Examining the Transfer of Language From Science to Math Writing: As an Epistemic Tool

Abstract

The purpose of this study to examine how students transfer their language practices from science classrooms to math classroom in terms of writing activities. For this aim, 64 5th grade students, who were familiar with the SWH approach that supports multimodal writing from their science classrooms, participated in the study. The students were provided questions to complete a writing activity in their math classrooms in each semester. Multimodal writing samples from two consecutive semesters, and scores of Cornell Critical Thinking (CCT) Test, conducted at the beginning and the end of year, were collected. The findings suggest that students were able to use the writing and representational work from science classrooms to math classrooms, and across time from the first semester to second semester, they improved their math writings in terms of multimodality, and also, writing scores are also significantly predictor of final CCT scores. In conclusion, when students have a rich learning environment, in this context it was the SWH approach, they learn not only content knowledge but also how language can serve as an epistemic tool. It is this use of language that, we believe, is being transferred into new context and is improved by the time.

Full text

The Eurasia Proceedings of
Educational & Social Sciences (EPESS)
ISSN: 2587-1730
- This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License,
permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
*Corresponding author: Ali Cikmaz -icemstoffice@gmail.com
© 2016 Published by ISRES Publishing: www.isres.org
The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences (EPESS), 2016
Volume 4, Pages 298-302
ICEMST 2016: International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology
EXAMINING THE TRANSFER OF LANGUAGE FROM SCIENCE TO
MATH WRITING: AS AN EPISTEMIC TOOL
Ali Cikmaz
Yejun Bae
Brian Hand
Kyong Mi Choi
University of Iowa
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study to examine how students transfer their language practices from
science classrooms to math classroom in terms of writing activities. For this aim, 64 5th grade students, who were
familiar with the SWH approach that supports multimodal writing from their science classrooms, participated in
the study. The students were provided questions to complete a writing activity in their math classrooms in each
semester. Multimodal writing samples from two consecutive semesters, and scores of Cornell Critical Thinking
(CCT) Test, conducted at the beginning and the end of year, were collected. The findings suggest that students
were able to use the writing and representational work from science classrooms to math classrooms, and across
time from the first semester to second semester, they improved their math writings in terms of multimodality,
and also, writing scores are also significantly predictor of final CCT scores. In conclusion, when students have a
rich learning environment, in this context it was the SWH approach, they learn not only content knowledge but
also how language can serve as an epistemic tool. It is this use of language that, we believe, is being transferred
into new context and is improved by the time.
Key Words: Science writing, language, transfer of knowledge, critical thinking
INTRODUCTION
Transferring of Multimodal Writing from Science to Math learning
There is a significant amount of research on the use of writing to learn approaches in science during last few
decades (Gunel, Hand, & McDermott, 2009). The aim of the writing to learn activities is to provide a learning
milieu which promotes students critical thinking (Kieft, Rijlaarsdam, & Van den Bergh, 2008; Klein, Piacente-
Cimini, &Williams, 2007; Zohar & Peled, 2008) and conceptual understanding (Holliday, Yore, & Alvermann,
1994). Findings of previous research show that including writing to learn activities in science classrooms can
have beneficial outcomes on students learning regardless of grade level (Jaubert & Rebierre, 2005; Boscolo &
Mason, 2001; Hand, Wallace, & Yang, 2004, 2004; Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004). The focus of
writing to learn approaches has begun to shift from a process where students need to not only produce text, to
incorporate an emphasis on integrating text with various modes. When scientists and engineers communicate
through writing, they employ diagrams, charts, symbols, equations by integrating with the text (NRC, 2012). The
goal of core science practices is to construct understandings of the knowledge to represent and communicate
science concepts. To achieve these goals, students need to do engage in these practices in a manner similar to
what the scientist do in real settings. Therefore, students should be able to use charts, mathematics, drawings,
and diagrams with integrating text (NRC, 2012). Multimodal representations need to be supported in science
classrooms to promote science learning and communication of ideas.
The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach, which combines inquiry and argumentation with an attention on
language, employs writing-to-learn approaches by promoting multimodal representation during the writing

International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology (ICEMST), May 19 - 22, 2016 Bodrum/Turkey
299
process. Previous research shows that SWH has a significant impact on students’ achievement and Cornell
Critical Thinking Test (CCTT) scores. When students engage with argumentation and writing practices in a
language rich environment, they can have better results in reasoning and achievement rather than non-SWH
classrooms (Chanlen, 2013). Chanlen’s (2013) study highlighted that not only were benefits gained initially
when implementing the SWH approach, with significant gains made each year of continual use. Further to these
results, a recently completed RCT grant using the SWH approach at grade 3-5 showed that benefits are gained in
the disciplines of mathematics and reading. Importantly, significant gains were also made in the rate of growth of
critical thinking skills. Adey and Shayer (2015) have also emphasized the transferability of learning from one
context into another context and situation. After they offered PD for intervention only in science classrooms,
they examined results on not only science but also math and English test results. The findings shows that there is
significant students’ gains on all three area based on test results. Although the intervention was restricted to the
science content, substantial gains were obtained in math and English.
These two studies described above examined and compared the transfer of learning across disciplines based on
standardized tests. In this study, we would like to examine how students transfer writing gains from science
classrooms to math classrooms. The questions guiding this study were;
1. Is there any transfer from science classrooms to math classrooms in terms of writing gains and multi-
modality, although the intervention of SWH approach is restricted with science classrooms?
a. Does students’ math writing improve across time? Is there any improvement in their math writing? If
there is, which components of students’ writing has improvement?
b. Is there any improvement in students’ writing in terms of multi-modal representation?
2. Is there any correlation between CCTT scores and students’ writings?
3. Does students’ writing predict students’ reasoning skills (Critical thinking)?
METHODS
Participants and Design
Participants are 64 5th grade students at a mid-west rural school. They were taught with SWH approach in their
science classrooms, however the teachers were responsible for teaching them both science and mathematics. As
part of their science experiences the students were required to engage in writing and using multimodal
representation. To examine the transfer of use of these language opportunities the students were given a writing
task as part of their mathematics classwork in each semester (fall’14 & spring’15). Besides writing, students had
taken CCTT beginning and the end of the year.
The teachers involved in this study were previously rated as high implementers of the SWH approach. They
agreed to continue to use the approach in science and to undertake to set the writing assignments in mathematics.
They had not previously asked the students to do this type of writing exercise in mathematics and wanted to
examine if the students were able to transfer the work in science in terms of writing and multimodal use into
mathematics.
Table 1. Design of study
Coding
The rubric which was developed by McDermott (2009) was used as a base to analyze students’ writings. The
rubric was originally developed for science writings; therefore, it was modified for the requirement of math
writings. The final form of rubric includes four categories: (1) text assessment, (2) overall cohesiveness, (3)
general non-text mode analysis, and (4) individual mode analysis. Each category has subcategories that are
presented in table 2 in detail.
Table 2. Coding Rubric
Text assessment
Assignment expectations
-Grammatically correct
-Covered required topic
-Accuracy of math concepts
Audience considerations
-Appropriate language
-Identified Key term
Overall cohesiveness
Text tied to alternative modes
Alternative modes linked to each other
Main conceptual idea continually addressed
1st CCTT 1st Writing 2nd Writing 2nd CCTT

International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology (ICEMST), May 19 - 22, 2016 Bodrum/Turkey
300
General non-text mode analysis
Non-Text Mode Type
Total # of different types of Mode
Frequency of use of modes
Modes linked to Main Concepts
Individual non-text mode analysis
Embeddedness strategy
-Type of Mode
-Original
-Caption
-Relation with text
Characteristic of mode
-Accurate
-Conceptual Connection to
Text
-Mode is Self-Explanatory
The graduate students who scored the writing samples had previously used the rubric on scoring science
writings. To analysis the math writings a series of steps were adopted to ensure inter-reliability. First, each scorer
analyzed the same 10 samples with discussion following to discuss about the how to modified this rubric and to
ensure inter-rater agreement was reached. Second, after agreement on modification, in each round, each student
scored 20 samples independently and randomly selected 5 of the scorings to compare the results in terms of
reliability. The coding and scoring was a dynamic and continuously in consensus throughout the process with an
overall, inter-rater reliability 88% (Miles & Hubermann, 1994)
Analytic Approach
Descriptive analysis including means, standard deviations and participant numbers were calculated for each
category of the writing samples. The group differences were examined by computing t-test for each code. By
examining the difference we were able to determine whether there was a development on students’ math writing
across the time, and the transfer is occurred from science classroom to math writings.
Correlations between scores of writing samples and Cornell Critical thinking test (CCTT) scores were calculated.
For the regression analysis, the CCTT scores were matched with students writing scores. The regression analysis
provided a prediction for the second CCTT (end of year) and show if there was an impact of the first CCTT, first
semester writing samples and second semester writing samples on the final CCTT score.
RESULTS
Research Question 1:
Independent t-tests for each category in rubric were computed to compare students writing samples from
consecutive semesters. The results are presented in the table 3. Although there were no significant changes in
text quality and characteristic of modes, overall cohesiveness, and number of modes have a statistically
significant increase. However, the embeddedness of modes had a statistically significant decrease.
Table 3. Comparison of consecutive semester writings
N
Mean
Std. dev.
P value
Text assessment
fall
64
6.08
1.45
.830
spring
64
6.13
0.97
Overall cohesiveness
fall
64
2.61
1.48
.000
spring
64
4.06
1.74
Number of modes
fall
64
1.27
0.45
.000
spring
64
1.64
0.48
Embeddedness
fall
64
2.19
0.69
.004
spring
64
1.81
0.75
Characteristic of modes
fall
64
2.77
0.82
.254
spring
64
2.60
0.86
Research Question 2:
The correlation between overall statistically significant categories and CCTT scores was calculated (Table 4).
There is a significant growth in CCTT scores and writing scores (p<0.001). The correlation between first and
second CCTT is high (.680). The correlation is getting higher from first semester to second semester writing
scores. Second semester writing correlation with final CCTT is getting higher rather than beginning CCTT.

International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology (ICEMST), May 19 - 22, 2016 Bodrum/Turkey
301
Table 4. Descriptive statistic for CCTT and Writing scores, and Correlations
N
Mean
Std. Dev
Correlations
Final CCTT
64
42.234
6.883
Final
CCTT
Beginning
CCTT
Fall
Writing
Beginning CCTT
64
36.250
7.113
.680
Fall Writing
64
6.063
2.088
.220
.043
Spring Writing
64
7.516
2.558
.460
.297
.117
Research Question 3:
A multiple linear regression was calculated to predict students’ CCTT scores based on their beginning CCTT,
fall and spring writing scores. A significant regression equation was found (F (3, 60) = 25.668, p < .000), with an
R2 of .562. Students’ predicted CCTT score is equal to 12.757 + .575 (beginning CCTT) + .539 (fall writing) +
.712 (spring writing). Both beginning CCTT (p<.000) and spring writing (p=.005) were significant predictors of
final CCTT. Fall writing (p=.062) trended toward significant.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the transfer of learning that promotes multimodal science writing into math courses. The
students were familiar with having to use writing and multimodal representations as part of science but not as
part of the normal mathematics instructional approach. The results would appear to indicate that students were
able to using the writing and representational work from science classrooms to math classrooms. Across time
from the first semester to second semester, they improved their math writings in terms of overall cohesiveness of
writing, and number of modes, although their embeddedness of modes slightly decreased. A possible explanation
for this decrease in embeddedness may be nature of the mode they added to use in second semester writing
samples. In the first semester, the common mode the students used was equations. We believe that mathematical
equations require more connection to the text in order to explain the function they are describing. However, in
the second writing task the students added drawings to explain the topic. Drawings, as their nature, can be self-
explanatory; thus, this can be a reason for decreasing in the embeddedness.
There are similar increases between growth in students writing and CCTT scores. These parallel results may be
explained by previous work that indicates that students’ reasoning skills can improved by improving writing
skills (Norton-Meier, Hand, Hockenberry, & Wise, 2008). We believe that learning is a negotiation process and
writing is also negotiation because it is a learning tool. During the writing process, an individual negotiates with
him/herself between his/her prior knowledge and encountered knowledge. This process requires the use of
reasoning skills. Multimodal writing is not only simple writing, it requires more negotiation to integrate mode to
text, so it requires a higher level of self-negotiation. Thus, we would suggest that growth in multimodal writing
skills can support growth in CCTT scores. Besides t-test analysis, Regression analysis also support this idea by
showing both of the writing tasks are significant predictor of final CCTT scores.
As a conclusion, if the students learn with understanding, which is the main goal of the SWH approach, they can
transfer their learning into new context when appropriate tasks are provided. In this study, the students were
taught by teachers who are high implementers of the SWH approach in science classrooms, we believe that
students learned with understanding, and were more aware of the critical role of language in the learning process.
The students were transferring their development of language as an epistemic tool into a new context: math
courses. This resulted in them developing more sophistication on multimodal writing in newer contexts.
Limitations and Implications
This study was conducted in only one school district and all the students were familiar with SWH; therefore,
there is no control group to compare the CCTT scores. Because the maturation can be an important factor for
increasing in the CCTT scores, firm causal claims are difficult to make in this conditions. Moreover, the size of
data should be larger than the number that is used in this study. The planned number was larger than 150
students, but in nature of data collection procedure, the number was decreased.
One important implication of this research is that when students have a rich learning environment, in this context
it was the SWH approach, they learn not only content knowledge but how language can serve as an epistemic
tool. It is this use of language that we believe is being transferred into new context and is improved by the time.

International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology (ICEMST), May 19 - 22, 2016 Bodrum/Turkey
302
REFERENCES
Adey, P., & Shayer, M., (2015). The Effects of Cognitive Acceleration. In Socializing intelligence through
academic talk and dialogue. (pp. 127-143). AERA.
Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In Writing as a learning tool (pp. 83-104).
Springer Netherlands.
Chanlen, N. (2013). Longitudinal analysis of standardized test scores of students in the science writing heuristic
approach.
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school
students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and instruction, 19(4), 354-367.
Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. M. (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning
outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh‐grade science: quantitative and qualitative
aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.
Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading–science learning–writing connection:
Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of research in science teaching, 31(9), 877-893.
Jaubert, M., & Rebiere, M. (2005). Learning About Science Through Writing*.L1-Educational Studies in
Language and Literature, 5(3), 315-333.
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude–treatment interaction approach to writing-
to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379-390.
Klein, P. D., Piacente-Cimini, S., & Williams, L. A. (2007). The role of writing in learning from
analogies. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 595-611.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
National Research Council, (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education:: Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press.
Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The
important place of argument in children's science writing. Heinemann.Yoon, S. Y. (2012). Dual
processing and discourse space: exploring fifth grade students' language, reasoning, and understanding
through writing.
Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low-and high-
achieving students. Learning and instruction, 18(4), 337-353.