Explanation as a genre may support children’s reasoning and understanding particularly effectively. In this study, 20 fourth graders were given the task of explaining the effects of a pollutant on an ecosystem to third graders. Before writing, they completed a commercially developed science unit, instruction in reading and writing an explanation, and text reading. An analysis of their writings revealed that all children used rhetorical devices to connect with third-grade readers. Sixteen children synthesized text content with personal experiences to compose subexplanations that reported information, gave examples, and presented scenarios and that were logically ordered to enhance reader understanding. Nine of these children explicitly used the scientific model to explain phenomena. Outcomes suggested that writing explanations supported children’s reasoning about and understanding of an important scientific model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, T. H., Armbruster, B. B., & Kantor, R. N. (1980). How clearly written are children’s textbooks? Or, of bladderworts and alfa(Reading Education Rep. No. 16). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
2.
Ball, A. F. (1992). Cultural preferences and the expository writing of African American adolescents. Written Communication, 9, 501-532.
3.
Baumann, J. F. (1986). Effect of rewritten content textbook passages on middle grade students’ comprehension of main ideas: Making the inconsiderate considerate. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 1-21.
4.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10, 475-509.
5.
Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and selfregulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221-252.
6.
Calfee, R. C., & Chambliss, M. J. (1987). The structural design features of large texts. Educational Psychologist, 22, 357-378.
7.
Chambliss, M. J. (2001). Analyzing textbook materials in science to determine how “persuasive” they are. Theory Into Practice, 40(4), 255-264.
8.
Chambliss, M. J. (2002). The characteristics of well-designed science textbooks. In J. Otero, J. Leon,& A. Graesser (Eds.), Psychology of science text comprehension(pp. 51-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Chambliss, M. J.,& Calfee, R. C. (1998). Textbooks for learning: Nurturing children’s minds. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
10.
Chapman, M. L. (1994). The emergence of genres: Some findings from an examination of first-grade writing. Written Communication, 11, 348-380.
11.
Chapman, M. L. (1999). Situated, social, active: Rewriting genre in the elementary classroom. Written Communication, 16, 469-490.
12.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P.,& Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
13.
Chi, M. T. H., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M.,& LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
14.
Connors, R. J. (1985). The rhetoric of explanation: Explanatory rhetoric from 1850 to the present. Written Communication, 2, 49-72.
15.
diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10,105-226.
16.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. In R. Driver, E. Guesne,& A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science(pp. 1-9, 193-201). Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
17.
Frederiksen, C. H. (1975). Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 371-458.
18.
Freedman, A. (1996). Genres of argument and arguments as genres. In D. P. Berrill (Ed.), Perspectives on written argument(pp. 91-120). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
19.
Goldman, S. R.,& Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension(pp. 19-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
21.
Hunt, K. (1970). A syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 35(Serial No. 134).
22.
Hurd, P. D., Robinson, J. T., McConnell, M. C.,& Ross, N. M., Jr. (1981). The status of middle school and junior high school science. Louisville, KY: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation.
23.
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203-270.
24.
Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 317-348.
25.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems (Pt. 1 and 2). In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text(pp. 11-64, 269-304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Meyer, K.,& Woodruff, E. (1997). Consensually driven explanation in science teaching. Science Education, 80, 173-192.
27.
National Science Resources Center/Science & Technology for Children. (1994). Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
National Science Resources Center/Science & Technology for Children. (1996). Ecosystems: Student activity book. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.). (1998). The reading-writing connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Newell, G. E. (1998).“How much arewe the wiser?”: Continuity and change in writing and learning in the content areas. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The readingwriting connection: Ninety-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education(Pt. 2, pp. 178-202). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
31.
Newell, G. E.,& Winograd, P. (1989). The effects of writing on learning fromexpository text. Written Communication, 6, 196-217.
32.
Newell, G. E.,& Winograd, P. (1995). Writing about and learning fromhistory texts: The effects of task and academic ability. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 133-163.
33.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
34.
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second languagewriting research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
35.
Rowan, K. E. (1988). Acontemporary theory of explanatory writing. Written Communication, 5, 23-56.
36.
Rowan, K. E. (1990). Cognitive correlates of explanatory writing skill: An analysis of individual differences. Written Communication, 7, 316-341.
37.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing(pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38.
Trabasso, T., Suh, S., Payton, P.,& Jain, R. (1995). Explanatory inferences and other strategies during comprehension and their effect on recall. In R. F. Lorch, Jr. & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading(pp. 219-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 585-609.
40.
Warren, W. H., Nicholas, D. W., & Trabasso, T. (1979). Event chains and inferences in understanding narratives. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing(pp. 23-52). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
