The Science Writing Heuristic:—An Instructor’s View
“A Reflection by Jason Poock, Assitant Professor of Chemistry, Marshalltown Community College, Marshalltown, Iowa”

This reflection has based on what is called the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH), (Hand and Keys, 1999; Keys, Hand, Prain, and Collins, 1999; Rudd, Greenbowe, and Hand, 2001; Rudd, Greenbowe, Hand, and Legg, 2001; Hand and Prain, 2002). The first question that I always get is, “What is a heuristic?” A heuristic is a tool. It is a problem-solving device. In this case specifically, we use the Science Writing Heuristic to organize how the laboratory classroom functions and how the students write their laboratory reports. So there are two aspects of the Science Writing Heuristic.  One is what happens during the laboratory experiments with respect to the classroom dynamic that is created and the other is the actual writing of laboratory reports. Both parts are used together as a tool for successful understanding of chemical concepts in the freshman laboratory. 

It is hard to explain all that is involved in creating the classroom dynamic when using the Science Writing Heuristic (Poock, Greenbowe, Burke, & Hand, 2004; Poock, Burke, Cantonwine, Greenbowe, & Hand, 2003). It goes go back to constructivism; that knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner (Bodner, 1986). The teacher in charge of the laboratory needs to frame the experiment in such a fashion that students are placed in the center of the learning process. It is like building a puzzle. The first thing that you need to do is build the frame. You have to find all the straight pieces, line them up, and put them together. This gives you a structure in which to work. This pictures the function of the teacher. It is not feasible to let the students pursue every avenue of exploration during a chemistry laboratory session. Also, the teacher has a chemical concept that they wish to impress upon the students. This is where the picture frame comes into use. If the teacher effectively creates a framework inside which the students can work, then the students can put the puzzle together, without going astray. The frame ensures that the students are exploring a concept that the teacher wants to cover. Yet, this structure still allows a degree of student control and initiative. Even though the frame of the puzzle has been put in place, the picture is not complete. The students need to put the puzzle together. After all, they are the learners. Within the framework, they can modify, change, and explore different aspects of the chemical system that the teacher has placed before them. The teacher builds the frame and the students put the puzzle together creating a classroom dynamic that involves both the teacher and the students.

With regard to teacher implementation of the SWH, a number of factors have been found useful in creating an effective classroom dynamic heuristic (Omar, 2004). One is to run the classroom using inquiry strategies to engage the students in an active learning process (Farrell, Moog, & Spencer, 1999). The three stage of the learning cycle (exploration, concept invention, and application) can be utilized to structure the laboratory session around a specific chemical concept that the teacher is trying to impress upon the students (Abraham, 1998).

Another is to let the students discuss their beginning questions at the start of class. After completing the assigned reading for the laboratory experiment, each student comes to the laboratory with a beginning question. The teacher needs to allow the students the opportunity and the time to discuss these questions with each other. The students can form groups and decide on a question they can write on the chalkboard at the front of the room. This sets the stage for the interactions that will take place during the laboratory. The teacher can then use these beginning questions to set up the framework for the experiment or a series of experiments.

Once this framework is in place, the design of the experiment is finalized by the students in the laboratory. Even though the framework presented by the teaching assistant gives a direction to the laboratory experiment, a variety of details are left to be decided by the students. Specifics as to which variables will be investigated, the number of students investigating each variable, what ranges for those variables are experimentally feasible, and what, if any, replication is necessary are left to the students. This results in students taking ownership of the laboratory experiment and becoming more motivated. Greater student engagement and interest in the investigation leads to greater discussion of the concepts later in the session. Ideally, the entire class will be involved with contributing data for the experiments that are being investigated.

The students need to form teams and the various teams need to decide on what experimental data they will contribute to the class in a collaborative project (Shibley & Zimmaro, 2002). Since one team cannot possibly complete all the necessary experiments in the time required, it is necessary for different teams to contribute appropriately to the data set so that all experiments get completed. It is crucial that the teacher not interfere with this process. It seems to be a natural tendency for teachers to group students into teams and delegate what those teams will accomplish. The students need to take control of this step if the SWH is to be effectively utilized. It leads to further dialogue between the students later during the laboratory. They need to make decisions about what team they will be on and how that team is going to contribute to the class experiment. It was observed that when this component is missing from the implementation of the SWH, future dialogue and discussions between the students about the chemical concepts involved in the laboratory did not transpire (Poock, Burke, Cantonwine, Greenbowe, & Hand, 2003).

Another hurdle that the students need to overcome, with the encouragement and prodding of the teacher, is in making use of the chalkboard.  It was surprising how reluctant students were to write their experimental results on the chalkboard. Yet, it is vital that data from the experiment is available for the class to see, use, and analyze. It is also necessary for all the data to be on the chalkboard in order to proceed to the next step in implementing the SWH. That next step is having the teacher frame a class discussion about the experiment, the results, and the concepts that were covered during the laboratory session. These steps are under the guidance of the teacher and necessary for effective implementation of the SWH.

Yet, the teacher is not the only person that has control in the laboratory. The students are in control of their response to the teacher’s direction, and that response determines how influential the SWH is in their learning. Even when the teacher effectively incorporates the SWH, the students may or may not respond in a positive manner. Ideally, the students “jump on the bandwagon” of what the teacher is trying to accomplish and become engaged in the learning process. They begin dialoguing with their fellow students about the experiment and the chemical concepts involved. Students should initiate the formation of teams and make decisions about what variables to investigate, what amounts to use, and how their team can contribute. They can encourage their classmates in recording data on the chalkboard, and help them with difficulties they encounter. Preferably, students should lead and run the discussion at the end of class by reviewing the experiment and the concepts that were the focus of the laboratory.

Student response to the SWH approach can differ from the ideal classroom profile. Often, students will “jump through all the hoops” that the teacher has placed in front of them, but that is the extent of their ambition. Their main objective is to finish following the directions in the lab as quickly as possible and leave the classroom as soon as it is allowed by the teacher. They will form teams, run an experiment, and record their data on the chalkboard as required by the teacher, but intellectual involvement will not take place. They can be unwilling to discuss chemical concepts with their peers and refuse to participate in the end of class discussion. Even with effective teacher implementation of the SWH, the students’ response to the SWH approach will determine the extent of its success, and the students’ success.

The classroom dynamic is not the only aspect of the SWH. Writing is another key component of learning (Kovac & Sherwood, 1999). Instead of a more traditional laboratory report where the students fill in what the teacher tells them to complete (title, purpose, procedure, etc.), the SWH asks the students to respond to questions that resemble scientific research. After reading the assigned laboratory experiment, the students are to develop and write down a beginning question. What questions still remain about the experiment? What experiment do they want to carry out? Are there any chemical concepts they want to investigate to understand them better? One example would be: How does the mass of magnesium sulfate affect the change in temperature of the solution? Beginning questions encourage students to think about the laboratory experiments before they ever enter the classroom. They then need to answer the question of how they will stay safe in the classroom. This way, safety issues must be written in their own words instead of “in one ear and out the other” as the teacher explains safety concerns prior to the experiment. They need to answer the question of designing an experiment in order to proceed. Beginning questions, safety, and procedure sections of laboratory report should be completed prior to class.

During the class, students answer the questions of “What did I see?” and “What did I do?” They need to make observations as any scientist who is investigating a research question would do. They need to write clearly what they have observed and what data they have collected. Then, the students need to make a claim. “What can I claim?” To answer this question they need to review what happened during the laboratory, and summarize it into a one or two sentence statement, a claim. An example of a claim is: As the mass of magnesium sulfate dissolved in solution increases the change in temperature of the solution also increases. They need to answer, “What is my evidence?” The students need to review and organize their data into an argument that defends the claim that they constructed. Last of all, the students need to complete their report by answering questions in the reading and reflection component of their report. This has been a difficult part of the SWH for students. They can discuss how their ideas have changed from their beginning questions, they can ask new questions, or link the concepts from the laboratory to the lecture portion of the course. Throughout the report, an emphasis is placed on the student’s writing skills (Carlisle & Kinsinger, 1977).

            It is not an easy task to help students learn. Yet, I believe that as a teacher I can have an impact on student learning. The SWH is an effective tool at teaching students chemistry concepts in a laboratory setting. It promotes critical thinking, communication, teamwork, and writing skills, as well as generating interest, motivation, and enthusiasm (Poock, Burke, Cantonwine, Greenbowe, & Hand, 2003; Poock, Greenbowe, Burke, & Hand, 2004; Rudd, Greenbowe, & Hand, 2001; Rudd, Greenbowe, Hand, & Legg, 2001).

References

Abraham, M. R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 513-524). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Bodner, G.M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873-878.

Carlisle, E. F., & Kinsinger, J. B. (1977). Scientific writing: A humanistic and scientific course for science undergraduates. Journal of Chemical Education, 54, 632–634.

Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 570-574.

Hand, B., & Keys, C.W. (1999). Inquiry investigations: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66, 27-29.

Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. The Science Educator, 86, 737-755.

Keys, C.W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1081.

Kovac, J. & Sherwood, D. W. (2001). Writing across the chemistry curriculum: An instructor’s handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Omar, S. H. (2004). Inservice teachers’ implementation of the science writing heuristic as a tool for professional growth. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University.

Poock, J. R., Burke, K. A., Cantonwine, D., Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. M. (2003, March). Evaluating the effectiveness of implementing inquiry and the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory: Teaching assistants and students. Presentation at the 225th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, New Orleans, LA.

Poock, J. R., Greenbowe, T. J., Burke, K. A., & Hand, B. M. (2004, March). Effective execution of the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory yields significant results. Presentation at the 227th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, Anaheim, CA.

Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. M. (2001). Recrafting the general chemistry laboratory report. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 230-234.

Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J., Hand, B. M., & Legg, M. J. (2001). Using the science writing heuristic to move toward an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1680–1686.

Shibley, I. A. Jr., & Zimmaro, D. M. (2002). The influence of collaborative learning on student attitudes and performance in an introductory chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 745-748.