ABSTRACT
For various reasons there has been strong interest in the value of writing for learning in science over the last ten years. In this context, writing is defined broadly to include not only constructing traditional science texts with diagrams, but also engaging with computer-generated programs. Traditional writing practices, such as note taking and reports, were seen as failing to motivate learners or enhance learning, and in some cases as excluding particular groups from success. This has led to extended analyses of the particular demands of writing types or genres in science, their rationale, and teaching methods (Cope and Kalantzis 1993; Martin and Veel 1998; Unsworth 2000). At the same time, new understandings of the key role of language in learning scientific concepts have prompted new approaches to constructing knowledge of science through exploratory talk and writing (Sutton 1992). Writing about science-related issues was also seen as a key way to develop pupils’ science literacy (Holliday et al. 1994; Kelly and Chen 1999). In addition, the emergence of process and collaborative approaches to writing in other school subjects prompted their use in the science classroom (Sutton 1992; Hildebrand 1998). More recently, researchers such as Cope and Kalantzis (2000) have proposed that multimodal and computer-generated texts, where pupils integrate imagery, sound and writing, should replace a narrow focus on language as the sole medium of learning. Engagement with all these issues has produced strong, contrasting claims about what should count as the main goals, methods, and desired outcomes for effective writing for learning in science.
