Journaling: A powerful Academic Writing Learning Tool
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58213/ell.v2i2.23Keywords:
Learning journals, comprehension, interest, critical reflection, science educationAbstract
Students who engage in writing-to-learn activities do a better job of grasping the concepts being taught. Students may use journaling as a powerful learning tool to better grasp a subject and hone their analytical thinking abilities. In this regard, we conducted two long-term field trials. To keep track of their progress, students in Study 1 completed a learning diary after each of their biology courses. Student understanding, interest and critical reflection were higher in the intervention group than the control group (n=25) at study's completion. Increased interest in the subject matter led to a more critical examination through journal writing. Students' motivation to develop their critical thinking abilities was examined in the second study. In addition to the cognitive and metacognitive prompts, the experimental condition's (n=13) journal writers also got a personal utility prompt. The students in the control group (n=11) received just cognitive and metacognitive tests. The experimental group exhibited a higher degree of interest and a better level of critical thinking when it came to a bioethical problem than the control group. It is clear from these research that journal writing has a positive impact on student learning and critical thinking about difficult scientific topics.
References
• Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection for applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1, 25–48.
• Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy‐ enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261–278. doi:10.1348/000709902158883
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing- to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58. doi:10.3102/00346543074001029
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
• Belland, B. R., Kim, C., &Hannafin, M. J. (2013).A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270. doi:10.1080/00461520. 2013.838920
• Berthold, K., Nückles, M., &Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564–577. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007
• Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745–771. doi:10.1002/sce.21067
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Second Edition (Revised.).Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Intrinsic motivation inventory. Retrieved Mai 4, 2012, from http:// www.selfdeterminationtheory.org
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005) 84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
• Ford, C. L., & Yore, L. D. (2012). Toward convergence of critical thinking, metacognition, and reflection: Illustrations from natural and social sciences, teacher education, and classroom practice. In A. Zohar, & Y. J. Dori (Hrsg.), Metacognition in science education (p. 251– 271).Springer Netherlands.
• Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley, S. (2005). Summary street: Computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 53–80. doi:10.2190/DH8F-QJWM-J457-FQVB
• Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holzäpfel, L., Nückles, M., &Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: Prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 452–468. doi:10.1037/a0026683
• 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(4), 615–637. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9082-y
• Kirby, J. R., & Lawson, M. J. (2012). Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes. Cambridge University Press.
• Klein, P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270. doi:10.1023/A:1021913217147
• Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009).Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7
• Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226–232. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4
• McCrindle, A. R., & Christensen, C. A. (1995).The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5(2), 167–185. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(95)00010-Z
• Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Taylor & Francis.
• Nückles, M., Hübner, S., Dümer, S., &Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise-reversal effects in writing-to- learn. Instructional Science, 38, 237-258.
• Nückles, M., Hübner, S., &Renkl, A. (2009).Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259–271. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.002
• Nückles, M., Hübner, S., &Renkl, A. (2012). Fostering self-regulated learning by journal writing: How should instructional support be designed to promote high-quality learning? In J. R. Kirby,
• M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 178-200). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9781139048224.012
• Nussbaum, M. E. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345-359.
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.
• Reigeluth, C., & Stein, R. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional Design Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Renkl, A. (2013). Why practice recommendations are important in use-inspired basic research and why too much caution is dysfunctional. Educational Psychology Review, 25(3), 317–324. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9236-0
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., & Thompson, R. J. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 11(1), 17–25. doi:10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064
• Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 16(3), 165–185. doi:10.1007/BF00991650
• Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1–24.
• Schmidt, K., Maier, J., &Nückles, M. (2012). Writing about the personal utility of learning contents in a learning journal improves learning motivation and comprehension. Education Research International, 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/319463
• Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Tunnicliffe, S. D., &Ueckert, C. (2007). Teaching biology - the great dilemma. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 51–52. doi:10.1080/00219266.2007.9656061
• Webb, P. (2010). Science education and literacy: Imperatives for the developed and developing world. Science, 328(448), doi: 10.1126/science.1182596
• Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Roeser, R., &Schiefele, U., (2008). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 933-1002). New Jersey, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
• Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., &Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060–1106. doi:10.3102/0002831209333183
• Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999).Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301– 311. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301
• Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self- regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189–205. doi:10.1207/S15326985 EP3804_1
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
• Zohar, A., &Nemet, F. (2002).Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. doi:10.1002/tea.10008
