Final Draft Action Research Hunter

Running head: STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING
Strategies in Teaching Scientific Writing in High School Science Classes

Kathryn Hunter
University of New England
December 17, 2015
STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

Abstract
This study investigated strategies used by both teachers and students to increase
proficiency in student scientific writing. Students entering high school have below
proficient skills in scientific writing; they struggle with following a format, organizing
data and interpreting data. Research has shown that science teachers feel they are
inadequate in their ability to teach students writing skills to help them write better lab
reports. A critical case, mixed method study was completed in a high school conceptual
physics class of five students that were representative of a larger student body. In this
four-week study, data was collected from student lab report scores, student surveys, and
teacher surveys. Student lab reports were used to measure growth before and after
interventions. Data collected from surveys were used to determine students attitudes and
confidence levels in writing lab reports. Teacher surveys were used to gather data on
science teachers feelings of adequacy towards their ability in teaching writing skills.
The data was inconclusive as to whether the interventions had a positive impact on the
proficiency of students in scientific writing. The small sample size and few graded
assignments handed in during the time limit narrowed the amount of data available to
analyze and to draw meaningful conclusions. A longer study containing a larger sample
size is needed to decide if the interventions could in fact be successful.
Key Words: scientific writing, technical writing, lab reports, high school.

Table of Contents
Introduction..5
Problem Statement...6
Research Questions..7
Hypothesis........7
Literature Review.8
Importance of Writing in Science9
Science Teachers Ability to Teach Writing......11
Strategies and Approaches to Writing in Science..12
Summary....15
Methodology..15
Research Design.16
Data Collection Plan..18
Data Analysis.19
Sample Selection20
Results22
Findings.23
Discussion.28
Limitations.30
Summary and Further Research.31
Action Plan.31
Conclusion.32
References.34
Appendix A36

Appendix B38
Appendix C41
Appendix D42
Appendix E43
Appendix F46

Strategies in Teaching Scientific Writing in High School Science Classes
Communication is vital in conveying scientific findings. Teaching students how to
communicate effectively using technical writing, or writing for science, is a very difficult
task. Many students have been nurturing their creative writing skills for years, but have
not had as much practice in formal writing. This study evaluates the scientific writing
skills of a small group of high school students in Bucksport, ME, both before and after a
scaffolding intervention. The students studied were in a conceptual physics science class,
which is a class required for graduation in this district.
The students in this study came from different socio-economic backgrounds with
varying support from home and had a variety of ability levels. Bucksport is an old mill
town with under three thousand people. The high school currently has about 350 students
in attendance. Bucksport employs four science teachers, and offers only a small variety
of elective classes. Earth Science, Biology and Physics are the three science courses all
students must successfully complete in order to graduate. To pass these courses, students
must meet certain standards for each course; one of these standards focuses on
communicating scientific findings.
Data collected on teaching techniques of various science teachers, as well as their
overall feeling of adequacy in teaching writing, was used to show that there is a need for
science teachers to learn how to teach writing. Surveys were conducted to gather data
about students and their experiences in technical writing. Data was also collected on how
to best support students while learning how to write a lab report, which provided insight
on how science teachers can better serve and support students in their writing. The
purpose of this study was to identify potential teaching strategies that presented

consistently proficient outcomes versus other teaching strategies that consistently
produced below proficient outcomes.
Problem Statement
It has been seen that students will demonstrate a deeper understanding of content
when they write about it (Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara & Herbert, 2014). This has come
to be known as writing to learn. Students are now required to show proficiency in their
ability to communicate scientific findings as stated by the Maine Learning Results
Science and Technology Standards: Students methodically plan, conduct, analyze data
from, and communicate results of in-depth scientific investigations, including
experiments guided by a testable hypothesis (MLR Standard B1). Students in high
school science classes do not show consistent proficiency in scientific writing. There is a
lack of understanding in the importance of format, data-analysis, and conclusion
composition.
Most students dont understand the purpose of following a format. Many students
still demonstrate inappropriate use of personal pronouns; do not know how to discuss
data without putting themselves into the results and they all struggle to convey their
findings in a meaningful and purposeful way. Not only do students have to become
proficient in science writing because the state standards require it, but these skills are
important for students to master in order to prepare them for writing in college or to
convey important information in a clear and concise manner in the work place. Data that
has been collected through teacher surveys indicate that students struggle following the
formatting, using proper grammar and eliminating the use of first person. It has also been
noticed that students lack the ability to tell the difference between restating important

data, making trends, identifying outliers, and making conclusions about the data.
Science teachers have recognized that most students collect data effectively and can
fill in a provided data table. When asked to talk about the data, or in other words, express
in writing, what the data conveys about the research question, students struggle
interpreting some of the more straightforward data sets. Students struggle with
understanding how to use data to support true statements regarding data sets. Some
teachers will walk students through the first lab report to help them recognize some
strategies to help in technical writing. Even with this guidance students struggle with
understanding what they should be writing.
Research Questions

There are many smaller questions that are rooted in the over arching question of:
What can science teachers change about the way they teach scientific writing to improve
student outcomes? The smaller questions are looking at the pieces of teaching, which are
examined when identifying weak areas of support by teachers. Some of these smaller
questions are: What support or background information do students need in order to be
more successful in technical writing? What teaching strategies are currently being
employed and how effective are they? In which areas of scientific writing do students
need the most guidance? How adequate do teachers feel in their ability to teach scientific
writing? Which sections of a lab report do teachers spend the most time practicing with
students?
Hypothesis
If teachers alter certain aspects of their teaching to support students in scientific
writing, then students will become more proficient in scientific writing because they will

have a developed skill set in formal writing. Through evaluating teaching strategies on
lab report writing and combining this data with the success rate of students on lab reports,
it will be determined which strategies were more effective in teaching certain sections of
the lab report. This process will identify problem areas in which students continue to
struggle which should spur a conversation between teachers on how to best scaffold for
these sections.
Literature Review
A search was conducted using the search engine ERIC-EBSCO to find recent peer
reviewed journal articles looking into teaching strategies that are used to implement
scientific writing in the high school science classroom. This literature review establishes
the importance of scientific writing as well as the need to implement more writing in
science and the challenges teachers face in doing this. This paper also discusses some of
the various strategies identified by the ten sources found.
Porter et al. (2010) states, writing and science are inextricably linked (pg. 43),
yet the writing that happens in most science classes is minimal, not self-composed, or is
lacking depth and understanding (Cacciatore & Sevian, 2006; Porter et al., 2010).
Science literacy includes, not only writing, but also, speaking, inquiry skills, and
academic language skills (Baker et al., 2009). Writing is an important element to
implement in science classrooms as it helps students comprehend content, think critically
and construct new knowledge or understandings more easily (Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara
& Herbert, 2014). Although writing in science is important, it can prove to be very
difficult for students as many of the tasks that involve writing are about something that
they cannot see (McDermott and Hand, 2013, p. 218). Teachers have become frustrated

with the products that students pass in as they are lacking concluding statements or
missing evidence in the form of data to support claims or they include both conclusive
statements and support, but the link between them is inadequate (Porter et al., 2010). As
science teachers face the challenge of teaching students how to write using scientific
language, teachers claim to not have the necessary background pedagogy to adequately
instruct students on how to improve their writing (Gillespie et al., 2014; Kohnen, 2013;
Sampson, Enderle, Grooms & White, 2013). With the growing need for teachers to
incorporate writing in their instruction, as well as the apparent benefit to the students
when they write more, it is important to identify strategies that not only help teachers
implement more writing, but also strategies students can utilize across various
disciplines. This is a study that explores the idea of writing to learn in science, why it is
important, and identifies challenges and strategies for implementation.
Importance of Writing in Science
Many states are requiring more writing across disciplines (MLR, CCSS) yet many
science classes devote little to no time on self-composed writing (Gillespie et al., 2014;
Kohnen, 2013; Sampson et al., 2013). Research has shown that writing can facilitate new
learning in various ways including promoting explicitness, making clear connections
between ideas, supporting the art of reflection, fostering personal involvement, and
helping students think about what the information or ideas mean by putting this
information in their own words (Gillespie et al. 2014; Sampson et al. 2013; Baker et al.
2009). By providing students the opportunity to write, they will be able to improve their
skills in identifying and analyzing sources for creditability and relevance, analyzing data
in order to identify trends, and composing original pieces that propose a research question

and provide evidence to support their claim about the question (Porter et al., 2010;
Whitehead & Murphy, 2014). These are all skills teachers see as necessary to construct a
clear concise and cohesive lab report.
Written scientific communication generally adheres to basic agreed upon format
and content including a problem or purpose statement, safety, procedure, data, results,
analysis and discussion (Cacciatore & Sevian, 2006, Morgan & Brooks, 2011). Adhering
to similar formats across all scientific studies is important in order to replicate or validate
results (Cacciatore & Sevian, 2006). Students should be given the opportunity to learn
these skills not only to share their own ideas and findings, but also to justify their ideas
(Sampson et al., 2013). Many of these skills can be applied to other disciplines, as there
are different generalized formats in different disciplines for similar reasons.
Writing in a scientific format seems to be a cognitive overload for students
(Morgan & Brooks, 2011). Porter et al. (2010) at first thought this was because students
lacked the ability to write well, although when looking at their writing in other classes,
these students were doing very well. Porter et al. (2010) decided students inability to
write conclusive findings with support from evidence was due to their lack in dataanalysis skills. Porter et al. (2010) found that providing guidelines along with teacher led
discussions on how to organize and interpret data showed a significant improvement in
students ability to write conclusive statements supported by evidence. It can be argued
that some students will also need support in general writing skills in conjunction with
providing proper support in how to organize and interpret data.
10

Science Teachers Ability to Teach Writing
It has been shown that although teachers understand the importance of writing in
science the amount of time they spend on teaching writing or providing opportunities to
students to practice writing is minimal to none (Sampson et al., 2013; Kohnen, 2013).
According to a study from 2011 in which Kohnen (2013) references only 19% of the
writing assignments from four different disciplines given to 138 students involved
writing one paragraph or more. The remaining 81% of the writing assignments were fill
in the blank, short answer or copying teacher-composed notes. Kohnen (2013) also
found a national survey that reported most writing assignments students complete involve
reporting without any analysis or interpretation of information or data. Gillespie,
Graham, Kiuhara and Herbert (2014) quoted that writing in a typical class is dominated
by tasks in which the teacher does all the composing and student are left only to fill in
missing information (pg. 1044). Educators can become frustrated when faced with the
challenge of teaching students to write a lab report that has a link between data and
conclusive statements supported by evidence. Sometimes when faced with this challenge
enough without seeing improvements in student outcome, teachers choose to give way
and focus on the memorization of content rather than the complex thinking and
understanding that can result from writing.
Despite the fact that many teachers lack professional training in teaching students
how to write there are many strategies and tools that they can still utilize in order to help
improve student writing. The first major solution implied by all articles is time.
Spending time practicing writing (or any task) typically results in better outcomes. Other
strategies discussed were modeling, scaffolding, using more authentic inquiry based
11

experiments, providing other modes of writing other than a typical lab report and other
writing-to-learn activities that help support scientific communication.
Strategies and Approaches to Teaching Science Writing
Johnson, Hall, Greene, and Ahn (2013) explored the idea of alternative
approaches to present evaluations of results. This article linked their results to students in
STEM programs that may not be strong in those disciplines. Allowing for other modes of
representation of results can provide a fuller experience for certain students. Kohnen
(2013), used writing scientific journal articles as a form of writing for students who
already struggled with writing and may not be at a skill level to write the typical lab
report. She used her experiences at a professional development seminar on writing
journal articles to empower her students to write, critique and rewrite their articles with
the idea they would ultimately get published in an online science journal. The most
important step in teaching these students how to do this was modeling the process and the
outcome. This particular approach had positive outcomes for students in their ability to
translate important information, which led to increased student awareness of their own
conceptual understanding (Kohnen, 2013). Providing the opportunity for students to get
their work published should increase their feel of ownership of the assignment and
empower them to continue to improve their writing skills.
Providing authentic inquiry opportunities for students allows them to design their
own investigations that will engage them in argumentative scientific writing (Sampson et
al., 2013). Asking students to practice argumentative writing in analysis questions or
reflective journals allows students to practice as well as improve student understanding of
important content. Sampson et al. (2013) suggests that in order for writing tasks to be
12

more authentic, they need to be realistic and imbedded into the inquiry process (pg.
666). Sampson et al. (2013) also indicates that it is important for teachers to model,
scaffold, and coach through the writing process. In doing this students will get explicit
instruction on what counts as science specific arguments through using templates or
prompts. It is also important for students to become metacognitive as they engage in the
review and refining of their text (Sampson et al. 2013). Making lab experiences more
authentic and inquiry based provides the opportunity for students to have a higher
involvement and engage in argumentative writing, which inevitably will improve
understandings of concepts.
Morgan and Brooks (2011) investigated a method of scaffolding in which
students designed their authentic experiments through a backwards-design model.
Scaffolding is the precise help that enables a learner to achieve a specific goal that
would not be possible without some kind of support (as cited by Morgan & Brooks,
2011, p. 514). Typically when reading through a lab template there is a question or
problem posed and one must develop an experiment in order to find certain results.
Morgan and Brooks (2011) imply that if students understand what the outcome should
look like, what is it exactly they expect to see after developing the research question, then
they will better understand the rest of the basic parts of the lab report and their origins. If
students have to try to design an experiment without first understanding what information
they need to collect, they in fact are lacking the important information required to start
the design process. Students should think about what information they are going to need
to collect in order to answer the research question, then they can determine the
instruments they are going to need in order to collect that data set. Students can then
13

determine any calculations that are going to be needed as well as observations. This will
then lead to designing the procedure. By having students look at what the outcome
should be, they are making a more meaningful connection between what they did to
perform the experiment and the data they collected. This should help in their data and
analysis section as they attempt to write these connections down.
Another method of scaffolding was discussed by Porter et al. (2010), which is
providing a checklist for students to use as they are writing their conclusion. This paired
with a discussion on how to complete data-analysis tasks can increase students ability to
write a meaningful analysis and conclusion section backed up by data as evidence to
support their claims.
Writing-to-learn activities are to be used as a tool to help students understand new
content through rhetorical and content processing (Whitehead & Murphy, 2014). When
faced with the task to write information to learn there is a transformation of knowledge
from something abstract to something more conceptual for the students (Baker et al.,
2009). Research has shown that students using appropriate writing-to-learn strategies
are more aware of language usage, demonstrate better understanding and better recall and
show more complex thinking (as cited by Baker et al., 2009). According to Gillespie et
al. (2014), 75% of the studies they reviewed said that when writing-to-learn activities
were implemented there was a positive impact on student learning. Baker et al. (2009)
suggests many different writing exercises to increase the amount of proficient writing
outcomes including brainstorming, providing detailed rubrics and templates, examples of
language patterns and scientific vocabulary, student generated dictionary as well as
providing notebooks for journaling, revisions, and argumentative writing. Baker et al.
14

(2009) also suggests that peer-to-peer interaction in the form of critiques is a useful tool
for increasing academic language as well as using open-ended questions to initiate
discussions that help students link everyday experiences to scientific language.
Summary
Writing is an essential ingredient in the scientific learning continuum. The
amount of time spent on writing in the classroom has to increase in order for students to
become more proficient in science at a more complex and integrative level as well as to
meet state standards. There has been much research establishing the importance of
writing across disciplines. Recent studies explore different strategies and techniques in
teaching students how to write for various disciplines. The strategies identified from this
review that will be used in this study are the checklist, modeling, and brainstorming. One
of the challenges for teachers with a non-language arts background is having the proper
pedagogy in teaching writing to students. Learning new techniques and strategies in how
to teach students to write scientifically is one important step towards a higher number of
students with science literacy.
Methodology
Writing in science not only helps students learn concepts at a more in depth level,
it also helps them practice argumentative writing, using evidence from their data to
support claims and prove (or disprove) a hypothesis, as well as draw conclusions.
Students at the high school level struggle with scientific writing and science teachers are
confronted with the challenge of finding strategies to help. Students in this study were
faced with designing their own experiment on motion using specific guidelines to link
15

their design to real life situations such as car collisions and then asked to write a formal
lab report to communicate their findings. This lab report was used to collect data prior to
the interventions. Data was collected prior to the interventions on (a) strategies teachers
already use to teach scientific writing, (b) student success rate in scientific writing, and
(c) student and teacher challenges during the writing and grading process. After the
intervention was implemented, students were asked to design a contraption that would
show the effect of Newtons Three Laws of Motion on a falling object and then write
another formal lab report including a comparison between their data and other student
data sets. Data was collected on student successes, which teaching strategies seemed to
have had the greatest positive impact, as well as problem areas, which still need to be
addressed.
This study was a mixed-methods study collecting both qualitative and quantitative
data that was used to assess students ability to write scientifically, as well as the
effectiveness of teaching strategies. Qualitative data was gathered for baseline
information on what strategies science teachers currently use to teach students to write
scientifically. Qualitative data was also collected from students to determine what they
found to be confusing, difficult, and/or frustrating when they write scientifically, both
before and after the intervention. Quantitative data on student lab report grades was
collected before and after the intervention in order to determine positive or negative
effects of implemented teaching strategies.
Research Design
Many teaching strategies have been identified as potentially having a positive
impact on student writing although, there were three interventions implemented in this
16

study. First, students participated in a teacher led discussion that focused on breaking
down the grading rubric into key components for each major section. This produced a
checklist for students to utilize when they were composing their lab reports. Secondly,
students, in small groups, brainstormed and discussed appropriate vocabulary words to be
used in lab reports. Each group then contributed to class wide discussion in which a list
was generated which was added to student science notebooks and was displayed in the
classroom. Lastly, the teacher discussed with students analytical writing and compared
what they have learned from English classes to what is expected of them in science class.
This led to student discussion and brainstorming of sentence starters and phrases that are
commonly used in analytical writing that can be applied to scientific writing.
In the first intervention, students developed a checklist (Appendix A) by
dissecting the grading rubric (Appendix B) for lab reports. The completion and active
participation in this venture not only made the rubric, and what was expected of them,
more clear, but also aided in identifying key components which students did not
understand. The generated checklist then helped students verify that they had included
all the necessary pieces of the lab report.
The second intervention promoted the usage of scientific vocabulary. In this
activity, students broadened their vocabulary, and found alternative vocabulary words to
replace words that are not appropriate in a lab report. For instance, students understand
that they can replace words like smaller and larger with decrease or increase.
The final product in this activity was a poster of vocabulary words that is posted in the
classroom as well as a comprehensive list for student science notebooks (Appendix C).
17

In the third intervention, the first two interventions merged together and created a
bigger picture for students. The discussion on analytical writing spurred student
comments on what they struggle with, such as starting sentences or how to effectively
eliminate the first person from their writing. With a few examples to get them started the
students, in small groups, were able to develop more phrases and sentence starters
appropriate for scientific writing. The final product students created was a table to
convert conversational writing to scientific writing (Appendix D, Table 1) and a list of
sentence starters and phrases (Appendix D). This final intervention had an impact on the
quality of students data-analysis.
Data Collection Plan
Qualitative data was collected using surveys and making observations while
working with students on data-analysis writing. Student surveys (Appendix E) were
geared towards identifying what they felt was difficult or confusing for them when
writing a lab report both before and after the intervention. Questions were designed to
gain information on what students see their needs to be and what they think they need
from instruction in order to do better.
Teacher surveys (Appendix F) were used to gather data about current teaching
strategies, what sections of lab reports they see as the most difficult for students to master
and how confident or adequate they feel in teaching students how to write a lab report.
Teachers were also asked to indicate how often they ask their students to self-compose
scientific writing for longer than a paragraph. Once students had developed their
checklist, vocabulary list, and sentence starters and phrases list, teachers were asked to
indicate if they would use this, and if they believe it would be useful.
18

19
All quantitative data collected was based on grades students received using the
Science Department Lab Report Rubric (Appendix B) both before and after the
intervention. The goal was not only to have students reach a proficient level in the
writing of the lab report over all, but specifically in the results, analysis, and conclusion
section. The primary teacher as well as two other science teachers familiar with lab
content and expectation graded student work.
The three grades were compared and
averaged to eliminate any bias on grading. All surveys were anonymous and
administered during a time when the teacher was not present.
Table1.
Triangulation Matrix
Research Question
1. Identify student
support need
2. Effective
strategies already
in place
3. Teacher
adequacy
4. Effective
strategies identified
after the
intervention

1
Student Survey
Data Source
2
Teacher Survey
3
Lab Reports
Student Survey
Teacher Survey
Lab Reports
Teacher Survey
Student Survey
Lab Reports
Data Analysis
A significant amount of time was spent on completing surveys for both teachers
and students as well as anticipating the tables and figure that were used to display this
data. The qualitative data collected posed the biggest issue, which was how to display
the data meaningfully. It was decided that the majority of the questions from the two

surveys would best be represented in table form. Data received was split up based on
type of response or theme. The quantitative data was easily put into graph form.
Deciding on the most important parts of the quantitative data to report out on was the
most difficult.
The nature of this study does not require informed consent. No data from student
personal records were used, simply their opinions and grades, which are not linked back
to any specific persons. Students participating in this study received a pseudonym, letters
A through E, to reference their work before and after the intervention. Student
background information is informative although lacks any identifying information.
Grading input from three other science teachers eliminated grade bias.
Sample Selection
This is a critical case sample of five students in a Conceptual Physics class, a
class that is required for graduation. A critical case is one that permits analytic
generalization, as, if a theory can work in the conditions of the critical case, it's likely to
be able to work anywhere (bettereval.org, 2015). In theory the sample of students
selected should be representative of the whole student body. The five students are
composed of one senior, three juniors and one sophomore, all female. This class is
considered a heterogeneous general education science class composed of a variety of
ability levels. Previous grades in other required science classs range from Cs (76-84) to
the highest of a B (88), although GPAs range from 2.7 to 3.6. Student writing ability is
also a range from very able to needs support based on initial examination of written work.
This sample selection, although small in size is the most diverse class that is
20

representative of a typical heterogeneous general education class in Bucksport High
School.
Student A is a senior who requires more time for writing and demonstrates better
abilities in auditory learning rather than written. When asked probing questions she is
able to see connections between data although struggles to convert that to written words.
She takes more time to construct connections between content as well as longer wait time
when given a question. Student A is involved in after school activities and enjoys school.
She is part of a technology program where she is earning college credits towards a degree
in the culinary arts.
Student B is a sophomore who sometimes takes honors classes. She struggles
with meeting deadlines and letting her emotions get in her way of learning. When she
puts in the effort her writing is very insightful and well done. She has no
accommodations although she is in a supportive academic study hall. Student B also
participates in extra curricular activities.
Student C is a junior who transferred after the first week of class from a larger
school. She does not live with her primary family but does live with extended family in
order to continue at this school. Student C requires more time for written assignments
and has a writing lab in which she can receive extra help. She holds a job in the
community and works one or more days a week.
Student D is a junior who does not come to school on a regular basis. She suffers
from anxiety and thinks she suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder, although will not get
tested. She has no academic accommodations, although she consistently needs extra help
21

in all her classes. She is required to stay after for an academic after school program three
days a week.
Student E is a junior who takes honors and advanced placement courses. She says
science is not her strongest subject, although does enjoy it. She is very involved in extra
curricular activities and does very well academically. She claims she wants to go into
forensics when she graduates.
These students are representative of the student body. In most general education
classes 30-80% of students have modifications or accommodations. This is most likely
due to the fact many families live in areas with no high school, so they can choose where
to send their children. The private schools in the area tend to not admit students who
dont meet certain academic standards. Bucksport High School, on the other hand, will
not turn away a student based on their academic performance.
The science teachers surveyed range in the years they have taught from 2 to about
20 years. One teacher only teaches freshman where as the other three teach a mix of
sophomores, junior and seniors.
Results
Students continually struggle with self-composed writing that includes relating
data they have collected to concepts they have learned. Educators are faced with the
challenge of teaching these writing skills to their students. Science teachers feel
inadequate to meet this challenge. Presenting teachers with a set of strategies to help
implement more data-analysis writing should show positive outcomes in student
achievement levels on lab reports. Providing strategies for teachers to use to help create
22

a learning environment that promotes student learning should also increase student
confidence levels in their own ability to successfully write a lab report.
There were three interventions implemented in this study. First, students
participated in a teacher led discussion that focused on breaking down the grading rubric
into key components for each major section. This came together in the form of a
checklist for students to utilize when they were composing their lab reports. Secondly,
students, in small groups, brainstormed and discussed appropriate vocabulary words to be
used in lab reports. Each group then contributed to a class wide discussion in which a list
was generated that was added to student science notebooks and displayed in the
classroom. Lastly, the teacher discussed with students analytical writing and compared
what they learned from English classes to what is expected of them in science class. This
led to student discussions and brainstorming of sentence starters and phrases that are
commonly used in analytical writing that can be applied to scientific writing.
Findings
Data collected from the teacher survey (Appendix F), questions one through four,
asked about the percent of student writing consisting of fill in the blank and short answer,
self-composed, self-composed of a length greater than one paragraph, and writing used in
data-analysis is displayed in Table 2. Teacher responses to the survey implied that as a
department, science teachers are not requiring self-composed writing of greater than one
paragraph, more than 40% of the time. Students are practicing self-composed scientific
writing most of the time (41-60%) although not greater than one paragraph in length, and
not during data-analysis writing.
23

Table 2.
Teacher responses to survey questions 1-4. n=4.
Question
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
% of writing
1
2
1
fill in the
blank
% student
0
1
3
composed
% student
0
4
0
composed
>1Paragraph
% used in
1
2
0
Data-analysis
24
61-80%
0
81-100%
0
Teacher responses to survey questions five through seven, before and after the
intervention are displayed in Table 3. Teachers indicated that they only feel somewhat
adequate in their ability to teach students how to write a lab report. After teachers
attempted to use the interventions with their students they still specified they only feel
somewhat adequate in their ability to teach lab report writing. Prior to using the
interventions, teachers thought that the analysis section of the lab report was the most
difficult section for students to write, meaning that students score lower in the analysis
section compared the other sections of the lab report (Appendix B). After the
interventions teachers still saw students struggle the most with the analysis section of the
lab report. Teachers suggest that they spend the most time going over how to interpret
data in a data table focusing student attention on what the data means, yet they do not see
that these actions have a true affect on student writing outcomes.

Table 3.
Teacher responses to survey questions 5-7. n=4.
Question
Before (# of people)
Adequacy in ability to
Not very adequate = 1
teach
Somewhat adequate = 3
Section students struggle Results = 1
the most with
Analysis = 2
Conclusion = 1
Section teacher spends
Introduction = 1
the most time on
Results =1
Analysis = 1
Conclusion = 1
25
After (# of people)
Somewhat adequate = 3
Adequate = 1
Analysis = 3
Conclusion = 1
Results =1
Analysis = 2
Conclusion = 1
Through conversations with the science teachers it was noted that they did see
some positive improvement in students language use when writing data-analysis sections
of the lab reports. Teachers also indicated that they saw less usage of personal pronouns
and other casual language in student writing after the interventions. Teachers specified
that when students used the lab report checklist, fewer sections or pieces of the lab report
were missing.
Student responses to survey questions before and after the interventions are
displayed in Table 4. It was realized that 60% of students in middle school did not
practice self-composed writing and only wrote two formal lab reports in their last science
class. This data also demonstrates the difference in their confidence in writing the
conclusion before the interventions as compared to after the interventions. Students also
indicated growth in their confidence in writing the conclusion of a lab report from 20%
very confident to 40% very confident. No students felt less than moderately confident
post-intervention.
The data from the student survey also demonstrates an increase in positive
feelings towards writing formal lab reports. Eighty percent of students felt moderately

prepared to write a lab report after the intervention compared to only 20% of students
feeling moderately prepared pre-intervention. Overall, the data from the student survey
shows positive growth of students ability and confidence in writing a lab report.
Table 4.
Student answers to survey questions one through nine. n=5.
Question
Response before
Response after
intervention (# of people)
intervention
(# of people)
Constructed response in
Occasionally = 3
N/A
Middle School
Often = 1
Dont know = 1
Number of formal lab
2 Lab report = 3
N/A
reports in last science
3 Lab report = 1
class
Dont remember =1
Feeling towards writing
Somewhat prepared = 3
Somewhat prepared = 1
lab report
Moderately Prepared = 1
Moderately Prepared = 4
Uncertain = 1
> 1 paragraph constructed Occasionally = 1
Sometimes = 1
response
Sometimes = 3
Often = 4
Often = 1
Confidence in dataSomewhat confident = 5
Somewhat confident = 4
analysis section
Moderately confident = 1
Confidence in Conclusion Somewhat confident = 1
Moderately Confident = 3
Moderately Confident = 3
Very Confident = 2
Very Confident = 1
Easiest section
Introduction = 2
Introduction = 2
Methods = 3
Methods = 3
Difficult or confusing
Methods = 1
Data = 2
section
Data = 1
Analysis = 3
Analysis = 2
Conclusion = 1
Time to write a good
4 days = 4
1 week = 3
report
I week = 1
More than a week = 2
Students indicated, through conversation, that they increased the length of
formative lab writing to one paragraph or greater in length compared to one paragraph or
less prior to the interventions. Although, students still felt data-analysis sections are the
most confusing or difficult.
26

27
The last question in the student survey asks students what they think they need in
order to write better lab report. Student answers range from needing more practice and
time to needing to understand the vocabulary and needing help getting started. Student
feedback collected from conversations about brainstorming and displaying sentence
starters and common vocabulary used in scientific writing, indicated that it was helpful to
have a list to go back to if they got stuck.
Student data collected from graded lab reports before and after the interventions is
presented in Figure 1. The lab reports were written on two different topics although both
had motion as the over arching theme. Students received, in a randomized manner, a
letter to link the first lab report to the lab report post intervention. Comparing lab report
grades before the intervention to after the intervention it is evident that Students A and B
exhibited an increase in their grade whereas Students C and E had a decrease. Student D
LAB REPRT SCORES (%)
showed no change in overall grade.

90
85
80
75
70
STUDENT A
STUDENT B
Before intervention
STUDENT C
STUDENT D
STUDENT E
After intervention
Figure 1. Individual student lab reports scores before and after the intervention. n=5.
When the grading of the lab report is broken down into the section: Results,
Analysis, and Conclusion, students varied in which sections they improved. Student A
increased her grade slightly for each category, as did Student B (Figure 2). This is also

28
reflected in their overall grade increase as seen in Figure 1. Student C had a grade
increase in the results section but had a decrease in the analysis section. Student D
showed no difference in grade for the three data-analysis section in Figure 2. Student E
only showed a decrease in grade in the analysis section.
Lab report scores %
100
80
60
40
20
0
STUDENT A
STUDENT B
STUDENT C
STUDENT D
STUDENT E
Results before intervention
Results after intervention
Analysis before intervention
Analysis after intervention
Conclusion before intervention
Conclusion after intervention
Figure 2. Individual student scores before and after the intervention in the results, analysis and
conclusion sections of a lab report. n=5.
Discussion
Writing is an important facet in communicating, especially in science. It has been
shown there are many benefits to implementing more writing across content areas
(Gillespie et al. 2014; Sampson et al. 2013; Baker et al. 2009). Unfortunately, teachers
are not always employing student, self-composed writing in their classrooms (Table 2).
There are various reasons for this, one of which is the fact that it takes time for students
to write and rewrite as well as it takes time for teachers to read and grade the writing. It
can be frustrating for teachers when student work does not improve over the course of
several rewrites. On the other hand, when class time is spent on teaching students how to
write scientifically there is less time to spend on content. Unfortunately, it is usually the

content that wins that battle. This may be due to the fact that most science teachers feel
inadequate in their ability to effectively teach their students how to write (Table 3).
Science teachers are not trained in how to teach writing which has an impact on
their ability and confidence levels when they try to teach lab report writing to students.
Their lack of confidence in their teaching of writing is reflected not only in their attitude
towards lab report writing (Table 3), but also in their frustration with the quality of
student work.
Although some students in this study felt their confidence in writing increased
after the interventions their overall grades did not indicate growth for every student
(Table 4, Figure 2). Two students had an increase in overall lab report grade, one student
remained the same and the other two students had a decrease in lab report grade (Figure
1). The inconsistency of results could have more to do with the understanding of the
concept rather than their ability to interpret and discuss the data. As one student noted on
their survey, writing about certain content proved to be difficult at times because they
didnt feel like they understood the vocabulary.
It was seen that after the interventions students in the study used more data
collected to support some of the more simple claims in their results section. The scores
received in the results section of the lab report did show an increase in more than half of
the students studied. Students still demonstrate a lack of understanding in identifying
trends in the data and relating the data to the correct content concept. For instance, in the
grading of the analysis section of the Newtons Laws lab, students consistently linked
data to the incorrect law. This could indicate that they either did not go back to their
notes to double check the meaning of each law or they did not understand the law. Based
29

on the data collected on the formative work prior to the summative formal lab report, the
understanding of the individual law was demonstrated by each student through their
analysis of a small and focused data set.
It was noticed that the use of the Lab Report Checklist (Appendix A) created lab
reports that were more complete with no large sections of the report missing. Students
were able to use the checklist as a way to cross check their work more easily than using
the Lab Report Grading Rubric (Appendix B).
Through an informal evaluation of student writing after the interventions, it was
noticed that the frequency of personal pronouns decreased compared to before the
interventions, which indicates that the sentence starters and phrases identified in the
brainstorming session were useful. An increase in use of vocabulary words identified
through the brainstorming session was also noticed.
Limitations
This study consisted of five students in a Conceptual Physics Science class, which
made it a critical case sample. The students were representative of a larger student body,
although because of the small sample size and short length of the study, the data collected
does not demonstrate an accurate measure of the impact of the interventions in this study.
The results only consist of one data point pre and one data point post-intervention, which
does not provide enough data to determine the true effectiveness of the interventions.
Writing requires practice, and as students indicated on their surveys they feel more
practice writing scientifically will help improve their ability level; therefore, a longer
study of the interventions is needed to truly determine their impact.
30

This study could have examined the use of personal pronouns and how students
implemented the vocabulary and sentence starters more in depth, which would have
provided a more well-rounded picture of the effect in the interventions on student writing.
Also, if there was a way to measure more effectively the usefulness of the lab report
checklist, this would have added more depth to the findings of this study.
Summary and Further Research
Overall, based on small changes seen in student work, the interventions:
identifying vocabulary, sentence starters, and going over examples of proficient work did
have a positive effect on student writing skills (although it was not reflected in the data
collected). The discussion, identifying vocabulary words commonly used in formal
writing in science, led to a higher frequency in the use of the vocabulary words, although
using the words correctly still needed improvement. The sentence starters helped
decrease the number of times personal pronouns were used in student writing. As a
whole, student lab report grades did not significantly increase.
This research identified the need for science teachers to learn some techniques or
strategies on how to teach students to write scientifically. Using language and voice
rules, a style with which students are familiar, from English class is one way to further
this intervention. Further research into what science teachers need to be more effective in
their ability to teach scientific writing is warranted.
Action Plan
This research was inconclusive because there was not enough data to determine if
the teaching strategies were effective in producing significant positive changes in student
lab report grades. The lack of effectiveness raises some new questions not addressed in
31

this research. For instance, it would be beneficial to see what or how students are
learning about formal science writing at the middle school level and earlier. It would also
be beneficial to identify when students are starting to build the foundation for scientific
writing; at what year in school do they begin learning about scientific writing and to what
extent?
Providing more opportunities for students to practice their writing skills by
requiring more in-depth evaluation of all data-analysis in labs should increase overall
students grades on lab reports. Starting this process before high school would also
increase student proficiency in writing by graduation. However, making these types of
changes take time and many hours of collaboration to make an impact. In the mean time,
science teachers at the high school level can take the time in the first few days or weeks
of a course to discuss how to write scientifically. Explicitly going over writing
expectations throughout a course may also increase the quality of student work.
The use of the vocabulary and sentence starter posters will continually monitor
the affect they have on student work. The lab report checklist will also be distributed to
students throughout the rest of the year. Monitoring the quality of student work in
scientific writing will continue to track the effectiveness of these strategies. Modifying
and introducing new strategies will happen when more data has been collected.
Conclusion
It has been realized that students in high school lack skills in scientific writing.
The purpose of this study was to identify what students struggle with when they write lab
reports and to identify potential strategies to help students write better. It was found that
students struggle with adhering to a common format, interpreting data, and linking data to
32

real life applications. Brainstorming appropriate vocabulary words commonly used in lab
reports was one strategy used to increase scientific proficiency. Discussing and modeling
possible ways to start sentences in the results, analysis, and conclusion sections of the lab
report also increased student proficiency in science writing. Although both of these
strategies had a positive change in the language usage, the student writing of dataanalysis and link to real life was still lacking in depth and meaning.
This study lacked enough data points to determine the true effectiveness these
strategies could have on increasing proficiency in data-analysis. A study following the
progression of a class of students from their first lab report to the last through an entire
course would produce a better picture of the effectiveness of these strategies. The
apparent low level of proficiency in most students raises some questions about their prehigh school writing in science.
Creating a partnership between the middle and high school science teachers that
would focus on infusing new strategies in teaching writing for science at an early stage in
students school career might set students up for more success later on. Collaboration
with the English department and incorporating more formal writing techniques into
regular English classes may also have a positive impact on students scientific writing.
Implementing more formal writing into the curriculum would be beneficial over all, as
well as making sure the implementation occurs early on in students school careers.
In order for science teachers to feel more confident and be more effective in their
strategies in teaching writing, they will need proper training. This training could be
accomplished through collaboration with the English department, but also could start
with teachers education when pursuing their teaching degree.
33

References
Baker, D. R., Lewis, E. B., Purzer, S., Watts, N. B., Perkins, G., Uysal, S., & ... Lang, M.
(2009). The Communication in Science Inquiry Project (CISIP): A Project to
Enhance Scientific Literacy through the Creation of Science Classroom Discourse
Communities. International Journal Of Environmental And Science Education,
4(3), 259-274.
Cacciatore, K., & Sevian, H. (2006). Teaching Lab Report Writing through Inquiry: A
Green Chemistry Stoichiometry Experiment for General Chemistry. Journal of
Chemical Education, 88(7), 1039-1039.
Critical Case Sampling. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2015, from
http://betterevaluation.org/evaluation-options/CriticalCase
English Language Arts Standards, Science & Technical Subjects, Grade 9-12. (2015).
Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.corestandards.org/ELALiteracy/RST/
Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2014). High school teachers use of
writing to support students' learning: A national survey. Reading and Writing,
27(6), 1043-1072. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9494-8
Johnson, J., Hall, J., Greene, J., & Ahn, J. (2013). Exploring Alternative Approaches for
Presenting Evaluation Results. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(4), 486-503.
doi:10.1177/1098214013492995
Kohnen, A. (2013). Informational Writing in High School Science. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 57(3), 233-242.
34

McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2013). The Impact of Embedding Multiple Modes of
Representation within Writing Tasks on High School Students' Chemistry
Understanding. Instructional Science: An International Journal Of The Learning
Sciences, 41(1), 217-246.
Morgan, K., & Brooks, D. (2011). Investigating a Method of Scaffolding StudentDesigned Experiments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 513522. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9343-y
Porter, R., Guarienti, K., Brydon, B., Robb, J., Royston, A., Painter, H., & ... Smith, M.
H. (2010). Writing Better Lab Reports. Science Teacher, 77(1), 43-48.
Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to Learn by Learning
to Write During the School Science Laboratory: Helping Middle and High School
Students Develop Argumentative Writing Skills as They Learn Core Ideas.
Science Education, 643-670. doi:10.1002/sce.21069
Standards & Instruction: Science and Technology. (2011). Retrieved December 13, 2015,
from http://www.maine.gov/doe/scienceandtechnology/standardsinstruction/
index.html
Whitehead, D., & Murphy, F. (2014). Mind Your Language. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 57(6), 492-502.
35

Appendix A
Lab Report Checklist
Introduction:
Are all pre-lab vocab defined and used to relate standard and objective of
lab?
Objective is clearly stated
Hypothesis is clearly stated
Methods:
Materials are present
Details in procedure including if something is constructed.
What data is collected is mentioned and were it was recorded is written
What calculations that were made is discussed
Example: the time and distance the car traveled was used to calculate
the velocity and is recorded in table 1.
Calculations are rounded to reasonable decimals.
Results: Remember this data is your evidence to prove or disprove your claims
(hypothesis)
Data tables present
Data discussed from table
When writing about the data the table the data is in is referenced
Observations about the experiment are present (smell, see, hear, taste)
Analysis:
Trends are identified
36

A graph is used to display data when necessary
Were there unusual data points? Discuss
Did you support your statements with data from the tables or graphs?
Conclusion:
Hypothesis and/or objective is restated
Conclusions are made based on claims and evidence (data and results). Link
objective and hypothesis to data.
Sources of error are discussed with reasons
How can you improve this lab/experiment? If you were to do this lab again
what would you do differently and why
Whats the next step, what new questions arose from what you learned in
this lab?
Is there another way to test your hypothesis?
Format/Grammar:
All sections have headings that are bold and all the way to the left (not
indented)
No personal pronouns: we, you, youre, my, were
No conversational language
PROOF READ!!!
37

38
Appendix B
Science Department Lab Report Rubric

Indicator
Exceptional
Proficient in
Standard
Approaching
Standard
Beginning standard
Title (4
pts)
Title is descriptive
of the lab with the
scientific purpose
indicated
Title is descriptive
or identifies the
scientific purpose
Title present but is

not descriptive or
identifies the
purpose
Title is lacking or
does not make
sense
Pre-lab
informatio
n (8 pts)
All vocab is used

appropriately in
prelab questions
and answered in
paragraph
form. Outside
sources included
when necessary
All vocab and

prelab questions
answered in
paragraph form
Most vocab and

prelab questions
are answered
No prelab or vocab
mentioned
Objective
(8 pts)
Purpose of lab
indicated, written
in a complete
sentence and the
variables are
included
Purpose of lab
indicated and
written in a
complete sentence
Purpose of lab is
indicated
Purpose is lacking
or does not make
sense
Hypothesis Written in
(8 pts)
If/Then/Because
format with
supported rationale
Written in
If/Then/Because
format
Present but not in

the correct format
Not present when

necessary or is not
clearly stated
Methods
(8 pts)
All materials used

are present and
procedure is well
organized and
is reproducible. Pr
ocedure includes
repeated trials,
descriptive
diagrams when
needed
All materials are

present and
procedure is
complete and
reproducible
Most materials and

procedures are
present, some parts
of the procedure
are not
reproducible
because some
pieces are missing
Some materials and

procedures are
present, the
procedure cannot
be reproduced
Observatio
nal data
Quantified
data (8
pts)
Observations from
results are detailed,
as well as
procedure
deviations present.
All data tables and
graphs are present
and properly
Observations from
results are
given. All data
tables and graphs
are present and
properly labeled
and titled. All
results are
Observations from
results present,
some data tables or
graphs present.
Some results are
discussed
Lacking meaningful
observations and
results. Data tables
and graphs are
missing

39
labeled and
titled. All
important results
are discussed
without
conclusions
discussed
All data discussed

and interpreted,
unusual data points
commented on,
meaningful trends
in data explained
and interpreted,
enough detail is
given to
understand data
and all statements
must be supported
by data
All data discussed

and interpreted,
unusual data points
commented on,
trends in data
explained and
interpreted, some
support is provided
from data
Most data is
discussed and
interpretation is
attempted. Attemp
ted to find
meaningful trends
in data
Restates data
lacking any
interpretations
Conclusion Hypothesis/Objecti
(10 pts)
ve is restated and
evaluated
according to
data, reasons to
accept/reject
hypothesis/objecti
ve given, all
statements are
supported by data
Hypothesis/objecti
ve is restated and
evaluated
according to
data, reasons to
accept/reject
hypothesis/objectiv
e given, most
statements are
supported by data
Hypothesis/objecti
ve is restated and
evaluated
according to data
Hypothesis/objecti
ve is restated
Possible
errors (8
pts)
Possible reasons
for errors are given,
important info
about data
collection given,
effect errors had on
data discussed
Possible reasons
for errors are
given, effect errors
had on data
discussed
Possible reasons
for errors are given
Some errors
provided but may
not be possible
Applicatio
n (9 pts)
Suggestions for
improvement of
specific pieces of
the experiment are
given, suggestion
for other ways to
test hypothesis
given, suggestions
for future
experiments given,
practical
application(s) of
experiment given
Suggestions for
improvement of
experiment are
given, suggestions
for future
experiments given,
practical
application(s) of
experiment given
Suggestions for
improvement of
experiment are
given, suggestion
for future
experiment given
Suggestions for
improvements or
for future
experiment given
Analysis
(12 pts)

40
Format (8
pts)
Each section titled

and present. Title
is in the left hand
column and
obvious to the
reader. All sections
are written in
complete
sentences.
Reference section
included when
necessary
Each section
titled. Title is in the
left hand column
and obvious to the
reader
Section titles are

missing, some
sections are in
statements rather
than in complete
sentences
Section titles are

missing
Grammar
(8 pts)
No first person is
used, writing is
scientific and
grammar mistakes
do not affect the
understanding of
the report
No first person is
used. Writing is
mostly scientific
and grammar
mistakes do not
affect the
understanding of
the report
First person and

conversational
language is used
occasionally. Gram
mar affects the
understanding of
the report
First person and

conversational
language is used
throughout.
Grammar affects
the understanding
of the report

Appendix C
Vocabulary List
Infer
Validate
Correlation
Reliable
Findings
Standard
Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Control
Constant
Increase
Decrease

41

Appendix D
Writing comparison
Table 1.
Casual writing
Scientific writing
My data shows a smaller number of growth
The data showed a decrease in growth rate

when compared to the control
We used the following materials to build
The following materials were used to build
the device
the device
Sentence Starters
The data indicates..
The data in Table 1 shows
Figure 2. indicates
When the (independent variable) increased (evidence) the (dependent variable)
also increased to (evidence) as seen in Figure 3.

42

43
Appendix E
Student Survey
Directions: Please answer the following questions to the best of your
ability. This is an anonymous survey that does not affect your standing in
class. The data collected is meant to help your teacher know what you need to
be a better scientific writer.
1. How often did you participate in constructed response writing in middle
school? Constructed response is when you are writing your own thoughts or
correlations about a topic like a lab report or research paper.
Almost never

occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Dont know
Additional comments: ___________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
2. How many formal lab reports did you write in your last science class?

4 or more Dont remember

______________________________________________________________________________
3. When faced with the task of writing a lab report, describe your feelings toward
ability and preparedness.
Not very prepared Somewhat prepared
prepared
Moderately prepared
Uncertain

______________________________________________________________________________
Well

44
4. How often do you write more than one paragraph of constructed response writing
in science?
Almost never

occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Dont know

______________________________________________________________________________
5. How confident do you feel in your ability to write data-analysis sections of your
lab report?
Not very confident Somewhat confident
confident
Moderately confident
Very
Uncertain

______________________________________________________________________________
6. How confident do you feel in your ability to write conclusions in a lab report?
Not very confident Somewhat confident
confident
Moderately confident
Uncertain

______________________________________________________________________________
7. Which sections of the lab report do you find the easiest?
Introduction

Methods
Results
Analysis
Conclusion

______________________________________________________________________________
Very

8.
45
Which sections of the lab report do you find the most difficult or confusing?
(Place a star next to the most difficult if you identify more than one)
Introduction

Methods
Results
Analysis
Conclusion

______________________________________________________________________________
9.
How much time do you feel you need to write a good lab report?
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
1week
More
than a week
______________________________________________________________________________
10.
What do you think or feel you might need to write a better lab report?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________


46
Appendix F
Teacher Survey
1. In current practice, what percent of writing consists of fill in the blank or short
answer?
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
2. In current practice, what percent of writing is student composed?

0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
3. In current practice, what percent of writing is student composed and of one

paragraph in length or longer?
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
4. In current practice, what percent of writing is used to make connections between

students collected data and analysis and conclusions?
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
5. How adequate do you feel as a science teacher in educating students on how to

write scientifically?
Not very adequate
Somewhat adequate Moderately adequate
Very
Adequate
6. What sections do you feel students struggle the most with in lab reports?
Introduction
Methods
Results
Analysis
Conclusion
Format
7. What section of the lab report do you think you spend more time going over or
practicing with the students?

Introduction
Methods
Results
Analysis
47
Conclusion
Format
8. Currently do you use any writing tools to help students, if so what tools do you
use?
9. What other strategies do you employ currently to help students write their lab
reports?

Final Draft Action Research Hunter

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Final Draft Action Research Hunter

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Running head: STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

Strategies in Teaching Scientific Writing in High School Science Classes

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

The three grades were compared and

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

LAB REPRT SCORES (%)

showed no change in overall grade.

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

Lab report scores %

Results before intervention

Results after intervention

Analysis before intervention

Analysis after intervention

Conclusion before intervention

Conclusion after intervention

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

Objective is clearly stated

Hypothesis is clearly stated

Materials are present

Details in procedure including if something is constructed.

What data is collected is mentioned and were it was recorded is written

What calculations that were made is discussed

Calculations are rounded to reasonable decimals.

Data tables present

Data discussed from table

Trends are identified

STRATEGIES IN TEACHING SCIENTIFIC WRITING

A graph is used to display data when necessary

Were there unusual data points? Discuss

Hypothesis and/or objective is restated

Sources of error are discussed with reasons