The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh‐grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects
Abstract
Science laboratory activities within secondary science have traditionally followed prescriptive outlines both in the structure and reporting of the activity. Building on current understandings of writing to learn science strategies, a Science Writing Heuristic has been developed that encourages students to examine laboratory activities much more carefully in terms of having to justify their research questions, claims and evidence. This study reports on the implementation of the heuristic within a Year 7 biology classroom. A mixed‐method approach was used to determine whether student performance on conceptual questions improved when using the heuristic and if using a more non‐traditional write‐up of laboratory activities was beneficial for students in terms of learning. Results indicate that students who used the Science Writing Heuristic performed better as a group than students who did not, and that students who completed a textbook explanation as a write‐up performed better as a group than those who completed a more traditional write‐up format. Student interview responses indicate a development of understanding of science inquiry and an awareness of cognitive and metacognitive processes needed to complete the activities.
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
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
Self-citationSchroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y. (2007) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20212 · Cited by 474
The Complex World of Adolescent Literacy: Myths, Motivations, and Mysteries
BIRR MOJE, E., OVERBY, M., TYSVAER, N., & MORRIS, K. (2008) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.78.1.54468j6204x24157 · Cited by 374
Abell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203824696-21 · Cited by 369
Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20032 · Cited by 353
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-02-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 131-149
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W2010061266
- Cited by
- 251
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 44.64
- 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: Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh‐grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0950069032000070252
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070252
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.