Supporting Scientific Process Writing in a Fifth-Grade Student-Directed Inquiry Project

• In Event: 45.027 - Supporting Elementary and Middle School Students to Write Scientific Explanations

Abstract

Purpose
This study examined the pedagogical practices of one fifth-grade educator teaching scientific process writing during a six-week, student-directed interdisciplinary inquiry project called the Kids Inquiry Conference (KIC).

Perspectives
Dewey (1938) postulated that inquiry becomes pertinent for learners when their prior expectation and current experience are held in tension, providing basis for authentic learning through a student’s curiosity and interest. The KIC project reflects these modes of inquiry in its teacher-developed curricular plan stating “students' motivation will come from their self-selection of topics,” fostering student agency in their learning. The KIC project is also interdisciplinary, “integrate[ing] learning across reading, writing, listening, speaking and science.” Importantly, this curricular plan is undergirded by the Science and Engineering Practices of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The writing teacher, Mandy (pseudonym), used the writing workshop model (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001) to guide students’ process writing as they articulated their self-directed inquiry consisting of hypothesis, literature review, experiment methods, results, future research, and references section.

Methods and Data Sources
This study used qualitative coding methods (Miles and Hubermann, 1994). Data sources included ten audio transcripts of Mandy’s minilessons, researcher field notes, and KIC curricular documents. Secondary data sources, including writing workshop video and Mandy’s interviews (Seidman, 2013), served as triangulation. Descriptive coding identified Mandy’s talk and actions during workshop (e.g., stating objectives; using anchor charts; modeling). Pattern coding subsequently occurred with respect to salient features of the KIC project, particularly its student-directedness (e.g., flexibility; individual student guidance; range of student goals).

Findings
Modeling and mentorship. Mandy conducted her own study and wrote alongside her students, creating poster-sized anchor charts exemplifying each section of the scientific article. These anchor charts had a presence in Mandy’s classroom, as they covered two entire walls of the space. She also individually coached students one-on-one or in small groups after minilessons.

Enabling students “trying on” scientific terminology. Mandy wrapped scientific language into her minilessons, prompting students to “try on” this language, first by verbalizing what they plan to write aloud (e.g., turn-and-talk to a partner; using sentence stems), and then by writing it as a part of their articles. Mandy also used a number of call-and-response techniques when teaching scientific vocabulary (e.g., variables, hypothesis, conclusion).

Flexibility of goals and time. Mandy made clear that not all students work at the same pace or have the same goals during a given workshop; she explained to her students, “Wherever you are in the process is fine.” This opened up another space for student agency over their learning, as they found multiple pathways to succeed as a writer during workshop.

Significance
These findings help realize possibilities of teachers enabling student ownership over their scientific thinking through writing during self-directed inquiry projects. Through a careful balance of direct instruction via mini-lessons, space for guided practice with scientific discourse, individual guidance, and student autonomy over their inquiry, teachers can authentically cultivate scientific reasoning and explanations through writing with their students.

Author

• Katarina Nicole Silvestri, SUNY - College at Cortland