Writing with 'Voiced' in Science

Monahan, M. B. (2013). Writing “voiced” arguments about science topics. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(1), 31-40.

Background

The author’s students produced expository writing that lacked voice—conviction, commitment, and command of the subject matter. They were used to writing to inform, but not to persuade.

Aims

The author, a sixth-grade teacher of both science and English, aimed to improve her students’ argument writing proficiency in order to meet the USA Common Core State Standards. She believed that teaching her students argumentative writing in conjunction with a shared investigation of science topics would promote greater voice and would engage students in the collaborative building of substantive subject knowledge.

Sample

This study involved the work of 26 sixth graders—13 girls and 13 boys—who attended an upper elementary (Grades 4–6) school.

Method

Students underwent a six-week problem-based inquiry unit on voice. They viewed a video posing a scientific problem, used various graphic organizers to help focus their attention on critical features, and recorded other information in logs and quick-writes on successive viewings in order to clarify their evolving understanding of the problem and the content. Explicit instruction on a general model of argument was provided. Students participated in a debate. They then wrote reflections, adding new evidence, counterclaims and rebuttals to their organizers. Finally, students were supported in writing their arguments with a teacher model, rubrics for the essay, and individualized writing conferences. All 26 essays were coded for themes related to voice, and the 11 essays that stood out as more clearly voiced were further analysed linguistically.

Findings

The 11 more clearly voiced texts showed students using a first-person point of view with active rather than passive verbs, making their positions as authors clear and assuming full responsibility for their assertions. They used linguistic patterns that expressed opposition with others who held different theories. Authors of these texts also exhibited a more active and interactive relationship to the subject matter. They addressed content problems from the debate, used different frames of reference to make sense of those problems, and integrated several ideas to make their case.

Implications

The author conceded that while her students’ science knowledge and argumentative writing had developed from the unit, their argumentation was outside the disciplinary boundaries of scientific writing. Their authorial and aggressive voice would undermine their persuasiveness within the field of science. She thus highlighted the need for language and subject teachers to coordinate instruction to ensure that students understood both general and discipline-specific models of argumentative writing.

Original article retrieved from EBSCOHost.