Current Event #1: Literacy-1-
Current Event #1
Literacy
John Olson
Secondary Education 600
March 7, 2007
Research in Secondary Science Education
ArticleThe learning processes of two high-school biology students
when reading primary literature.
Summary
This study investigated the responses, challenges, and successes of two high school students learning new developmental biology concepts from the reading of scientific research articles (primary research). Noting that “the gap between accumulated knowledge in biology and the knowledge that is taught in schools is rapidly widening,” (Brill, Falk, & Yarden, 2004, p. 499,) the researchers investigated “the usage of primary literature in the high-school to close this gap.” The researchers in this study used a “qualitative approach,” (Brill et al. 2004, p. 499) which would allow them to obtain “rich and in-depth data”(p. 499).
The authors introduced the article by questioning what would best help students “become biologically literate” (Brill et al. 2004, p. 498). They acknowledged that “The question of what scientific literacy is or what a literate person should know or be able to do is controversial” (p. 498). Several other opinions of the nature of scientific literacy were cited, but this research focused on the idea that “the reading and comprehension of scientific texts is an important component of scientific literacy, and should be an educational goal” (p. 499).
Working from this premise, a collection of four scientific journal articles were modified for the skill level and background knowledge of twelfth grade biology students (Brill et al. 2004, p. 500). After studying a research article as a class, two students, Yael and Liat, were observed reading an article and working through questions together. The study session was video taped, and the tape and transcripts of their interaction, their questioning techniques, and a closing interview were coded and analyzed (p. 500).
Research strengths
The design of this study was elegantly simple, yet provided a large quantity of data for study. The task given to the two students in the study was “to read the article together and discuss it, but to write down their written answers separately.” (Brill et al. 2004, p. 500). They were also instructed to “speak aloud about the difficulties they encounter during the reading” (p. 500). During the activity, one of the authors of the research article they were reading remained with them in the room as a resource that they could consult if they needed clarification. The students read for an hour and were interviewed for the next half hour (p. 500). The session was video taped, providing a visual and audio record, and a rich transcript to analyze.
“Microanalysis was applied to a transcript that was prepared from the video tape” (Brill et al. 2004, p. 500). The researchers used this transcript to “understand the difficulties they (the students) encountered during the stage of initial reading” (p. 501). The authors coded each “difficulty the students encountered or strategy the student used” (p.501). The articlecontained excerpts from the study transcripts that were well organized into specific categories. Difficulties in reading, reading strategies, miscomprehension, and asking the expert, were some of the major categories. (pp. 502-506)
The researchers’ commentary and observations in this section appeared to be very objective, indicating that they were looking at the specific data and presenting it as they saw it, rather than interpreting the actual data tables. (Brill et al. 2004, pp. 500-506).
Although the students worked through the article together, they each responded individually to the written responses. The researchers noted that “the answers the students wrote down separately served to triangulate the way we interpreted the videotape” (Brill et al. 2004, p. 501). This step helped prevent biases in the data evaluation, and also provided clarity to the reader as to the importance of triangulating data in research.
The researchers included a section of implications (not conclusions) for instruction based on their observations, which included an admonition that “the first reading of coherent texts may result in superficial learning,” and that “mere reading is not enough to stimulate deeper understanding” (Brill et al. 2004, p. 510).
Research weaknesses
There is little to find fault with in this article. It seemed to follow all the guidelines of a qualitative action research investigation. The design was simple, and the documentation and data collection were extensive by comparison. Data coding seemed to be carefully done, and triangulation was used to give perspective.
The fact that the results are based solely on two students does take away from the credibility of some of the findings. All though the data seemed objectively analyzed, it would better support the findings of the study if the same trends were seen in different configurations of students. It would be enlightening to see if the same sort of discourse between students occurred in groups of four or six, rather than in this study where there were only two subjects being observed. Another weakness in the study is that both of the subjects were female. The interactions of two male students may not have provided the same sort of dialog as recorded in this study, and a mixture of genders might have providedyet a different set of data.
Reflection
This article was of great value, in that it provided great clarity as to the nature of a qualitative action research investigation. The design of this research was simple and easy to follow, yet it provided a wealth of information to study, sort and evaluate. It provided a picture of what was going during the learning process of these two students.
This action research also drew attention to the probability that students assigned outside reading from science textbooks and other resources may not be getting a clear picture of what they are reading. This article underscores the need for educators to be aware of the fact that they must teach reading skills and techniques, as well as content to their students. Thepresentation of information was clear, concise, and understandable from start to finish. This ease of reading underscored how important it is to address readers in a manner that allows for understanding and transparency.
References
Brill, G., Falk, H., & Yarden, A. (2004). The learning processes of two high-school biology students when reading primary literature. research report. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 497-512. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from ERIC database.