Abstract
Graham (A writer(s) within community model of writing. In Bazerman C, Berninger V, Brandt D, Graham S, Langer J, Murphy S, Matsuda P, Rowe D, Schleppegrell M (eds) The lifespan development of writing. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, pp 271–335, 2018) developed a writer(s) in context model to explain writing and its development. The central component of the model is the writing community in which writing takes place. A writing community includes the following components: purpose, writing tools, members (writers, audience), actions, social and physical context, collective history, and the writing task(s). These features drive, shape, and constrain the act of writing within each writing community. The task of writing is further constrained by what members of the writing community bring to the task of writing, including varying levels of knowledges and beliefs, facility in managing and regulating the act of writing, and mastery of basic writing processes. This chapter examines the implications of this model in terms of promoting quality learning in school science through the use of writing as a means for promoting student science learning. This includes establishing an agenda of research in writing to learn in science based on the person in context model presented here.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Applebee, A. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577–596.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). London: Taylor & Francis.
Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 408–425). New York: Guilford.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Eduational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & House, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades k-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Gillespie, A., Graham, S., & Compton, D. (2017). Writing to learn in science. Journal of Educational Research, 110, 366–379.
Goldman, S. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357–398.
Graham, S. (2018a). A writer(s) within community model of writing. In C. Bazerman, V. Berninger, D. Brandt, S. Graham, J. Langer, S. Murphy, P. Matsuda, D. Rowe, & M. Schleppegrell (Eds.), The lifespan development of writing (pp. 271–335). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Graham, S. (2018b). The writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53, 258–279.
Graham, S., Fishman, E., Reid, R., & Hebert, M. (2016). Writing characteristics of students with ADHD and their normally achieving peers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 75–89.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing-to-read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescent middle and high school. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (2012). Motivation: Past, present, and future. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 367–397). Washington, DC: APA.
Hand, B. (2008). Introducing the science writing heuristic approach. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument, and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effects of multiple writing tasks on 10 biology students’ understanding of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35, 343–373.
Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
Hayes, J. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369–388.
Jacob, R., & Parkinson, J. (2015). The potential for school-based interventions that target executive function to improve academic achievement: A review. Review of Educational Research, 85, 512–552.
Kellogg, R. (1993). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kiuhara, S., Bangert-Drowns , S., & Hawken, L. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160.
Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203–270.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, S. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moje, E., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. (2001). Maestro, what is “quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 469–498.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pass, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rapport-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S., Lim, S., Lapinski, S., Robinson, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Universal design for learning and elementary school science: Exploring the efficacy, use, and perceptions of a web-based science notebook. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1210–1225.
Rivard, L. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969–983.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
Wolfe, E., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Niday, D. (1996). The influence of student experience with word processors on the quality of essays written for a direct assessment. Assessing Writing, 3, 123–147.
Zeider, M., & Matthews, G. (2012). Personality. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 111–137). Washington, DC: APA.
Zimmerman, B., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Graham, S. (2019). Writers in Community Model: 15 Recommendations for Future Research in Using Writing to Promote Science Learning. In: Prain, V., Hand, B. (eds) Theorizing the Future of Science Education Research. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 49. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24013-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24013-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24012-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24013-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)