. J. (1977). Selection and validation of attitude scales for curriculum evaluation. Science Education, 61(3), 317-330.

Fraser, B. J. (1981). TOSRA: Test of science-related attitudes handbook. Hawthorn, Victoria: The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited.

Fraser, B. J. (1984). Directions in curriculum evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 10(2), 125-134.

Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. G. (1989, April). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in the study of learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco.

Fraser, S. W., & Greenhalgh, T. (2001). Coping with Complexity: Educating for capability. British Medical Journal, 323(7316), 799-803.

Fuglsang, L. (2001). Three perspective in STS in the policy context . In S. H. Cutcliffe & C. Mitcham (Eds.), Visions of STS: Counterpoints in science, technology, and science studies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fusco, D., & Barton, A .C. (2001). Representing student achievements in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 337-354.

Gallagher, J. J. (1971). A broader base for science teaching. Science Education, 55(3), 329-338.

219

Galton, M. J., Eggleston, J. F., & Jones, M. E. (1975). A modified pupil opinion poll. Slough: NFER Publishing Company.

Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science. Studies in Science Education, 2, 1-41. Garrison, J. W., & Lawwill, K. S. (1992). Scientific literacy: For whose benefit? In

S. Hills (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international conference on the history and philosophy of science and science education (Vol. I, pp. 337-349). Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queen’s University.

Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the Knowledge Wave? The Knowledge Society and the future of education. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Gipps, C. (1994a). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press.

Gipps, C. (1994b). Developments in educational assessment or what makes a good test? Assessment in Education, 1(3), 283-291.

Gipps, C., & James, M. (1998). Broadening the basis of assessment to prevent the narrowing of learning. The Curriculum Journal, 9(3), 285-297.

Glamow, G. (1965). Mr Tompkins in paperback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gogolin, L., & Swartz, F. (1992). A quantitative and qualitative inquiry into the attitudes toward science of nonscience college majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 487-504.

Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265-275.

Guion, R. M. (1980). On trinitarian doctrines of validity. Professional Psychology, 11(3), 385-398.

Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354-367.

Gunstone, R. (1995). Constructivist learning and the teaching of science. In B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom. Sydney: Harcourt Brace.

Hackling, M. W. (2006, August). Primary Connections: A new approach to primary science and to teacher professional learning. Paper presented at the ACER Research Conference, Canberra, Australia.

Hackling, M. W., Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. J. (2001). The state of science in Australian secondary schools. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 47(4), 6-17.

Hackling, M. W., & Prain, V. (2005). Primary Connections. Stage 2 trial: Research report. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.

Hand, B., & Prain, V. (1995). Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom. Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace.

220

Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737-755.

Hand, B., Prain, V., & Yore, L. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. In G. Rijlaarsdam, P. Tynjälä , L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.), Studies in writing, Volume 7, Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 105-209). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. (1999). A writing science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035.

Hand, B. M., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B. J., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2003). Message from the “Island Group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 607-615.

Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.

Hanrahan, M. (1999). Rethinking science literacy: Enhancing communication and participation in school science through affirmational dialogue journal writing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 699-717.

Harlen, W., Black, P., & Johnson, S. (1981). Science in schools. Age 11: Report No. 1. London: HMSO.

Hartley, J., & Tynjälä, P. (2001). New technology, writing and learning. In G. Rijlaarsdam, P. Tynjälä , L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.), Studies in writing, Volume 7, Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 161-182). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hass, C., & Flower, L. (1998). Rhetorical reading strategies and the recovery of meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39, 30-47.

Haury, D. L. (2000). High school biology textbooks do not meet national standards (Report No. EDO-SE-00-06). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463949).

Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essential and advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hayles, S. (1986). Rethinking the business of psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 16(1), 57-76.

Hellden, G. (2005). Exploring understandings and responses to science: A program of longitudinal studies. Research in Science Education, 35(1), 99-122.

Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 345-362.

Hildebrand, G. M. (1999, April). Breaking the pedagogic contract: Teachers’ and students’ voices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.

Hildebrand, G. M. (2002, September). It's electrophilic; it's hydrophobic: That’s anthropomorphic language! Paper presented at the Language and Learning Science conference, Victoria, Canada.

Hildebrand, G. M. (2004, April). Hybrid writing genres: A link between pleasure and engagement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.

221

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.

Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education 83(6), 775-796.

Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.

Holliday, W., Yore, L., & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science learning–writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877-893.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (1996). A dialectic on validity: Where we have been an where we are going. The Journal of General Psychology, 123(3), 207-215.

Jaccard, J. & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jenkins, E. (1990). Scientific literacy and school science education. School Science Review, 71(256), 43-51.

Jenkins, E. W. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy: Meanings and rationales. In E. W. Jenkins (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. VI, pp. 11-42). Paris: UNESCO.

Jenkins, E. W. (2002). Linking school science education with action. In W. M. Toth & J. Desautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. Kamil, M. L., & Bernhardt, E. B. (2004). The science of reading and the reading of

science: Successes, failures and promises in the search for prerequisite reading skills for science. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 277-290). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.

Kaya, O. N., Yager, R., & Dogan, A. (2009). Changes in attitudes towards Science-Technology-Society of pre-service science teachers. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 257-279.

Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 443-469). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keys, C. W. (1999a). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130.

Keys, C. W. (1999b). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044-1061.

Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the compositions of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690.

Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.

222

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5-18.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York : Guilford Press.

Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Evaluation in learning science. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings & G. G. Madaus (Eds.), Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning. London: McGraw-Hill.

Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.

Kuppermintz, H. (2002). Affective and cognitive factors as attitude resources in high school science achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 123-137.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Lamartino, A. (1995). Science and reading. M.S. Thesis, Kean College of New

Jersey. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380770). Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of

teaching and learning. Research report no. 22. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Lau, S., & Roesner, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’ situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 139-162.

Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 83-126). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Lemke, J. J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing.

Lewis, M. (2008). Self-conscious emotions. Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 742-756). New York: The Guilford Press.

Lightbody, P., & Durndell, A. (1996). Gendered career choice: Is sex-stereotyping the cause or the consequence. Educational Studies, 22(2), 133-146.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research

programs and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758.

Linn, M. C., Davis, E., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lyons, T. (2006). The puzzle of falling enrolments is physics and chemistry courses: Putting some pieces together. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 285-311.

Majumdar, S. K., Rosenfeld, L. M., Rubba, P. A., Miller, E. W., & Schmalz, R. F. (1991). Science education in the United States: Issues, crises and priorities. Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science.

Maria, K., & Junge, K. (1993, December). A comparison of fifth graders’ comprehension and retention of scientific information using a science textbook and an informational storybook. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of

223

the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED364864).

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391-410.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. L. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralising Hu & Bentler (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. 4th Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Martin, J., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.

McCrae, B. (2006). What science do students want to learn? What do students know about science? Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved 20 July, 2007 from:

http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2006_McCrae.pdf Medway, P. (1988). Response to ‘Genre as frame’ by Ian Reid. In I. Reid (Ed.),

Shifting frames: English/literature/writing. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7-18.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London School of Education.

Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific l8iteracy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48.

Miller, J. D. (1997). Civic scientific literacy in the United States: A developmental analysis from middle school through adulthood. In W. Graber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy (pp. 121-142). Kiel: IPN.

Miller, J. D. (2000). The development of civic scientific literacy in the United States. In D. D. Kumar & D. E. Chubin (Eds.), Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook for research and practice (pp. 21-47). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2005). National Assessment Program, Science, Year 6, 2003: Technical Report. Sydney, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Moore, R. W., & Sutman, F. X. (1970). The development, field test and validation of an inventory of scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 85-94.

Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 54-76.

Munby, H. (1983). Thirty studies involving ‘Scientific Attitude Inventory’: What confidence can we have in this instrument? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 141-162.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Negrette, A. (2004). Learning from education to communicate science as a good story. Endeavour 0160-9327, 28(3), 120-124.

224

Nelson, N. (2001). Writing to learn: One theory, two rationales. In G. Rijlaarsdam, P. Tynjälä , L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.), Studies in writing, Volume 7, Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 23-36). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). The relevance of a reader’s knowledge within a perspectival view of reading. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 26(4), 391-412.

Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: OECD Publications.

OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris: OECD Publications.

OECD. (2005). Student questionnaire for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publications. OECD. (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A

framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publications. OECD. (2008). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: OECD Publications. Ormerod, M. (1971). The ‘social implications’ factor in attitudes towards science.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, 335-338. Orpwood, G. (2007). Assessing scientific literacy: Threats and opportunities. Paper

presented at the Linnaeus Tercentenary 2007 Symposium, Uppsala University, Sweden.

Osborne, B. (1987). The search for a paradigm to inform cross-cultural classroom research. Australian Journal of Education, 31(2), 99-128.

Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.

Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum. London: King’s College.

Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1080.

Oxford University (1989). Enquiry into the attitudes of sixth-formers towards choice of science and technology courses in higher education. Oxford: Department of Educational Studies.

Pallant, J. (2005). Statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS). Survival Manual (2nd Ed.). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Motivation for learning science in kindergarten: Is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy instruction make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 166-191.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instrucion. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 815-860). New York: Longman.

Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181.

225

Perrone, V. (1994). How to engage students in learning. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 11-13.

Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Piburn, M. D., & Baker, D. R. (1993). If I were a teacher… qualitative study of attitude toward science. Science Education, 77(4), 393-406.

Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Pool, R. (1991). Science literacy: The enemy is us. Science, 251(4991), 266-267. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and

practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201.

Prain, V. (2008). Researching effective pedagogies for developing the literacies of science: Some theoretical and practical considerations. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 151-167). Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer Academic Publishing.

Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996a). Writing to learn in the junior secondary science classroom: Issues arising from a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 117-128.

Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996b). Writing and learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626.

Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Student’s perceptions of writing-to-learn in secondary school science. Science Education, 83(2), 151–162.

Prain, V., Waldrip, B., & Carolan, J. (2007, July). Representational opportunities and learning in science. Paper presented at the Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its development through instruction. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 448-467.

Australian Academy of Science. (2008). An elaboration of the Primary Connections 5Es teaching and learning model. Retrieved 3 September, 2009 from:

http://www.science.org.au/primaryconnections/resourcesheets/5Es.pdf Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Queensland Studies Authority (QSA). (1999). Years 1-10 Science syllabus. Retrieved

3 September, 2009 from: http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/learning/kla_science_syll.pdf

Ritchie, S., Rigano, D., & Duane, A. (2008a). Writing an ecological mystery in class: Merging genres and learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 143-166.

Ritchie, S. M., Rigano, D. L., Tomas, L., & Yeh, A. (2008b, April). Writing for learning science: What cognitive tools can do to structure online writing of biostories. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.

Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L., & Tones, M. (2009, August). Writing stories on a socio-scientific topic to enhance scientific literacy. Paper submitted at the biannual conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Istanbul.

226

Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.

Reichardt, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1995). Putting people back into science: Using historical vignettes. School Science and Mathematics, 95(7), 365-370.

Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729-780). Mahwa, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of method. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking Scientific Literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Roth, M., & McRobbie, C. (1999). Lifeworlds and the ‘w/ri(gh)ting’ of classroom research. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(5), 501–522.

Rowell, P. A. (1997). Learning in school science: The promises and practices of writing. Studies in Science Education, 30, 19–56.

Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1-46.

Sadler, T. D. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.

Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. Science Educator, 13(1), 39-48.

Sadler, T. D. (2007, May). The aims of science education: Unifying the fundamental and derived senses of scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman & P. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium at Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002, April). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.

Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.

227

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

Santa, C. M, & Alvermann, D. E. (Eds.). (1991). Science learning: Processes and applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Scheppegrell, M. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 67-96.

Schibeci, R., & Kissane, B. (1994). Language, learning and literacy in science and mathematics. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 40(4), 47-56.

Schroeder, M., Mckeough, A., Graham, S., Hayli, S., and Bisanz, G. (2009). The contribution of trade books to early science literacy: In and out of school. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 231-250.

Schumacher, G., & Nash, J. (1991). Conceptualising and measuring knowledge change due to writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(1), 67-96.

Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Bunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Shanahan, C. (2004). Teaching science through literacy. In T. L. Jetton, & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 75-93). New York: Guilford Press.

Shen, B. (1975). Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44-52). Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger, AG.

Silvermann, D. (2000). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 821-834). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Simmons, M. L., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 9, 903-927.

Simpson, R. D., & Troost, K. M. (1982). Influences of commitment to and learning of science among adolescent students. Science Education, 66(5), 763-781.

Sjberg, S. (1997). Scientific literacy and school science – Arguments and second thoughts. In S. Sjberg & E. Kallerud (Eds.), Science, technology and citizenship (pp. 9-28). Oslo: NIFU Rapport 10/97.

Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6-13.

Solomon, J. (1998). The science curricula of Europe and the notion of scientific culture. In D.A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 166-177). New York: Teachers College Press.

Songer, N. B. (2007). Digital resources versus cognitive tools: A discussion of learning science with technology. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 471-491). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

SPSS Inc. (2009). Amos. Retrieved 13 July, 2009 from: http://www.spss.com/AMOS/index.htm

228

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education. Center for

Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee on Culture and Cognition. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Stannard, R. (1989). The time and space of Uncle Albert. London: Faber and Faber. Stannard, R. (1992). Black holes and Uncle Albert. London: Faber and Faber. Stannard, R. (1994a). Uncle Albert and the quantum quest. London: Faber and Faber. Stannard, R. (1994b). World of 1001 Mysteries. London: Faber and Faber. Stannard, R. (2001). Communicating physics through story. Physics Education,

36(1), 30-34. Sturgiss, J. (1994). Literacy in science education. Australian Science Teachers’

Journal, 40(3), 28-32. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.).

Boston, MA: Allyn & Unwin. Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New

York: Wiley. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Bristol,

PA: The Falmer Press. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding

concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.

Tobin. K. (1987). Forces which shape the implemented curriculum in high school science and mathematics. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(3), 287-298.

Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & Holman, J. R. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 74(4), 409-420.

Tomas, L., & Ritchie, S. M. (2008, July). The challenges of assessing scientific literacy in a writing-to-learn context: Is the proof always in the pudding? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Brisbane.

Tomas, L., & Ritchie, S. (2009, July). Writing stories about a socioscientific issue: Developing students’ conceptual understanding and attitudes toward science. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Geelong.

Toulmin, S. (1986). The ambiguity of self-understanding. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 16(1), 41-55.

Turner, J. H. (2002). Face to face: Toward a sociological theory of interpersonal behaviour. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Turner, J. H. (2007). Self, emotions, and extreme violence: Extending symbolic interactions and theorizing. Symbolic Interactions, 30(4), 501-530.

Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved 20 July, 2007 from: http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/AER51_ReimaginingSciEdu.pdf

Unsworth, L. (1997). Explaining explanations: Enhancing science learning and literacy development. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 43(1), 34-49.

229

Unsworth, L. (1999). Explaining school science in book and CD ROM formats: Using semiotic analyses to compare the textual construction of knowledge. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(2), 159-179.

Varelas, M., Becker, J., Luster, B., & Wenzel, S. (2002). When genres meet: Inquiry into a sixth-grade urban science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 579–605.

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.

Wallace, G. (1996). Engaging with learning. In J. Rudduck (Ed.), School improvement: What can pupils tell us? (pp. 56-69). London: David Fulton Publishers.

Wareing, C. (1982). Developing the WASP: Wareing Attitudes Toward Science protocol. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(8), 639-645.

Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., Webster, J., & Bourne, J. (2003). Developing pupils’ written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 173-192.

Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

West, A., Hailes, J., & Sammons, P. (1997). Children’s attitudes to the National Curriculum at Key Stage 1. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5), 597-613.

White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: The Falmer Press.

Whitfield, R. C. (1980). Educational research and science teaching. School Science Review, 60(212), 411-430.

Woolnough, B. (1994). Factors affecting students’ choice of science and engineering. International Journal of Science Education, 16(6), 659-676.

Yager, R E. (1992). Science-technology-society as reform. In R.E. Yager (Ed.), The stats of STS: Reform efforts around the world (pp. 2-8). ICASE 1992 Yearbook. Knapp Kill, South Harting, Petersfield, UK: International Council of Associations for Science Education.

Yager, R. E. (1996). History of science/technology/society as reform in the United States. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 3-15). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Yager, R. E., & Krajcik, J. (1989). Success of students in a college physics course with and without experiencing a high school course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(7), 599-608.

Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-7.

Ziman, J. (1994). The rationale of STS education is in the approach. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Zeidler, D. (2007). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions. In C. Linder, L. Östman & P. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting Scientific

230

Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium at Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Zeidler, D.L. & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.

Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1-15.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.

Zeidler, D. L.,Walker, K. A., Ackett,W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.

231

APPENDICES

232

Appendix A

The short story template for Part A of the BioStories’ tasks, as it appeared on the BioStories’ website.

233

Appendix B

The BioStories’ information pack and consent form distributed to the Year 9 students and their parents/guardians.

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT


A Study of Year 9 Students’ Developing Scientific Literacy through the Writing of Hybridised Scientific Narratives on a Socioscientific Issue

Research Team Contacts

Louisa Tomas Prof. Stephen Ritchie (07) 4773 0100 (07) 3138 3332

[email protected] [email protected]

Description

This project is being undertaken as part of a Ph.D. project for Louisa Tomas. The purpose of this project is to engage Year 9 science students in the writing and sharing of short stories that merge scientific and narrative genres, as a means of developing scientific literacy skills, and enhancing engagement with the science curriculum. Students will be asked to access scientific information from selected websites in order to construct and share stories as a way of demonstrating their understanding of a contemporary science issue, biosecurity. This project will extend previous international and national research that has established a link between writing and learning science, including studies that have examined the effects of similar interventions in primary science classrooms.

Participation

This project will form part of the normal curriculum in which every child participates; however, only data from consenting students will be used in the study. If you agree to this, you can choose withdraw this decision at any time during the project without comment or penalty. Your decision will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or your school. Your participation will primarily involve the writing and sharing of short stories online, which incorporate scientific information about biosecurity. Information about your participation will be gathered in the form of questionnaires (prior to, and upon completion of the project) and, for some students, interviews, which will be audio recorded. In addition to this, your stories will also be examined to assess whether or not the aims of the project have been met. This project will be conducted at your school. Your participation will take place over a seven-week period, during normal science lessons (selected 50-minute lessons per week), from 12th May, to 27th June, 2008. Expected benefits

It is expected that your participation in this project will benefit you in terms of personal satisfaction, learning science, and improving reading and writing skills. More generally,

234

it is expected that this project will develop students’ scientific literacy skills, whilst enhancing their engagement with the science curriculum. Research results from the proposed study may also have implications for the implementation of web-based curriculum resources that merge scientific and narrative genres more widely in secondary schools.

Risks

Writing tasks will take place in your usual classroom, under the supervision of your regular teacher. As such, there are no additional risks associated with your participation in this project. Confidentiality

All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Data obtained from student interviews will not require verification by the participants prior to final inclusion. Similarly, audio recordings will not require verification by the participants prior to final inclusion. Such recordings will be destroyed after the contents have been transcribed, and will not be used for any other purpose. Only the researchers listed above will have access to the recordings. It is possible to participate in the project without being recorded. Consent to Participate

We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate. Questions/further information about the project

Please contact the researcher team members named above to have any questions answered or if you require further information about the project. Concerns/complaints regarding the conduct of the project

QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected]. Please quote ethics approval number 0700000562. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

235

CONSENT FORM for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT


A Study of Year 9 Students’ Developing Scientific Literacy through the Writing of Hybridised Scientific Narratives on a Socioscientific Issue

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

Have read and understood the information document regarding this project.

Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction.

Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team.

Understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project.

Statement of consent

I give permission for any data collected from my child’s work during the project to be used in the study.

I do not give permission for any data collected from my child’s work during the project to be used in the study.

If you agree, you are indicating that you:

Understand that you are free to withdraw your decision at any time, without comment or penalty.

Have discussed the project with your child.

Understand that the project will include audio recording.

Understand that your child’s identity will remain confidential, and he/she will not be identified in any reports relating to the project.

Name

Signature

Date / /

Statement of child consent

Your parent or guardian has given their permission for you to be involved in this research project. This form is to seek your agreement to be involved. By signing below, you are indicating that the project has been discussed with you, and you agree to have any data collected from your work during the project to be used in the study.

Name

Signature

Date / /

236

Appendix C

Interview excerpts that serve as examples to illustrate coding decisions.

Code Example from transcripts

Comparable conceptual understanding

Accurate recall of information.

Student 4: Well, from what I can remember, it [chytrid fungus] is a disease that affects the frog’s skin. They aren’t sure how it actually kills the frogs. There are various theories that it gets into its lungs and stops it from breathing or it dries the skin up and stops it from absorbing water. It reproduces asexually and it’s found in soils and stuff, so how it could have been brought in was if you brought in plants or things like that, they aren’t exactly sure how it was brought in and when it was but it was first detected in Queensland in the 1990s.

Deeper conceptual understanding

Introduction of new concepts. Researcher: What would a farm need to do if there was a bird flu outbreak? Student 15: If there was one, they would need to contact police and other emergency services and quarantine the area. Then they would need to clean up any mess and destroy any bodies of birds and stuff like that. Researcher: What would be the impact of a bird flu outbreak? Student 15: Well, it would probably destroy most poultry farms, and chicken would be a hard food to get, and prices of chicken products would go right up, like eggs. Researcher: What would happen to our farmers? Student 15: They would probably go bankrupt from loss of work and labour.

Superficial or problematic understanding

Introduction of new alternative conception. Student 8: …one of my friends caught bird flu from school because a bird touched one of the bubblers and he drank from it. Researcher: Oh, so you had a friend with bird flu? What happened to them? Student 8: They survived.

Writing differently in science

Researcher: What did you like about BioStories? Student 13: Making up a story in science. You never get to do that. Researcher: Okay, so how does this type of writing compare to other writing you’ve done in science? Student 13: Heaps different, because we usually do formal reports after we do experiments. This was totally different, writing stories.

Stimulating imagination

Student 22: I liked having a website that we could log on to, it was more interactive and it was kind of a bit more practical than theory I reckon, and you got to use your imagination a lot more. It was good to do that and made it a lot more enjoyable for me rather than just writing information about the biological incursion. Researcher: Do you get much opportunity to use your imagination in science? Student 22: Not really, it’s mainly just all facts and science. Researcher: So what did you enjoy most? Student 22: I liked being creative that was probably the best thing. You got to use your imagination a lot more.

Student-centred pedagogy

Teacher: It [the BioStories’ project] was very student-oriented, where they could take it in any direction they wanted to, as long as they covered the science required. It was good, as opposed to, this is the experiment, this is what we did, this is what we found. Just a different approach.

Engaging diverse learners

Researcher: How did you find it incorporating science into the stories you wrote?

237

Student 22: Yeah, I thought that was pretty easy actually. You just had to make up a story and just put some science in there. It’s not that hard to me, I reckon. It was a lot more easy than it seems, because at first I thought “How the hell I am going to do that?” ((laughs)) Researcher: How does the difficulty of this rate to the difficulty of the science you normally do in class? How do you feel it compares? Student 22: I feel that it’s a lot easier to do, plus getting the marks that you need. It’s something that I understand and I get it so it’s a lot easier than doing all the science reports.

Accessing information technologies

Student 1: It was pretty cool having the Internet, like we just do it [i.e., write BioStories] on paper, but you had to load it on the Internet. That was pretty cool.

Issues arising from project design and implementation

Researcher: What about literacy aspects of the project? Do you think it was beneficial in terms of the students’ writing or how they communicate? Teacher: Um (5), I don’t think there was enough for us to be able to do that. If we had a lot more time in class to be able to proof-read and draft check and give that sort of feedback to the students first, and structuring of that literacy component, then that would have been more beneficial to them. Researcher: Did you have much time to read the students’ stories and provide feedback? Teacher: No. I read all of the students’ Part A when I marked them, but not draft-checking, no.

238

Appendix D

Results of principle component and confirmatory factor analyses of the BioQuiz.

D.1 Principle Component Analysis

A correlation matrix (Table D.1) was constructed in order to identify whether the

subscales of the BioQuiz were testing independent dimensions of students’ attitudes

towards science, or whether sizeable correlations existed among the variables, which

would suggest that they are testing the same underlying dimension. A Bartlett’s test

of sphericity was found to be significant, which indicates that the correlation matrix

appears to be factorable (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003). In addition, the Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was calculated at .91.

According to Kaiser (1974), a KMO value >.90 indicates that the degree of common

variance among the variables is “marvelous” (p. 35). Together, both measures

suggested that the correlation matrix was factorable.

Multicollinearity occurs when the variables in an intercorrelation matrix are too

highly correlated, which can be problematic both logically and statistically (see

Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). There is some disagreement in the literature as to which

values render a correlation “too high”. For example, according to Tabachnick and

Fidell (2007), in the case of bivariate correlations, a correlation is too high if it is

>.90. If this criterion were adopted in the current study, multicollinearity would not

be an issue according to the above intercorrelation matrix. Alternatively, Pett,

Lackey and Sullivan (2003) suggest that variables with a correlation >.80 should be

removed from analysis. According to this criterion, the correlation between personal

and general value of science is quite high (.811), which could be expected as they

represent two aspects of the same construct (value of science). Despite this

recommendation, it was decided to retain the existing variables, as they are

representative of the scales used by PISA, and in the preliminary BioStories’ project.

Clear comparisons will therefore be possible between current and previous work. To

safeguard against the effects of possible multicollinearity, Tabachnick and Fidell

(2007) recommend performing a PCA, using the resultant components (factors) as

the predictors of observed variance in the students’ responses to the BioQuiz, as

opposed to the original variables.

239

Table D.1. Correlation matrix for the BioQuiz.

Interest Self-efficacy General value Personal value Familiarity Attitudes

Interest 1.000

Self-efficacy .537** 1.000

General value .582** .608** 1.000

Personal value .690** .555** .811** 1.000

Familiarity .102 .216** .203** .165* 1.000

Attitudes .688** .484** .571** .635** .131 1.000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

A PCA of the 29 items in the BioQuiz was performed in SPSS with direct oblimin

rotation. The analysis yielded five factors with eigenvalues greater than one at pretest

(accounting for 66% of the variance in the students’ scores), and six factors with

eigenvalues greater than one at posttest (accounting for 72% of the variance in

students’ scores) (Table D.4). The four factors identified both pretest and posttest

have been identified as Familiarity with biosecurity (FB), Interest in learning science

(ILS), Science self-efficacy (SSE), and Attitudes toward biosecurity (AB), on the

basis of their corresponding items. In the pretest PCA, the fifth identified factor was

Value of science (VS); however, in the posttest analysis, personal and general value

of science items were observed to load onto two separate factors, which each

accounted for less variance in BioQuiz scores: Personal value of science (PVS), and

General value of science (GVS). The remaining items were observed to load

consistently onto their respective factors (ILS, SSE, FB and AB) pretest and posttest.

Item reliability analyses pretest and posttest also confirmed that each item is most

strongly correlated with the factors onto which they loaded (Tables D.2 and D.3).

ILS and FB became more salient factors in explaining the variance in test scores

from pretest to posttest, as shown by the significant changes in the percentage of

variance explained by these two factors (Table D.4).

240

Table D.2. Pretest item reliability analysis of the BioQuiz. The correlations between the items and factor onto which they load are highlighted.

BioQuiz item no. (Subscale) Item description

Factors

ILS SSE GVS PVS FB AB

1a. (Interest and enjoyment) I generally have fun when I am learning science topics.

.875** .433** .526** .613** .076 .603**

1b. (Interest and enjoyment) I like reading about science. .828** .426** .466** .554** .071 .544**

1c. (Interest and enjoyment) I am happy writing about science. .781** .447** .358** .459** .085 .479**

1d. (Interest and enjoyment) I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in science.

.847** .484** .544** .592** .097 .645**

1e. (Interest and enjoyment) I am interested in learning about science. .878** .472** .552** .679** .099 .623**

2a. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks)

Identify the science that underlies a newspaper report on an environmental issue.

.468** .787** .527** .469** .153* .375**

2b. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks)

Explain why food and other plant or animal products should not be brought into Australia by international travelers without declaring them to airport authorities.

.440** .803** .540** .488** .197** .456**

2c. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks)

Describe how the spread of animal and crop diseases can be controlled.

.441** .830** .464** .437** .098 .417**

2d. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks)

Predict how changes to an environment will affect the survival of certain species.

.435** .792** .484** .460** .141 .395**

2e. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks)

Interpret the scientific information provided on a government website about how an introduced animal species can affect the survival of some native species.

.393** .832** .444** .392** .277** .316**

3a. (Relevance and use of science – Personal value of science)

Some concepts in science help me see how I relate to other people.

.500** .400** .638** .750** .093 .463**

3b. (Relevance and use of science - Personal value of science)

I will use science in many ways when I am an adult.

.500** .400** .638** .750** .093 .463**

3c. (Relevance and use of science – Personal value of science)

Science is very relevant to me. .636** .482** .721** .863** .151* .575**

3d. (Relevance and use of science - Personal value of science)

I find that science helps me to understand the things around me.

.621** .508** .721** .819** .147* .562**

3e. (Relevance and use of science – Personal value of science)

When I leave school there will be many opportunities for me to use science.

.577** .466** .619** .872** .115 .527**

241


Factors


4a. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science)

Advances in science and technology usually improve people’s living conditions.

.403** .501** .776** .502** .225** .375**

4b. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science)

Science is important for us to understand the natural world.

.465** .483** .807** .617** .064 .514**

4c. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science)

Advances in science and technology usually help improve the economy.

.321** .418** .751** .495** .193** .340**

4d. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science)

Science is valuable to society. .556** .501** .768** .740** .157* .500**

4e. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science)

Advances in science and technology usually bring social benefits.

.367** .430** .761** .576** .132 .357**

5a. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) Threats to biodiversity. .121 .165* .095 .150* .749** .056

5b. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) The need for biosecurity. .055 .094 .102 .069 .781** .064

5c. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) The role of quarantine regulations. .116 .200** .234** .176* .770** .208**

5d. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) Why vectors need to be identified to control

disease. -.006 .095 .076 .033 .753** .047

5e. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) The possible consequences of introducing

exotic species. .096 .254** .247** .187** .737** .111

6a. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Knowing more about how to introduced

species can threaten ecosystems in Australia.

.576** .367** .465** .525** .045 .871**

6b. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Learning about exotic species that have

already entered Australia, and the effect they’re having on local ecosystems.

.570** .453** .504** .549** .147* .869**

6c. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Understanding better how introduced

animal species can affect the survival of some native species.

.632** .429** .511** .530** .048 .872**

6d. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Understanding better the role that

quarantine plats in preventing exotic species from entering the country.

.609** .427** .498** .596** .209** .859**


242

Table D.3 Posttest item reliability analysis of the BioQuiz. The correlations between the items and factor onto which they load are highlighted.


Factors


1a. (Interest and enjoyment) I generally have fun when I am learning

science topics. .880** .374** .446** .546** .178* .402**

1b. (Interest and enjoyment) I like reading about science. .877** .377** .444** .538** .136 .458**

1c. (Interest and enjoyment) I am happy writing about science. .816** .398** .384** .468** .093 .421**

1d. (Interest and enjoyment) I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in

science. .820** .477** .621** .603** .203** .544**

1e. (Interest and enjoyment) I am interested in learning about science. .888** .408** .573** .620** .132 .524**

2a. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Identify the science that underlies a

newspaper report on an environmental issue.

.468** .780** .440** .488** .288** .335**

2b. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Explain why food and other plant or animal

products should not be brought into Australia by international travelers without declaring them to airport authorities.

.440** .823** .550** .499** .240** .468**

2c. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Describe how the spread of animal and crop

diseases can be controlled.

.441** .847** .476** .452** .270** .326**

2d. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Predict how changes to an environment will

affect the survival of certain species.

.435** .801** .455** .522** .288** .390**

2e. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Interpret the scientific information provided

on a government website about how an introduced animal species can affect the survival of some native species.

.393** .822** .508** .566** .361** .347**

3a. (Relevance and use of science – Personal value of science) Some concepts in science help me see how

I relate to other people.

.480** .507** .599** .781** .208** .446**

3b. (Relevance and use of science - Personal value of science) I will use science in many ways when I am

an adult.

.574** .490** .635** .863** .179* .546**

3c. (Relevance and use of science – Personal value of science) Science is very relevant to me.

.587** .530** .655** .894** .284** .549**

3d. (Relevance and use of science - Personal value of science) I find that science helps me to understand

the things around me.

.559** .592** .722** .824** .256** .506**

3e. (Relevance and use of science – Personal value of science) When I leave school there will be many

opportunities for me to use science.

.520** .507** .625** .847** .188* .528**

243


Factors


4a. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science) Advances in science and technology usually

improve people’s living conditions.

.345** .430** .761** .463** .238** .286**

4b. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science) Science is important for us to understand

the natural world.

.489** .484** .821** .628** .190* .454**

4c. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science) Advances in science and technology usually

help improve the economy.

.423** .476** .773** .561** .174* .402**

4d. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science) Science is valuable to society.

.472** .468** .790** .691** .240** .498**

4e. (Relevance and use of science – General value of science) Advances in science and technology usually

bring social benefits.

.528** .498** .805** .669** .155* .373**

5a. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) Threats to biodiversity. .175* .266** .169* .248** .831** .132

5b. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) The need for biosecurity. .196** .293** .190* .163* .840** .067

5c. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) The role of quarantine regulations. .115 .334** .207** .252** .818** .164*

5d. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) Why vectors need to be identified to control

disease. .132 .265** .178* .203** .809** .037

5e. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) The possible consequences of introducing

exotic species. .092 .309** .291** .233** .826** .164*

6a. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Knowing more about how to introduced

species can threaten ecosystems in Australia.

.491** .440** .427** .540** .112 .871**

6b. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Learning about exotic species that have

already entered Australia, and the effect they’re having on local ecosystems.

.462** .370** .463** .504** .143 .881**

6c. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Understanding better how introduced animal

species can affect the survival of some native species.

.499** .418** .471** .520** .083 .892**

6d. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Understanding better the role that

quarantine plats in preventing exotic species from entering the country.

.483** .393** .444** .603** .150* .889**


244

Table D.4. Factor loadings from the PCA. BioQuiz item no. (Subscale)

Item description Factor Loading

Pretest Factor Loading

Posttest

Value of science factors

VS PVS GVS Eigenvalue

11.425 (39.40%)

1.667 (5.75%)

1.004 (3.46%) (% variance)

3a. (Relevance and use of science - Personal value of science) Some concepts in science help me see how I relate to other people.

.684 .681 -

3b. (Relevance and use of science - Personal value of science) I will use science in many ways when I am an adult.

.709 .732 -

3c. (Relevance and use of science - Personal value of science) Science is very relevant to me.

.473 Cross-loading on ILS .469

.816 -

3d. (Relevance and use of science - Personal value of science) I find that science helps me to understand the things around me.

.621 .497 -

3e. (Relevance and use of science - Personal value of science) When I leave school there will be many opportunities for me to use science.

.574 Cross-loading on ILS .475

.869 -

4a. (Relevance and use of science - General value of science) Advances in science and technology usually improve people’s living conditions.

.648 - .930

4b. (Relevance and use of science - General value of science) Science is important for us to understand the natural world.

.740 - .713

4c. (Relevance and use of science - General value of science) Advances in science and technology usually help improve the economy.

.762 - .653

4d. (Relevance and use of science - General value of science) Science is valuable to society.

.828 .427 .496

4e. (Relevance and use of science - General value of science) Advances in science and technology usually bring social benefits.

.857 - .557

FB Eigenvalue (% variance) 1.197 (4.13%) 3.261 (11.25%)

5a. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) Threats to biodiversity.

.769 .837

5b. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) The need for biosecurity.

.825 .849

5c. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) The role of quarantine regulations.

.733 .795

5d. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) Why vectors need to be identified to control disease.

.778 .807

5e. (Familiarity with biosecurity issues) The possible consequences of introducing exotic species.

.662 .806

ILS Eigenvalue (% variance) 2.936 (10.12%) 11.69 (40.32%)

1a. (Interest and enjoyment) I generally have fun when I am learning science topics.

.686 .906

1b. (Interest and enjoyment) I like reading about science.

.751 .871

1c. (Interest and enjoyment) I am happy writing about science.

.809 .906

1d. (Interest and enjoyment) I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in science.

.524 .586

1e. (Interest and enjoyment) I am interested in learning about science.

.629 .752

245


Factor loading Pretest

Factor Loading Posttest

SSE Eigenvalue (% variance) 1.915 (6.60%) 1.416 (4.88%)

2a. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Identify the science that underlies a newspaper report on an environmental issue.

.704 .756

2b. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Explain why food and other plant or animal products should not be brought into Australia by international travelers without declaring them to airport authorities.

.642 .704

2c. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Describe how the spread of animal and crop diseases can be controlled.

.830 .894

2d. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Predict how changes to an environment will affect the survival of certain species.

.692 .756

2e. (Capacity for particular science-related tasks) Interpret the scientific information provided on a government website about how an introduced animal species can affect the survival of some native species.

.850 .683

AB Eigenvalue (% variance) 1.663 (5.74%) 1.830 (6.31%)

6a. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Knowing more about how to introduced species can threaten ecosystems in Australia.

.875 .871

6b. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Learning about exotic species that have already entered Australia, and the effect they’re having on local ecosystems.

.746 .899

6c. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Understanding better how introduced animal species can affect the survival of some native species.

.797 .836

6d. (Attitudes toward biosecurity) Understanding better the role that quarantine plats in preventing exotic species from entering the country.

.737 .810

Note: Factor loadings for Value of science (VS) at posttest is presented in two columns as personal and general value items were observed to load onto separate factors, PVS and GVS. At pretest, the items loaded onto a single value factor, VS.

Ten items loaded onto the single value of science factor for the pretest data;

however, this may be problematic as a large number of items can artificially inflate

reliability (Cronbach, 1951). This problem could be counteracted by creating a

single, five-item “Value of science” subscale by eliminating the half of the items that

share the strongest covariance with other factors. However, as PISA have

distinguished between personal and general value of science, and in the interest of

making comparisons of students’ performances in this subscale with previous

studies, it was decided to retain the six-factor structure of the posttest PCA. This

model also accounts for 6% more variance in students’ scores compared to the five-

factor model.

246

According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), the minimum loading of an item should

be .32, which equates to approximately 10% of overlapping variance with the items

in that factor. The majority of the items load strongly (i.e., ≥.50) onto their respective

factors, the minimum loading being .427 for item 3f (pos-test). Unless a data set is

very large, according to Costello and Osborne (2005), “a factor with fewer than three

items is generally weak and unstable; five or more strongly loading items (.50 or

better) are desirable and indicate a solid factor” (p. 5). According to these criteria, all

six factors extracted by the posttest PCA may be considered “desirable and solid”.

Crossloading occurs when an item exhibits a loading of .32 or higher on two or more

factors (Costello & Osborne, 2005). In some cases it is appropriate to eliminate

crossloading items from analysis, particularly if there are several other items that

load strongly onto the same factor (i.e., ≥.50) (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Items 3g

and 3j were observed to crossload onto two factors at pretest: VS and ILS. This

crossloading was not evident in the posttest analysis, and as the posttest factor model

was retained, it was deemed unnecessary to remove these items. Item 4d (Science is

valuable to society) crossloaded onto both PVS and GVS posttest; however, this item

was also retained as it forms part of the 2006 PISA student questionnaire and was not

modified for the purposes of the current study.

Table D.5. Reliability statistics for each component, pretest and posttest.

Factor Cronbach’s Reliability

Pretest N=152

Posttest N=152

ILS .896 .895

SSE .847 .888

GVS .849 .874

PVS .883 .883

FB .813 .875

AB .888 .899

An analysis of the internal consistency of each factor (as measured by Cronbach’s α)

revealed excellent reliabilities, between .80 and .90 (Table D.5). Overall, the internal

consistency of the BioQuiz was found to be =.863 at pretest, and =.886 at posttest.

247

D.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFA is a powerful statistical technique that “explicitly and directly” tests the fit of a

factor model for an observed set of data, as indicated by various measures

(Thompson, 2004, p. 6). In the current study, analyses of the pretest and posttest data

were conducted using Amos (SPSS Inc., 2009) in order to confirm, and thereby

establish the validity of, the six-factor model of the BioQuiz obtained via PCA. The

outputs of the analyses are presented in Figures D.1 and D.2.

According to Byrne (2001), the critical ratios provided in the Amos output are a

useful starting point in model evaluation. Values less than 2.56 are non-significant

(p>.01), which indicates that the hypothesised relationship between two variables is

non-existent (Hinkin, 1998). All of the critical ratios were found to be significant in

the pretest and posttest analyses.

The proportion of variance explained within each item by underlying the latent

construct is represented by squared multiple correlations (R2), and serves as an

indicator of effect size (i.e., the item’s ability to reflect its respective factor) (Byrne,

2001). A small effect is represented by an R2 of .15, while medium and large effects

are represented by R2 values of .30 and .50, respectively (Aron & Aron, 2003). For

example, 73.8% of the variance in scores for Item 3g (posttest) can be attributed to

the factor PVS (a large effect) (Table D.6). No small effects were observed for any

of the items; however, large effect sizes were observed for the majority of the items

pretest and posttest (Table D.6).

Model fit can also be assessed by examining discrepancies between observed and

model-implied covariances (i.e., residual covariances). Standardised residuals “are

estimates of the number of standard deviations the observed residuals are away from

the zero residuals that would be provided by a perfectly fitting model” (Hayduk,

1987, p. 170). Standardised residuals greater than +/-2.58 indicates that the two items

in question share a large covariance, and thus suggests poor fit (Byrne, 2001; Jaccard

& Wan, 1996). Thirteen high-standardised residuals were observed pretest, and four

were observed posttest (Table D.7).

248

1.00

F1: GeneralValue Science

PRE_3a

1.00

err3a

Pre_3c

1.00

err3c

Pre_3d

1.00

err3d

Pre_3e1.00

err3e

Pre_3f

1.00

err3f

.57

.58

.52

.40.51

.64

1.00

F2: Familiaritybiosecurity

Pre_4b

Pre_4c

Pre_4d

Pre_4e

1.00

err4b1.00

err4c1.00

err4d1.00

err4e

.69.68.64.62

.60

.76

.69

.80

1.00

F3: Enjoymentlearning

Pre_3h

Pre_3i

Pre_3j

1.00

err3h

1.00

err3i

1.00

err3j

1.00

F5: Attitudes

1.00

F4: Science selfefficacy

Pre_5a

Pre_5b

1.00

err5a1.00

err5b

Pre_2a

1.00

err2a.54

Pre_2b

1.00

err2b .66.58

Pre_3g

1.00

err3g.51

Pre_1a

1.00

err1a

.49.70.76

.51

.55

.43

.62

.55

Pre_4a

1.00

err4a

.66

.56

Pre_3b

1.00

err3b.46

.56

.66

.57

.69Pre_1b

Pre_1c

Pre_1d

Pre_1e

1.00

err1b1.00

err1c1.00

err1d1.00

err1e

.53

.60

.46

.43

.60.56

.69

.76

.60

Pre_2c

Pre_2d

Pre_2e

.54

1.00

err2c1.00

err2d1.00

err2e

.62.64.67

.48

.61

.56

Pre_5c

Pre_5d

1.00

err5c1.00

err5d

.76

.75.54

.51

.66

.65

.54

.77

1.00

F1b: PersonalValue Science

.62

.71

.78

.55.72

.74

.69

.78

.85

.61

.59

FigureD.1. Output of confirmatory factor analysis of BioQuiz data at pretest.

249

1.00

F1: GeneralValue Science

Post_3a

1.00

err3a

Post_3c

1.00err3c

Post_3d

1.00

err3d

Post_3e1.00

err3e

Post_3f

1.00

err3f

.48

.52

.48

.47.45

.54

1.00

F2: Familiaritybiosecurity

Post_4b

Post_4c

Post_4d

Post_4e

1.00

err4b1.00

err4c1.00err4d1.00err4e

.82.77.75.80

.61

.65

.65

.66

1.00

F3: Enjoymentlearning

Post_3h

Post_3i

Post_3j

1.00

err3h

1.00

err3i

1.00

err3j

1.00

F5: Attitudes

1.00

F4: Science selfefficacy

Post_5a

Post_5b

1.00

err5a1.00

err5b

Post_2a

1.00

err2a

.49

Post_2b

1.00

err2b.58

.46

Post_3g

1.00

err3g.42

Post_1a1.00

err1a

.46.67.69

.41

.50

.39

.48.40

Post_4a

1.00

err4a.64

.48

Post_3b

1.00

err3b.39

.48

.79

.54

.62Post_1b

Post_1c

Post_1d

Post_1e

1.00

err1b1.00

err1c1.00

err1d1.00

err1e

.48

.49

.44

.36

.69.55.57.68

.49

Post_2c

Post_2d

Post_2e

.46

1.00

err2c1.00

err2d1.00err2e

.57.53.58

.44

.49

.49

Post_5c

Post_5d

1.00

err5c1.00

err5d

.75

.74.45

.47

.67

.58

.65

.48

.60

1.00

F1b: PersonalValue Science

.66

.67

.71

.52.68

.70

.56

.64

.87

.47

.31

.15

.16

Figure D.2. Output of confirmatory factor analysis of BioQuiz data at posttest.

250

Table D.6. Squared multiple correlations for the 6-factor model, pre- and posttest.

Items R2

(Pretest) Items

R2

(Pretest) Items

R2

(Posttest) Items

R2

(Posttest) 1a .715 4a .480 1a .716 4a .409

1b .564 4b .601 1b .671 4b .602

1c .458 4c .405 1c .563 4c .466

1d .697 4d .727 1d .625 4d .572

1e .759 4e .504 1e .784 4e .563

2a .552 5a .496 2a .492 5a .610

2b .559 5b .571 2b .606 5b .641

2c .626 5c .449 2c .626 5c .581

2d .524 5d .460 2d .543 5d .571

2e .592 5e .375 2e .584 5e .594

3a .471 6a .677 3a .498 6a .681

3b .655 6b .659 3b .667 6b .692

3c .675 6c .692 3c .738 6c .723

3d .646 6d .657 3d .642 6d .736

3e .662 3e .618

Anderson and Gerbing (1988) state that items can be respecified by relating them to

different factors, or removing them from the model, while still preserving

unidimensional measurement and the integrity of the latent constructs. At the same

time, they also caution that “respecification decisions should not be based on

statistical considerations alone but rather in conjunction with theory and content

considerations” (p. 416). In the current study, it is not practicable to remove the

items in question, as five of the factors (ILS, SSE, PVS, GVS and FB) have only five

items each, while AB has four. The removal of additional items would raise

questions as to whether each domain had been adequately sampled (a primary source

of measurement error) (Churchill, 1979). Item-reliability analyses (Tables D.2 and

D.3) also demonstrated that each item most strongly correlated to its respective

factor, therefore, relating the items to different factors would not only blur the

meaning of the factors in question, but it would also compromise the integrity of the

factor structure.

Like standardised residuals, modification indices also provide information for the

correction of model misspecification; however, Anderson and Gerbing (1988) assert

that the former are more effective indicators of model misspecification than

251

modification indices.

Finally, a number of fit indices were employed to assess the BioQuiz factor model:

the Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), root-mean square

error of approximation (RMSEA), and the root mean square residual (RMR) (Table

D.8). It is favourable to examine a number of different fit indices, as a good-fitting

model will produce consistent measures of fit (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Table D.7. Large standardised residuals observed pre- and posttest.

Pretest Posttest

3.897 (5c and 6d) 2.660 (5c and 6d)

3.632 (5a and 2e) 2.920 (5c and 1d)

3.053 (5e and 2e) 2.735 (5b and 1d)

3.043(5c and 2e) 2.6224 (5b and 1a)

3.224 (5e and 2d)

2.983 (5c and 3d)

3.036 (5c and 2b)

2.876 (5c and 2a)

2.944 (3b and 6e)

3.970 (4a and 5e)

2.797 (4c and 5d)

2.823 (4c and 5c)

3.382 (4a and 5c)

In the analysis of the 2006 PISA student questionnaire (OECD, 2008), the RMSEA,

RMR, CFI and non-normed fit (NNFI) index were used. The normed and non-

normed fit indices (NNI and NNFI, respectively) are commonly reported measures of

fit; however, both are affected by sample size (particularly smaller samples), and can

indicate poor model fit, while other indices suggest otherwise (Bearden, Sharma, &

Teel, 1982; Bentler, 1990). Bollen (1989) suggested that this problem of variability

is overcome by the incremental fit index (IFI), which behaves like the NNFI, but

exhibits smaller sampling variance. To the contrary, a comprehensive study by

Marsh, Balla and McDonald (1988), which examined the influence of sample size on

252

more than 30 fit indices for both real and simulated data, found that the Tucker-

Lewis fit index (TLI) is the only widely used index that is relatively independent of

sample size. For this reason, it was chosen for reporting in the current study. The CFI

was also included for comparison as it is widely reported.

Table D.8. Confirmatory factor analysis indices of fit test results.

Index Pretest

(6 factors) Posttest

(6 factors) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .062 .066

Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) .063 .053

Tucker-Lewis Fit Index (TLI) .911 .910

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .919 .919

Comparative fit indices evaluate the acceptability of a particular model in relation to

a continuum of nested models (the independence model, corresponding to unrelated

variables; and the saturated [perfect] model, with zero degrees of freedom, at either

end) (Bentler, 1990; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The TLI, CFI and RMSEA are

comparative fit indices. The former two are bound between values of 0 to 1. As they

compare the hypothesised model fit with an independence model, a well-fitting

model is indicated by high values, ≥.90 (Arbuckle, 2006; Marsh, Hau, & Wen,

2004). The TLI for the six-factor model remained relatively consistent from pretest

to posttest (.911 and .910, respectively). CFI remained unchanged at .919. Both

measures indicate good model fit.

The RMSEA estimates a model’s lack of fit compared to a perfect model, therefore,

much lower values are indicative of a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Browne and

Cudek (1993) suggest that values less than .08 imply adequate model fit, while

values less than .05 indicate good model fit. An RMSEA greater than .10 implies

poor fit. In the current study, the RMSEA was found to be .062 at pretest, and .066 at

posttest, which indicates a reasonable fit.

Finally, the RMR is a residual-based fit index which represents the “average

discrepancy between predicted and observed correlation … The smaller the value of

the standardised RMR, the better the model fit” (Jaccard & Wan, 1996, p. 87). In

good-fitting models, the RMR should be less than .05. At posttest, the RMR only

253

marginally exceeded this value at .053, which indicates quite a good fit. At pretest, it

was higher, at .063. It is not surprising that the pretest BioQuiz data does not support

the six-factor model as well as the posttest data, as the PCA conducted at pretest

suggested five factors, as opposed to six.

Acceptable model fit was demonstrated by all of the fit indices reported, except the

RMR at pretest, and all critical ratios were significant pre- and posttest; however,

areas of model misspecification were identified by a number of high standardised

residuals. A strong covariance was also observed between PVS and GVS, both pre-

and posttest (r=.85 and r=.87, respectively) (Figures D.1 and D.2).

The most probable cause of model misspecification identified by CFA is the small

sample of students to which the BioQuiz was administered (N=152). Comrey and Lee

(1992) offer the following guide when determining the adequacy of a sample size for

factor analysis: 50 – very poor; 100 – poor; 200 – fair; 300 – good; 500 – very good;

and 1000 – excellent. The 152 cases obtained in the current study would have been

sufficient if the correlation matrix (Table D.1) had revealed several high loading

marker variables (>.80) (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988). Similarly, in CFA, small

samples tend to produce covariances that are less stable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007),

and fit indices are sensitive to sample size (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988).

In the case of the PISA student questionnaire, a sample of 500 students was

sufficient to validate the instrument (OECD, 2008). As described in Section 4.2.1,

the conceptual development of the BioQuiz was closely guided by the PISA student

questionnaire, and small changes were made to some items in order to enhance their

relevance to biosecurity. In light of these considerations, it was not deemed

appropriate or necessary to respecify the current, theorised model structure.

254

Appendix E

The derived scientific literacy matrices for Parts A, B and C of the BioStories’ tasks.

Derived scientific literacy matrix: Part A Country of origin.

0 The story does not include the biological incursion’s country of origin. 1 The country of origin is incorrect. 2 The story includes the biological incursion’s correct country of origin.

How the biological incursion entered Australia. 0 The story does not explain how the biological incursion entered Australia. 1 The story incorrectly explains how the biological incursion entered Australia. 2 The story correctly explains how the biological incursion entered Australia. The problems the biological incursion has caused or continues to cause native and/or commercial species or eco-systems (environmental, social and economic impacts).

0 The story does not address any environmental, social or economic impacts of the biological incursion.

1 The story incorrectly or incompletely addresses reasonable environmental, social and economic impacts that pertain to the biological incursion.

2 The story accurately addresses reasonable environmental, social and economic impacts that pertain to the biological incursion.

The difficulties scientists and farmers face controlling the pest, or how the pest was brought under control.

0 The story does not explain any difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling the biological incursion, or how the pest was brought under control.

1 The story incorrectly or incompletely explains the difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling the biological incursion, or how the pest was brought under control.

2 The story accurately explains the difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling the biological incursion, or how the pest was brought under control.

Total score: /8

Derived scientific literacy matrix: Part B

What is avian influenza? 0 The story does not identify what avian influenza is. 1 The story incorrectly identifies what avian influenza is. 2 The story correctly identifies avian influenza as a contagious or viral disease/infection.

The organisms affected by avian influenza, or those at risk of infection. 0 The story does not state the organisms affected by avian influenza, or those at risk of infection.

1 The story does incorrectly and/or incompletely states the organisms affected by avian influenza, or those at risk of infection.

2 The story does accurately states the organisms affected by avian influenza, or those at risk of infection.

The problems that an outbreak of avian influenza would cause on a farm and in the wider community (social and economic impacts).

0 The story does not address any environmental, social or economic impacts of avian influenza.

1 The story incorrectly or incompletely addresses reasonable social and economic impacts that pertain to avian influenza.

2 The story accurately addresses reasonable environmental, social and economic impacts that pertain to avian influenza.


0 The story does not explain any difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling avian influenza.

1 The story incorrectly or incompletely explains the difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling avian influenza.

2 The story accurately explains the difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling avian influenza.

Total score: /8

255

Derived scientific literacy matrix: Part C

Scientific content pertaining to Part A Country of origin.

0 The story does not include the biological incursion’s country of origin. 1 The country of origin is incorrect. 2 The story includes the biological incursion’s correct country of origin.

How the biological incursion entered Australia. 0 The story does not explain how the biological incursion entered Australia. 1 The story incorrectly explains how the biological incursion entered Australia. 2 The story correctly explains how the biological incursion entered Australia.

The problems the biological incursion has caused or continues to cause native and/or commercial species or eco-systems (environmental, social and economic impacts).

0 The story does not address any environmental, social or economic impacts of the biological incursion.

1 The story incorrectly or incompletely addresses reasonable environmental, social and economic impacts that pertain to the biological incursion.

2 The story accurately addresses reasonable environmental, social and economic impacts that pertain to the biological incursion.

The difficulties scientists and farmers face controlling the pest, or how the pest was brought undercontrol.

0 The story does not explain any difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling the biological incursion, or how the pest was brought under control.

1 The story incorrectly or incompletely explains the difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling the biological incursion, or how the pest was brought under control.

2 The story accurately explains the difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling the biological incursion, or how the pest was brought under control.

Scientific content pertaining to Part B What is avian influenza?

0 The story does not identify what avian influenza is. 1 The story incorrectly identifies what avian influenza is. 2 The story correctly identifies avian influenza as a contagious or viral disease/infection.

The organisms affected by avian influenza, or those at risk of infection. 0 The story does not state the organisms affected by avian influenza, or those at risk of infection.

1 The story does incorrectly and/or incompletely states the organisms affected by avian influenza, or those at risk of infection.

2 The story does accurately states the organisms affected by avian influenza, or those at risk of infection.

The problems that an outbreak of avian influenza would cause on a farm and in the wider community (social and economic impacts).

0 The story does not address any environmental, social or economic impacts of avian influenza.

1 The story incorrectly or incompletely addresses reasonable social and economic impacts that pertain to avian influenza.

2 The story accurately addresses reasonable environmental, social and economic impacts that pertain to avian influenza.


0 The story does not explain any difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling avian influenza.

1 The story incorrectly or incompletely explains the difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling avian influenza.

2 The story accurately explains the difficulties faced by scientists and/or farmers in controlling avian influenza.

256

Conclusion. Preventative measures of minimising the escalation of biological incursions, and the importance of these measures to Australia.

0 The story does not explain preventative measures for minimising the escalation of biological incursions, and why these measures are important to Australia.

1 The story incorrectly or incompletely explains preventative measures for minimising the escalation of biological incursions, and why these measures are important to Australia.

2 The story accurately explains preventative measures for minimising the escalation of biological incursions, and why these measures are important to Australia.

Total score: /18

257

Appendix F

The writing matrix for Parts A, B and C of the BioStories’ tasks.

Writing matrix

Spelling and grammar.

0 The story contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors that interfere with the reader’s ability to comprehend the story.

1 The story contains some spelling and grammatical errors that do not interfere with the reader’s ability to comprehend the story.

2 The story contains very few or no spelling and grammatical errors. Punctuation.

0 Punctuation has not been used sufficiently and/or correctly. 1 Punctuation has been used correctly, with some errors. 2 Punctuation has been used correctly, with very few or no errors.

Scientific vocabulary.

0 The story employs very little or no scientific vocabulary pertinent to biosecurity (e.g. quarantine, biological incursion, environmental, ecological).

1 The story employs some scientific vocabulary pertinent to biosecurity, which may or may not be applied correctly (e.g. quarantine, biological incursion, environmental, ecological).

2 The story correctly employs appropriate and adequate scientific vocabulary pertinent to biosecurity (e.g. quarantine, biological incursion, environmental, ecological).

Story structure.

0 The students’ work is not structured as a narrative, and/or is structured in such a way that it does not flow and is difficult to read.

1 The students’ work is structured as a narrative that reads quite well, although some parts may be problematic. Some evidence of an orientation, complication and resolution (Part C only).

2 The students’ work is structured as a narrative that reads very well. Clear evidence of an orientation, complication and resolution (Part C only).

Story length.

0 The story is not long enough to communicate the required scientific information and develop a suitable story. Alternatively, the story is too long and the meaning or purpose of the story is lost.

1 The story is long enough to communicate the required scientific information, while presenting/developing a suitable story.

Incorporation of scientific information. 0 The story has not incorporated any scientific information. 1 The story incorporates some scientific information meaningfully.

2 The story mostly incorporates scientific information in such a way that is meaningful, creative and reads naturally.

Total score: /11

258

Appendix G

The derived scientific literacy matrices for the students’ scientific writing sample prior to their participation in the BioStories’ project.

Derived scientific literacy matrix: Students’ pre-BioStories’ writing

Describe the function of the system including all organs associated with it.

0 Student does not identify the main organ(s) in the system, and/or where each organ is located within the body.

1 Student identifies the main organ(s) in the system, and where each organ is located within the body, incompletely and/or with some inaccuracies.

2 Student accurately identifies the main organ(s) in the system, and where each organ is located within the body.

0 Student does not identify the function of the system, and/or how it assists human survival.

1 Student identifies the function of the system, and describes how it assists human survival, incompletely and/or with some inaccuracies.

2 Student correctly identifies the function of the system, and describes how it assists human survival.

0 Student does not explain how the various organs within the system work together to carry out the desired function(s) of the system.

1 Student incompletely and/or incorrectly explains how the various organs within the system work together to carry out the desired function(s) of the system.

2 Student correctly explains how the various organs within the system work together to carry out the desired function(s) of the system.

Describe how other systems work with the chosen system and why it is necessary for the survival of humans.

0 Student does not describe other body systems that work closely with their chosen system to perform necessary functions for survival.

1 Student incompletely and/or incorrectly describes other body systems that work closely with their chosen system to perform necessary functions for survival.

2 Student describes other body systems that work closely with their chosen system to perform necessary functions for survival.

0 Student does not describe mechanisms within their chosen system that allow it to work with other systems to perform functions for survival.

1 Student incompletely and/or incorrectly describes mechanisms within their chosen system that allow it to work with other systems to perform functions for survival.

2 Student describes mechanisms within their chosen system that allow it to work with other systems to perform functions for survival.

0 Student does not describe what complications the human body would face if their chosen system was not functioning.

1 Student incompletely and/or incorrectly describes what complications the human body would face if their chosen system was not functioning.

2 Student correctly describes what complications the human body would face if their chosen system was not functioning.

Identify specific cells that allow your chosen system to complete necessary functions for survival.

0 Student does not explain how the specific cells in their chosen system enable it to complete the necessary functions.

1 Student incompletely and/or incorrectly explains how the specific cells in their chosen system enable it to complete the necessary functions.

2 Student correctly explains how the specific cells in their chosen system enable it to complete the necessary functions.

Describe how the disease affects your chosen system and other systems. 0 Student does not explain how their chosen disease affects the primary organs of the system.

1 Student incompletely and/or incorrectly explains how their chosen disease affects the primary organs of the system.

2 Student correctly explains how their chosen disease affects the primary organs of the system.

259

0 Student does not explain how the disease affects the system’s ability to complete necessary functions for survival.

1 Student incompletely and/or incorrectly explains how the disease affects the system’s ability to complete necessary functions for survival.

2 Student correctly explains how the disease affects the system’s ability to complete necessary functions for survival.

Describe what the body does to increase its chance of survival when being affected by the disease.

0 Student does not describe the changes that the human body may undertake to eliminate the disease, and/or what impact this might have on other systems in the human body.

1 Student describes the changes that the human body may undertake to eliminate the disease, and what impact this might have on other systems in the human body, incompletely and/or with some inaccuracies.

2 Student describes the changes that the human body may undertake to eliminate the disease, and what impact this might have on other systems in the human body.

0 Student does not draw conclusions about how effective the human body is at fighting the disease.

1 Student draws unreasonable conclusions about how effective the human body is at fighting the disease.

2 Student draws reasonable conclusions about how effective the human body is at fighting the disease, and justifies these conclusions using appropriate research.

Briefly describe any medicinal or pharmaceutical practices that can assist the human body in fighting the disease.

0 Student does not analyse pharmaceutical and/or medicinal interventions that are currently used to combat the disease, and/or explains how they assist the body in maintaining homeostasis.

1 Student analyses pharmaceutical and/or medicinal interventions that are currently used to combat the disease, and explains how they assist the body in maintaining homeostasis, incompletely and/or with some inaccuracies.

2 Student analyses pharmaceutical and/or medicinal interventions that are currently used to combat the disease, and explains how they assist the body in maintaining homeostasis.

Total score: /24

Documents

A Study of Year 9 Students’ Developing Scientific Literacy through …eprints.qut.edu.au/34404/1/Louisa_Tomas_Thesis.pdf · 2010-09-08 · the project influenced their attitudes