Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 106–110 | Cite as

Science and thinking: The write connection

  • Gene Butler


The effective use of writing in science instruction may open the way for students to grow in their ability to exercise higher order thinking skills (Bland & Koppel, 1988). Scinto (1986) makes a compelling case for writing as a means of stimulating thinking when he states:

The production of written text demands more elaborate strategies of preplanning. Written language demands the conscious organization of ensembles of propositions to achieve its end. The need to manipulate linguistic means in such a conscious and deliberate fashion entails a level of linguistic self-reflection not called forth in oral discourse (p. 101).

Science educators may find that the writing process is one technique to help them move away from the teacher-centered, textbook-driven science classroom of today, and move toward the realization of science education which will ensure that students are able to function as scientifically literate citizens in our contemporary society.


Science Teacher Science Achievement Thinking Skill Educational Leadership Writing Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Applebee, A. N. (1981).Writing in the secondary school (Research Report No. 21). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989).Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Beyer, B. K. (1984). Improving thinking skills-defining the problem.Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 486–490.Google Scholar
  4. Beyer, B. K. (1984). Improving thinking skills — practical approaches.Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 556–560.Google Scholar
  5. Bland, C. & Koppel, I. (1988). Writing as a thinking tool.Educational Leadership, 45(7), 58–60.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  7. Crow, L. W., & Haws, S. G. (1985, April).The effects of teaching logical reasoning upon students’ critical thinking and science achievement. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. French Lick Springs, IN.Google Scholar
  8. Eichinger, J. (1990). Science education in the United States.School Science and Mathematics, 90, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holdzkom, D. & Lutz, P. (Eds.). (1984).Research within reach: science education. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  10. Hull. G., & Bartholomae, D. (1986). Teaching writing as learning and process.Educational Leadership, 45(7), 44–53.Google Scholar
  11. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1988).Science achievement in seventeen countries. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  12. Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughs, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., & Suhor, C. (1988).Dimensions of thinking: a frame work for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development..Google Scholar
  13. Mullis, I. V., & Jenkins, L. B. (1988).The science report card: Elements of risk and recovery. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  14. Olson, C. B. (1984) Fostering critical thinking skills through writing.Educational Leadership, 41(11), 28–39.Google Scholar
  15. Osborn, J. H., Jones, B. F., & Stein, M. (1985). The case for improving textbooks.Educational Leadership, 42(7), 9–16.Google Scholar
  16. Pradl, G. M., & Mayher, J. S. (1985). Reinvigorating learning through writing.Educational Leadership, 44(5), 4–6.Google Scholar
  17. Scinto, L. F. M. (1986).Written language and psychological development. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Walshe, R. D. (1987). The learning power of writing.English Journal, 76(6), 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yeany, R. H., Yap, K. C., & Padilla, M. J. (1986). Analyzing hierarchical relationships among modes of cognitive reasoning and integrated science process skills.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 277–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for the Education of Teachers in Science 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gene Butler
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Curriculum and InstructionClark County School DistrictLas Vegas

Personalised recommendations