1

Science Notebook Writing in First and Second Grade

Over the past two decades, science educators have increasingly examined the role of

literacy in learning science content (Akerson, 2008; Saul, 2004). This research indicates writing-

to-learn during science instruction can enhance students’ scientific understandings. These

findings have led to recommendations that elementary students write in science notebooks to

record questions, observations, and reflections while engaging in scientific inquiry (Kotelman,

Saccani, & Gilbert, 2006). However, most research on science notebooks comes from upper

elementary and middle school classrooms. As a result, little is known about primary students’

notebook use, how science notebooks contribute to their learning, or how teachers can support

their notebook writing. The purpose of this study was to explore how first and second graders

write in science notebooks and how they use their writing to make sense of science content. The

research questions were: How did students represent their scientific understandings and

reasoning on the notebook page? How did these representations reflect and support the science

concepts the lesson was designed to teach?

Theoretical Framework

This study works from the position that science can serve as an important context for

learning to write, while writing can serve as an important context for learning science content

(McQuitty, Dotger, & Khan, 2010). Inquiry-based science instruction provides a meaningful

occasion for students to write because writing is a natural part of science experimentation.

Scientists must record the questions, procedures, and findings of their work, and children can do

the same as they conduct scientific investigations in their classrooms. At the same time, writing

about science concepts in different genres and for different audiences can improve students’

understandings of science content (Gunel, Hand, & Prain, 2007). Thus, writing and science

2

instruction can work together to improve both children’s scientific knowledge and their writing

skills.

In this study, we draw upon both cognitive and sociocultural theories of writing-to-learn

science. Cognitive theories posit that writers clarify, elaborate, and transform their

understandings as they shape their compositions for specific audiences and purposes (Klein,

1999). During writing, authors retrieve information from long-term memory and reorganize and

adapt it to fit their goals and the needs of their readers (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Organizing the

information in a new way leads writers to see previously unnoticed connections between ideas,

which facilitates their deeper conceptual understanding of the topic. When students write in their

science notebooks, they revisit the concepts they experienced during hands-on inquiry by

recording the data generated during the investigation, writing claims about the scientific

generalizations at work, and providing written evidence to support the claims they make.

Reorganizing the data into the framework of observation, claims, and evidence allows students to

connect their first-hand observations to larger scientific principles, which should lead to deeper

science learning.

From a sociocultural standpoint, writers reorganize information into genres that are

culturally constructed and culturally acceptable forms of writing (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1993).

Because genres embody cultural values and ways of thinking, writing a particular genre can

teach the writer to think like the group that utilizes the genre. Thus, writing can potentially

enhance discipline-specific ways of thinking as well as conceptual understanding of content.

Science notebooks, for example, require students to think, via their writing, in the ways valued

by scientists. In order to record data, make claims based on the data, and provide specific data

points as evidence for claims, students must engage in both the actions and thought processes of

3

scientists—conducting an investigation, systematically collecting data, identifying patterns

within the data, and presenting a well-reasoned argument about the data represents scientific

concepts at work. Writing, then, provides an opportunity for students to learn scientific ways of

being and thinking.

While writing can theoretically lead to learning, it does not always do so (Klein, 1999),

particularly for young children. This may be because writing-to-learn depends on moderately

sophisticated composing strategies that exceed those used by novice writers (Klein, 2000).

However, only a few studies have examined science notebook writing with young children, and

the paucity of research makes it difficult to determine the utility of science notebooks in first and

second grade. Shepardson (1997) and Shepardson and Britsch (2001) found that most primary

students used drawing and writing to recontextualize their scientific exploration through

imaginative worlds—that is, they represented imaginary settings and events integrated with the

science experience. Only a few children represented their prior real-world experience integrated

with the science experience or the science experience itself. The researchers argue that

recontextualizing the investigation helped children construct science understandings by linking

new ideas with their old knowledge, but it is difficult to know exactly how this writing

contributed to their learning.

In another study, Shepardson and Britsch (2000) found primary grade children used

drawing and writing to label, describe, and characterize their use of materials during the science

investigation. The children focused primarily on materials in their writing rather than on the

science concepts the materials demonstrated. For example, instead of documenting the mixing

and separating processes under investigation, many children recorded only final state of the

4

separated earth materials. The authors concluded the children were representing the science

activity in their notebooks and not their science understanding (p. 33).

Given the findings of these few studies, it difficult to discern how, or even if, science

notebook writing contributes to young children’s scientific understandings. This study addresses

this gap by examining how young children used science notebooks as a component of hands-on,

inquiry-oriented science instruction.

Method

This qualitative case study was conducted in one first grade and one second grade

classroom. In the first grade class, students conducted an investigation about air by exploring

how air interacted with different materials. The study authors, Vicki and Sharon, taught the

lesson as a part of an ongoing program of research on integrating inquiry-based science

curriculum and science notebook writing. We taught this lesson in the classroom of a teacher

participating in the research project, and several other teachers in the school attended to learn

more about inquiry science teaching.

In the second grade classroom, students used magnets, paper clips, and an index card to

explore the question, “Can magnets move an object without touching it?” This lesson was

designed and taught by a group of second grade teachers as a part of a professional development

initiative focused on inquiry science instruction and science notebook use. John was the teacher

primarily responsible for leading the lesson, but other group members contributed comments to

the class from time to time and helped individual students throughout the lesson.

Data Collection

In each class, we observed and video recorded the lesson, including students writing in

their science notebooks. In both lessons, the science notebooks consisted of preprinted pages

5

with space for students to write (see Figures 1 and 2)1. We then collected the notebook entries

and, the following day, interviewed each student (12 first graders, 12 second graders) about what

she or he wrote. The semi-structured interviews were audio recorded and began with the prompt:

“Tell me about what you wrote in your notebook and why you wrote it.” Follow up questions

asked students to (1) clarify their initial explanations and (2) explain the portions of their

notebook entry they did not discuss in response to the initial prompt. Each interview ended with

the questions: (1) Now that we’ve talked about your notebook, is there anything you remember

from the lesson that wasn’t in your notebook entry? and (2) If you were to tell a friend not in this

class about your science notebook, what would you say?

The Lessons

Because the science notebook entries were tied closely to how the lessons were taught,

the children’s writing can only be understood in relationship to what occurred during the lessons.

As a result, it necessary to describe the two lessons to provide basis for understanding what the

children wrote in their science notebooks.

The first grade lesson. The first grade lesson, which we taught ourselves, involved

children in exploring how air acted on the following materials: balloon, feather, 4x4 square of

20-lb (copy) paper, quarter-inch Styrofoam ball, cotton ball, bendable drinking straw, and

balloon pump. The objective of the investigation was for students to understand that air is matter.

The lesson began with Sharon (second author) asking the children, “What do you know about

air?” As the class generated ideas and Sharon facilitated the discussion, she recorded the

children’s comments on the chalkboard. Vicki (first author) then told them they should work to

include details about their observations in their science notebooks. She demonstrated how make

1 Due to size of the figures of the science notebook entries, they are not embedded in the paper, but are available upon request.

6

a two-column chart on the board and write the column headings “What I Did” and “What I Saw.”

The children then copied the chart onto their own notebook pages.

Sharon showed the children each material they would have and demonstrated how to

blow up the balloon with the balloon pump and then let the air out. Vicki demonstrated how to

write about “What I Did” and “What I Saw” in the chart by giving the example “I blew through

the straw on the foam ball” and writing the statement in the appropriate chart column. The

children then began to use the materials. They primarily worked on blowing up the balloons,

using the pumps, their mouths, and even the drinking straws. After about 10 minutes, Sharon

directed the children to put the balloons away so they would explore with the other materials.

During exploration, a few children spontaneously wrote in their science notebooks, but

most did not record what they did or saw unless we reminded them to do so. After about 25 of

total exploration time, we asked the children to put the materials away and write “one more

thing” they did and saw in an effort to encourage all the children to record an observation. We

further tried to encourage the notebook writing by asking a student to give an example of

something she saw and did during the exploration, and Vicki demonstrated how to write it in the

chart on the chalkboard.

The students wrote in their charts for about three minutes. Once most had finished

writing, Sharon demonstrated on the board how to make a two-column chart with the column

headings “What I Learned” and “I Know This Because.” We designed the chart as a way for the

children to write claims (What I Learned) and evidence (I Know This Because) based on the

observations they recorded about the investigation. The children copied the chart into their

science notebooks and then wrote in it for about 10 minutes. When most had finished writing,

which Sharon asked them to complete the sentence starter “I wonder what would happen if…”

7

preprinted on their notebook pages. This portion of the lesson was a little bit rushed because it

was time for the class to prepare to end the school day.

The second grade lesson. The second grade lesson on magnetism involved the children

in using magnets, paper clips, and an index card to determine how to move an object without

touching it. The objective of the lesson was for students to understand magnetism is a force that

can move objects. The lesson began with John telling the students he had a disagreement with

another teacher, Miss Smartypants. Miss Smartypants told him, “Magnets can move an object

without touching it.” He said he told Miss Smartypants it wasn’t possible to move something

without touching it, and Miss Smartypants challenged him to have his students find out if she

was correct or if he was. John showed the students the materials they would use: a magnet, two

paper clips, an index card, a pencil, a penny, and a book. He posted the question, “Can a magnet

move an object without touching it?” on the chalkboard and asked the children to write a

prediction to answer the question in their science notebooks. After students completed their

predictions, John told the class they should draw their observations during the investigation and

label them. The children then began working in groups to move one of the objects without the

magnet touching it.

The children explored with the materials, attempting different ways to move the various

objects with the magnets. After about five minutes, every group had determined that the magnet

could move an object through the index card. While a few students drew their observations while

exploring, many did not, so John specifically asked the children to now draw and label their

observations on the science notebook pages. He asked, “Because something moved, how could

you represent movement with a picture?” The class discussed drawing an object in two different

8

places on the page and using arrows to show movement. The children then began drawing and

labeling in their notebooks.

The children wrote for about six minutes, and John then asked them to look at the

sentence starter, “Draw Conclusions: Can a magnet move an object without touching it? How do

you know?” printed at the bottom of the notebook page. The class read the sentence starter aloud

together, and then the students began writing. They wrote for about 10 minutes, and then the

lesson ended.

Data Analysis

Student interviews were transcribed, and the transcripts and science notebook entries

were coded through constant comparison to identify emerging themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

First, we coded the representations in the science notebooks. As we read through the notebook

entries, we developed initial descriptors of their content: extraneous ideas, ideas related to the

lesson, materials representation, recording science exploration, recording observations, implicit

science concepts, explicit science concepts, inferred science concepts, causes, effects, claims,

evidence, personal experience and reactions, and additional information. We developed these

descriptors based on how the representations in the notebooks reflected and supported the

science concepts the lessons were designed to teach. For example, in the first grade entries about

air, we examined how the writing represented air’s effect on objects. In the second grade entries

about magnetism, we examined how the writing represented the relationship between the

magnet’s movement and the motion of the objects students explored.

As we coded the notebook entries, we occasionally struggled to interpret what a child

wrote or drew. Ally, for instance, drew a magnet, piece of paper, and paper clip (Figure 3), but it

was unclear if the drawing represented how she arranged the objects on the table during the

9

investigation. In order to clarify the drawing, we read Ally’s interview transcript. During the

interview, we had asked, “Why did you put the magnet here and the paper over here and the

paper clip over there?” and she answered, “Because I used the magnet first, then the paper clip,

then the paper.” Thus, we concluded her drawing represented only the materials she used, not

how she used them. We also read the interview transcripts of children whose handwriting we

could not read. In many cases, the children read their notebook entry during the interview, which

allowed us to identify the words they wrote.

From the categories derived through open coding, we developed an initial continuum,

from less to more sophisticated, describing how students represented their scientific

understandings and reasoning on the notebook page. We then read the notebook entries again,

attempting to place each entry into a single category. However, because the children included

different ideas in different parts of their writing, we decided to place each component of each

notebook entry into a category. In the first grade notebooks we separately coded (1) each column

of the “What I Did/What I Saw” chart, (2) each column of the “What I Learned/I Know This

Because” chart, and (3) the “I wonder what would happen if…” statement. When children

included more than one statement in a chart column, we coded each statement. In the second

grade notebooks, we separately coded (1) the labeled drawings and (2) the written conclusion. In

cases where a child wrote different ideas in different parts of their conclusion, we separately

coded each sentence or group of sentences to categorize the range of ways the student

represented their science ideas in this section.

As we placed children’s writing on the initial continuum, we collapsed, refined, added,

and reordered categories. We also described the characteristics of entries in each category. For

example, for the category Representing Materials, we developed the following description:

10

“Drawing or writing about the materials used in the investigation without describing how they

were used or the science concepts the materials demonstrated.” These descriptions guided our

ongoing analysis of the notebook entries. After each refinement of the coding categories and

descriptions, we reread and recoded all the notebook entries, making certain the new categories

accounted for the entire data set. Through this constant comparison of the science notebooks, we

developed a framework that described the representations students included in their writing.

The lesson videos were used as a reference to provide context for interpreting the science

notebook entries and students’ interview comments about their writing. For example, in the

interviews several children indicated they “didn’t have time” to complete their notebook entries.

When we watched these children writing on the video, however, we noted they wrote for only

part of the time allotted to the science notebooks. Thus, it appeared the children had time to write

but chose not to do so.

Findings

The children represented their understandings in their science notebooks in several

distinct ways. We identified ten categories of representation that fell along a continuum from

generally less to more sophisticated:

(0) No writing, in which a child did not draw or write a representation. (1) Representing extraneous ideas, in which a child drew or wrote about ideas unrelated

to the science investigation. (2) Representing commentary on the science experience, in which a child drew or wrote

about the personal experience of conducting the science investigation, such as personal reactions, feelings, and narrative accounts of the investigation.

(3) Representing claims based in personal evidence, in which a child drew or wrote

claims based on sources of evidence unrelated to the data generated in the science investigation.

11

(4) Representing static materials, in which a child drew or wrote about the materials used in the investigation without describing how the materials were used or the science concepts the materials demonstrated.

(5) Representing materials exploration, in which a child drew or wrote about how he/she

used materials in the investigation.

(a) Unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts. These representations did not reflect or support the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.

(b) Related to the lesson’s science concepts. These representations reflected and

supported the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.

(6) Representing observations, in which a child drew or wrote about what he/she observed during the investigation.

(a) Unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts. These representations did

not reflect or support the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.

(b) Related to the lesson’s science concepts. These representations reflected,

implicitly, the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.

(7) Representing materials exploration and observations, in which a child drew or wrote about both how materials were used in the investigation and about what he/she observed during the investigation.

(a) Uncoordinated representations. Representations of materials exploration and

observations did not demonstrate cause and effect. (b) Coordinated representations. Representations of materials exploration and

observations demonstrated cause and effect. (8) Representing scientific claims and evidence for those claims, in which a child drew or

wrote a claim about the lesson’s science concepts and corresponding evidence for that claim generated during the investigation. These representations explicitly describe the relationship between materials exploration and the effects of manipulating the materials.

(9) Representing an explanation of science concepts, in which a child drew or wrote

about why a scientific phenomenon was observed.

In the following sections we present examples and analysis of notebook entries in each category

of the framework.

12

No writing

A few children did not complete their science notebooks entries, leaving one or more

notebook sections without any representation of ideas. Trisha (Figures 4 and 5), for example, left

blank one column of the “What I Did/What I Saw” chart and the entire “What I Learned/I Know

This Because” chart. Similarly, both Carter (Figure 6) and Valerie (Figure 7) did not complete

the “I Know This Because” section of the “What I Learned/I Know This Because” chart.

In the interviews, children with uncompleted notebook entries uniformly stated they

“didn’t have time” to finish their writing. Evidence from the lesson videos, however, indicates

these children wrote for only a portion of science notebook writing time. This suggests students

did “have time” to write but chose not to do so. For example, Valerie wrote for less than two of

the nine minutes allocated to completing the “What I Learned/I Know This Because” chart.

During this time, she looked at her paper, looked around the room, watched other children

writing, and talked with other students sitting at her table. She wrote intermittently while

engaging in these other activities but appeared uncertain about what to put on the notebook page.

Representing Extraneous Ideas

One child, Alana, represented ideas extraneous to the science investigation. She drew a

picture of the park at top of her science notebook page (Figure 8) and on the back of it (Figure

9). When asked about these drawings in the interview, she stated, “That’s a park and a drawing

about my dad because I’m going to my daddy’s house.” This representation did not relate to the

science lesson and instead portrayed an out-of-school experience that was apparently important

to the child.

Representing extraneous ideas was more sophisticated than representing no ideas at all.

For students who leave portions of their science notebook entries blank, learning to write

13

something may be a step forward. However, extraneous ideas have limited usefulness because

those representations do not help children reflect on the science concepts under investigation in a

lesson.

Representing Commentary on the Science Experience

Several students wrote about their personal reactions to conducting the investigation or

gave a narrative account of how they conducted it. Kate, for example, wrote in her conclusion “I

just made a new discovery” and “I am proud of myself” (Figure 12), while Natalie wrote “It took

lots of work” (Figure 13). Several first graders, including Alana (Figure 8) and Bryan (Figure 11)

wrote that, “I learned to blow up a balloon.” These representations focused on students’

experiences conducting the science investigations rather than on the scientific ideas embedded in

the investigation.

Children’s commentaries on their science experience were slightly more sophisticated

than extraneous information. These representations did relate, if tangentially, to the science

investigation, which can be viewed as a step forward from writing or drawing ideas irrelevant to

science. However, narrating and commenting on the experience of conducting inquiry does not

fit the genre used by scientists. In addition, these commentaries did not address the science

concepts under investigation in the lesson, and as a result, provided limited opportunities for

students to reflect on science content. While we value giving student the opportunity to express

their feelings and reactions to their science experiences, the purpose of the science notebook, as

we have defined it, is to engage students in the genre of science writing.

Representing Claims Based in Personal Evidence

A few children based the claims they made on personal evidence rather than evidence

gathered through the science investigation. Henry made two claims: “Using the pumper gun and

14

get air in it” and “We can blow the balloon.” As evidence for these claims, in the “I Know This

Because” column of the chart, he wrote “I saw it and I did it. That’s how” (Figure 10). In his

chart, Bryan claimed, “I learned to blow up a balloon” and provided, “Teachers told me and I

never knew how to blow a balloon up” as evidence (Figure 11). Kate, a second grader, claimed

the magnet could move an object without touching it and gave as evidence, “I know this because

I was exploring and then it came up in my brain and I did it. It also worked” (Figure 12).

Each of these students gave evidence based in personal experiences rather than in data

from the inquiry conducted during the lesson. Henry had observed the pump “get air in it” and

had inflated the balloon, and his evidence for the validity of these claims was simply that he had

witnessed and participated in the events. Similarly, Kate’s evidence that magnets move objects

was based on the fact it had “worked” during the investigation. Bryan’s evidence, though also

based in personal experience, was slightly different. He argued he learned to blow up a balloon

because the “teachers told me” how to do it. The basic line of reasoning in the evidence given by

each student was “I know the claim is true because I experienced it.”

Notably, each of the claims for which the children provided personal evidence was an

observation of what occurred during the investigation. Because they restated their observations

as claims, rather than providing observations as evidence for claims about air or magnetism, the

only way to support the claim was to provide personal experience as evidence. As a result, the

argument “I know the claim is true because I experienced it” made sense with the claims the

children made. However, the genre of science notebooks requires claims and evidence based on

data gathered during experimentation. Thus, representations rooted in personal experience do not

fit the genre of the science notebook.

15

Although basing claims in personal evidence does not reflect the thinking or writing

valued by scientists, these representations were more sophisticated than representations of

extraneous ideas because, like commentary, they related to the science investigation. However,

personal evidence may be considered slightly more sophisticated than commentary because the

children used a novice form of argumentation, a genre valued by scientists, rather than simply

representing their personal reactions to the inquiry experience.

Representing Static Materials

Two students represented the materials used in the investigation without indicating how

those materials were manipulated. Ally drew the magnet, paper, and paper clip used by her

group, but she drew only the objects (Figure 3), not what the group did with them while

exploring. Similarly, Alana drew the balloon pump with the straw laying beside it (Figure 14)

rather than showing how she used the pump to blow the straw. These drawings were simply a

record of the materials students used and did not represent the inquiry process or the science

concepts under investigation. Rather than conveying materials use, interactions and relationships

between the materials, or how the materials changed during the investigation, Ally and Alana

represented the materials as static.

Although representing materials did not reflect the scientific phenomena under

investigation, it was more sophisticated than claims based in personal evidence because it was an

objective, as opposed to experiential, representation of the inquiry. Furthermore, representing

materials is a necessary component of recording a scientific investigation. Scientists document

the materials they use to conduct experiments, and Ally and Alana did the same. Unlike personal

commentary and evidence, representing materials fit the genre of the science notebook.

Representing Materials Exploration

16

A majority of students represented not only the materials they used during the lesson but

also how they used them. These representations fell into two categories: those unrelated to the

investigation’s science concepts and those related to the investigation’s science concepts.

Unrelated materials exploration was typically rooted in play rather than scientific investigation.

Valerie, for example, wrote three sentences that represented how she explored the materials in an

imaginative way: “And the feather you can pretend to make it a crown,” “The straw is the straw

of a Hi-C box,” and “You can pretend [the piece of paper] is a house” (Figure 15). Alana also

represented an imaginative exploration of the materials. At the bottom of the notebook page

(Figure 16), she drew the paper square with the straw below it and the cotton ball with the straw

and foam ball on top. In her interview, she explained the paper and straw represented “a boat that

floats” and the cotton ball, straw, and foam ball represented “a light with a feather on it.” She

also drew a squiggly line across the “What I Learned/I Knew This Because” chart and indicated

in the interview it was “a spread out cotton ball.”

Each of these representations of materials exploration was unrelated to the science

concepts the lesson was designed to teach. Valerie’s writing and Alana’s paper/straw and cotton

ball/straw/foam ball drawings represented a creative use of the materials, while Alana’s “spread

out cotton ball” represented how she used the material in a way that did not illuminate how air

moved objects. Although these representations did not reflect or support the lesson’s science

concepts, in contrast to representations of static materials, they described materials use, a

convention of scientific genres.

Many children, including Valerie and Alana, represented at least one way they explored

the materials related to the lesson’s science concepts. Valerie wrote, “I blew the balloon and then

I let the air out of the balloon,” and she drew a picture of herself blowing the balloon with the

17

pump (Figure 17). Alana drew the balloon popping and air blowing through the straw to the

foam ball and the feather (Figure 16). Marcus, a second grader, wrote “Where I had the index

card, the paper, and the paper clip, I put the paper clip on the index card, put the magnet under

the card, and moved the magnet” (Figure 18). These representations indicated how the children

used the materials to explore the scientific phenomena involved the investigation.

Representations of materials exploration related to the investigation were clearly more

sophisticated than unrelated representations. Unlike drawing and writing rooted in play, these

representations reflected and supported the science concepts the investigation was designed to

teach. They also fit the genre of science notebook writing better than unrelated representations

because they focused on the method the students used to conduct their investigations.

Representing observations

Many of the children represented the observations they made during the investigation.

Like representations of materials exploration, representations of observations fell into two

categories: those unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts and those related to the

investigation’s science concepts. Unrelated observations represented what occurred during

inquiry but focused on ideas peripheral to the science involved in the lesson. Christy, for

example, wrote “The pompom [cotton ball] was sticking to the styrofoam ball” (Figure 19) and

April wrote that when she “stretched the straw,” she “saw it getting longer and longer” (Figure

20). Both these statements represented observations the children made during the investigation

even though neither focused on air and its movement. Like representing materials and materials

exploration, observations are a necessary component of documenting scientific inquiry and

therefore fit the genre of science better than extraneous or personal ideas.

18

In both first and second grade, most children wrote at least one observation related to the

science concepts under investigation. April, who wrote one unrelated observation, also wrote

four about how air movement affected objects: She “saw it [balloon] getting bigger,” saw the

cotton ball “blow up very high,” saw the paper “blow everywhere,” and saw the feather “went

very high” (Figure 20). Nicholas, a second grader, drew how a paper clip moved across the table

while a magnet was under it (Figure 21). Similarly, Kate drew a paper clip on top of the table, a

magnet under the table, and lines extending from the magnet that she said “mean that it moves”

(Figure 12).

These observations implicitly reflected the science concepts the investigation was

designed to teach. Inherent in observations that air filled balloons is the idea that air can take up

space. When students observed air moving cotton balls, paper, and feathers, it demonstrated that

something unseen can cause a change to something seen. Implicit in observations that paper clips

move when magnets are beneath a table is the idea that magnetism is a force that extends from

the magnet, not something only within the magnet itself. While the children did not articulate

these scientific ideas in their notebook entries, representing the observations that demonstrate the

concepts is a first step toward recognizing and stating them. Thus, observations related the

science concepts in the investigation were more sophisticated representation than unrelated

observations that could not lead to statements about air as matter or magnetism as a force.

Representing materials exploration and related observations

Some children represented both how they explored materials and their observations.

There were two categories of these representations: uncoordinated and coordinated.

Uncoordinated representations occurred when students included both materials exploration and

observations but did not represent the relationship between them. Bryan, for example, stated in

19

the “What I Did” column of his chart, “I blew it [balloon] up with air” and in the corresponding

“What I Saw” column, “I saw it go down. It let it out with air” (Figure 22). These two

statements, while representing both materials exploration and observations, did not demonstrate

cause and effect. Blowing up the balloon resulted in it expanding, but Bryan did not record this

observation. “It let out the air” was a representation of materials exploration, and “go[ing]

down,” was an observation of what happened as a result, through Bryan wrote both these

statements in the “What I Saw” column. As a result, his representations of materials use and

observations did not coordinate in the way required in scientific writing.

In contrast, many children wrote coordinated statements of materials exploration and

observation. April (Figure 20) represented the relationship between each instance of her

materials use and her observations of what happened. For example, when she “blew up a

balloon” she “saw it getting bigger.” When she “blew the cotton ball” it “blew up very high.”

This writing represented the relationship between how she manipulated the materials and her

observations of what resulted from that manipulation. Coordinated representations of materials

exploration and observation demonstrated cause and effect, an important component of scientific

genres.

In general, including both representations of materials exploration and representations of

observations was more sophisticated than including only one or the other. In order to generate

explanations of scientific concepts, the goal of inquiry science and science notebook writing,

children must identify and represent both how they use materials and what they observe during

an investigation. However, these representations must coordinate to demonstrate the cause-effect

relationships occurring as children manipulate materials. Identifying cause and effect is

20

necessary for explaining how scientific phenomena occur, so coordinating these representations

is an initial step toward writing scientific explanations.

Representing scientific claims and evidence for those claims

Several second graders represented scientific claims and evidence for them. Jada, for

example, wrote, “Yes, [a magnet can move an object without touching it] because if you put the

magnet under the table and the paper clip on top the table they both attract and the magnet makes

the paper clip move” (Figure 22). Similarly, Ricky wrote that, “Yes, [a magnet can move an

object without touching it] because when I put the magnet under the table the paper clip was

moving with the magnet” (Figure 23). Mark (Figure 24) represented claims and evidence in both

his drawing and his writing. He drew the paper clip at two different points on the table and drew

an arrow demonstrating how the magnet moved below the table. He wrote, “Yes, [a magnet can

move an object without touching it] because I put the magnet under the table and the paper clip

was on top of the table then I moved the magnet and the paper clip moved too.”

Representing scientific claims and evidence differed from claims based in personal

evidence because the children grounded the support for their claims in the details of the science

investigation. Jada, Ricky, and Mark each represented the magnet attracting the paper clip

through the table and the paper clip’s movement corresponding to the magnet’s movement. This

evidence was based on data collected during the investigation and directly supported the claim “a

magnet can move an object without touching it.” In addition, scientific claims and evidence also

differed from representing coordinated materials exploration and observation because the

children explicitly articulated the relationship between the essential elements of the scientific

phenomenon. Each student explicitly stated that the magnet’s movement caused the paper clip’s

21

movement. Thus, representing scientific claims and evidence was more sophisticated than simply

coordinating representations of materials explanation with observations.

Notably, more children represented scientific claims and evidence through writing than

through drawing. This may be because representing claims and evidence in a drawing required

significant attention to detail. Nicholas, for example, drew the paper clip at four different points

on the table and labeled it as “moving,” and he drew himself holding the magnet under the table

(Figure 21). This representation functioned as claim that the paper clip moved when the magnet

was under the table. However, he did not indicate that the magnet moved, which prevented him

from representing the connection between the magnet’s movement and the paper clip’s

movement. Had Nicholas used an arrow or lines to represent the movement of the magnet, he

could have clearly communicated cause and effect, a necessary requirement to generate claims

and evidence.

Representing an explanation of science concepts

One child represented an explanation for why the magnet moved the paper clip. Sarah

drew the washer on top of the table, moving to the left, and the magnet under the table, also

moving left. She also drew wavy lines leading from the magnet to the table and labeled these

lines “the force of the magnet.” By labeling the force, Sarah provided an explanation for why the

magnet moved the washer. This relationship between observations of what happened and an

explanation of why it happened is the essence of a scientific “big idea” ("Identifying big ideas in

science,"). Sarah’s representation of this big idea is the goal of science instruction.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to describe the range of representations students drew and

wrote in their science notebooks. Through our analysis, we developed a framework that

22

explicates categories of science notebook representations and how the drawing and writing

reflects science concepts and how it conforms to scientific genres. While the framework arranges

the categories from generally less to more sophisticated representations, it not a developmental

continuum. Students’ notebook entries always contained representations from several different

categories. Alana, for example, in her single notebook entry, represented extraneous ideas,

commentary on the science experience, static materials, materials exploration unrelated to the

lesson’s science concepts, materials exploration related to the lesson’s science concepts,

observations unrelated to the lesson’s science concepts, and observations related lesson’s science

concepts. Thus, we cannot classify children as “in” a particular category of the framework.

The framework also does not predict how students’ science notebook writing will

develop. While children’s entries tended to fall within a particular area of the framework—no

child included both extraneous representations (category 1) and explanations of science concepts

(category 9)—we have no data to suggest children move from linearly from one end of the

framework to the other. Children might move from novice representations to more sophisticated

ones without moving through intermediate forms. For example, a child might never represent

personal commentary or claims based in personal evidence and instead move directly to

representing materials and observations.

In our view, the framework describes the pathways through which students can learn

more sophisticated forms of representing science concepts within the science notebook genre.

From this standpoint, the framework’s value is in its usefulness for guiding science notebook

instruction. It identifies what students can do, which may help researchers and teachers recognize

children’s skills and how to leverage them for learning more sophisticated forms of

representation. For example, if students can represent materials use unrelated to the science

23

concepts in the investigation, this suggests they have some foundational skills for representing

materials use related to those concepts. If they can represent both materials exploration and

observations, they have a foundation on which to learn to coordinate those representations.

Because the framework categories progress from less to more sophisticated forms of

representation, teachers can use them to consider how to move a child’s science notebook

drawing and writing forward. While children may not proceed through each category in

succession, moving from the first to the final category in a single lesson, or even a single science

unit, will likely prove too large a leap for most students. The framework provides information

about potential intermediate forms that might scaffold students’ notebook writing. If children are

representing static materials, for example, the teacher might consider how to help them represent

materials use before expecting them to create coordinated representations of materials use and

observations.

Notably, first graders’ notebook entries included more representations in the lower

categories of the framework, while second graders’ entries included more representations in

higher categories. This may have been due to the second graders’ greater maturity and

experience with writing. However, the structure of the science notebooks and the investigation

itself may also have influenced the representations the different groups included. The first

graders were expected to record multiple trials in the “What I Did/What I Saw” chart and to

explicitly coordinate each instance of materials exploration with an observation of what resulted.

In contrast, the second grade notebook entry required children only to record a single

observation. They did not need to represent the different ways they used the materials and each

outcome that resulted.

24

Making a scientific claim was also easier within the structure of the second grade

notebook than the first grade notebook. In the second grade entry, the claim was preprinted in the

“Draw Conclusion” section of the entry: “Can a magnet move an object without touching it?” As

a result, children could make a claim by simply agreeing or disagreeing with the statement and

writing “yes” or “no.” In contrast, the first grade notebook structure required students to generate

the claim themselves by writing “What I Learned” in the “Claim and Evidence” section. We

recognize that generating a claim without a scaffolded prompt is more challenging and thus may

have altered the claims the first graders were able to make.

These students’ science notebook entries indicate they are capable of engaging in a

variety of forms of scientific writing. Although most of the children were still learning to write—

that is, learning to spell and use capitalization and punctuation conventionally—the majority of

students wrote in ways that could be leveraged for further scientific learning and improved

representations of scientific ideas. Thus, this study provides evidence for the value of science

notebook writing with young children.

25

References

Akerson, V. L. (Ed.). (2008). Interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction in

elementary classrooms: Applying research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective.

Written Communication, 10, 475-509.

Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition

and Communication, 32, 365-387.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning in science: A secondary analysis

of six studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 615-637.

Identifying big ideas in science. Retrieved 2011, March 18, from

http://tools#4teachingscience.org/tools/big_idea.html

Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational

Psychology Review, 11, 203-270.

Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students' strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and

Instruction, 18, 317-348.

Kotelman, M., Saccani, T., & Gilbert, J. (2006). Writing to learn: Science notebooks, a valuable

tool to support nonfiction modes/genres of writing. In R. Douglas, M. P. Klentschy, K.

Worth & W. Binder (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 149-

161). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

McQuitty, V., Dotger, S., & Khan, U. (2010). One without the other isn't as good as both

together: A theoretical framework of integrated writing/science instruction in the primary

26

grades. In R. T. Jimenez, M. K. Hundley, V. J. Risko & D. W. Rowe (Eds.), 59th

Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 315-328). Oak Creek, WI: National

Reading Conference.

Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on

theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Shepardson, D. P. (1997). Of butterflies and beetles: First graders' ways of seeing and talking

about insect life cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 873-889.

Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2000). Analyzing children's science journals. Science and

Children, 38(3), 29-33.

Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children's journals in elementary school

science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 43-69.

27

Appendix (0) No writing, in which a child did not draw or write a representation. (1) Representing extraneous ideas, in which a child drew or wrote about ideas unrelated to the

science investigation. (2) Representing commentary on the science experience, in which a child drew or wrote about

the personal experience of conducting the science investigation, such as personal reactions, feelings, and narrative accounts of the investigation.

(3) Representing claims based in personal evidence, in which a child drew or wrote claims

based on sources of evidence unrelated to the data generated in the science investigation. (4) Representing static materials, in which a child drew or wrote about the materials used in

the investigation without describing how the materials were used or the science concepts the materials demonstrated.

(5) Representing materials exploration, in which a child drew or wrote about how he/she used

materials in the investigation.

(a) Unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts. These were representations that did not reflect or support the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.

(b) Related to the lesson’s science concepts. These were representations that reflected and

supported the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach. (6) Representing observations, in which a child drew or wrote about what he/she observed

during the investigation.

(a) Unrelated to the investigation’s science concepts. These were representations that did not reflect or support the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach.

(b) Related to the lesson’s science concepts. These were representations that reflected,

implicitly, the science concepts the investigation was designed to teach. (7) Representing materials exploration and observations, in which a child drew or wrote

about both how materials were used in the investigation and about what he/she observed during the investigation.

(a) Uncoordinated representations. Representations of materials exploration and

observations did not demonstrate cause and effect.

(b) Coordinated representations. Representations of materials exploration and observations demonstrated cause and effect.

28

(8) Representing scientific claims and evidence for those claims, in which a child drew or wrote a claim about the lesson’s science concepts and corresponding evidence for that claim generated during the investigation. These representations explicitly describe the relationship between materials exploration and the effects of manipulating the materials.

(9) Representing an explanation of science concepts, in which a child drew or wrote about

why a scientific phenomenon was observed.