The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research
Abstract
The published literature on writing to learn in science was reviewed in order to develop a conceptual framework for readers of this special issue and an agenda for future research. Professional journals, books, ERIC documents, and doctoral dissertations were consulted in this review process. Research on writing to learn has been hindered because studies have not always been well designed or clearly reported, and few have been conducted in authentic classroom environments. Furthermore, the links between writing to learn and conceptual change, and writing to learn and critical thinking have not received sufficient attention. Carefully designed studies, both qualitative and quantitative, are still required to provide data from a variety of perspectives. Because the reported studies at the college level outnumber those at other levels, research is still required to generalize the findings across a variety of science classrooms and to elucidate principles for guiding effective teacher use of writing‐to‐learn strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of research on teaching
Wittrock, M. C. (1986) · Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (Québec government) · Cited by 10,626
Review of research in education
Shulman, L. S., Mowry, S., & Berliner, D. C. (1973) · F.E. Peacock eBooks · Cited by 7,754
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5764 · Cited by 6,847
Education and Learning to Think
(1987) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/1032 · Cited by 1,177
Education and learning to think.
Resnick, L. Β. (1987) · Cited by 883
Emig, J. (2020) · Landmark Essays · doi:10.4324/9781003059219-10 · Cited by 854
Emig, J. A. (1977) · College Composition and Communication · doi:10.2307/356095 · Cited by 753
Moving from the Old to the New: Research on Reading Comprehension Instruction
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170536 · Cited by 741
Children's Metacognition About Reading: issues in Definition, Measurement, and Instruction
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2203 · Cited by 696
周, 義., Cai, G., & Liu, H. (1983) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 657
Cited by
Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research
Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690305018 · Cited by 566
The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study
Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/1098-237x(200009)84:5<566::aid-sce2>3.0.co;2-u · Cited by 440
Self-citationAbell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203824696-21 · Cited by 369
The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis
Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654320914744 · Cited by 292
Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners
Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.10040 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Rivard, L. O. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-11
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 969-983
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W1978454262
- Cited by
- 368
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 23.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.3660310910
- The paper
- Rivard, L. O. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
