Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Two approaches to writing laboratory reports in senior science: the knowledge framework and the genre-based… Liew, Edwin Chee Yiun 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0558.pdf [ 3.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078124.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078124-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078124-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078124-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078124-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078124-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078124-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078124-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078124.ris

Full Text

TWO APPROACHES TO WRiTING LABORATORY REPORTSIN SENIOR SCIENCE: THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORKAND THE GENRE-BASED APPROACH TO LITERACYbyEDWIN CHEE YIUN LIEWB.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 1989B.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1990A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER’S OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Language Education)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNWERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember 1994© Edwin Chee Yiun Liew, 1994Signature(s) removed to protect privacyIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)____________________Department of_________________The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 5,91DE-6 (2188)Signature(s) removed to protect privacyABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to address the question, “is there a difference in the qualityof scientific report writing at the senior secondary school level related to differences in instructionalapproach: The Knowledge Framework (KF) approach or the the Genre-based approach to literacyinstruction. This research also examined the effectiveness of the two approaches on improvingESL and native-speaking students’ writing of scientific laboratory reports in senior science.The Genre approach to writing science was based on the model of Systemic FunctionalLinguistics that views language as a social semiotic that is a resource for meaning. The Genre-based approach to literary in science was concerned with exploring the structure, function andusage of scientific language in the written mode. The Knowledge Framework-based approach topedagogy was one that emphasized the cooperative development of cognitive skills, academiclanguage and content knowledge by focusing on thinking objectives, key linguistic and contentfeatures inherent in a topic or activity.The methodological design for this study tested the effectiveness of the KnowledgeFramework and the Genre approaches by using two pretests (Reading and Writing), one posttestof the written lab reports, and two surveys that drew upon the participants’ experiences with eachof the two approaches. Except for the Gates-MacGinitie Reading test, the tests and an evaluationgrid for the posttest were specially developed for this study. The two pretests assessed the studentparticipants’ reading and writing abilities prior to the introduction of the two approaches while theposttest lab reports represent the lab work written by the students using the two approaches. Thesurveys contained itemized statements that represent the participants’ opinion about thecharacterizing features of the two approaches: the generic structure or format and the speciallanguage features. The respondents of the surveys were to use a four-point score: Strongly Agree(1)-Agree (2)- Disagree (3) - Strongly Disagree (4).UThe results from the reading and writing pretests, posttest laboratory reports, and the twosurveys indicated that there is a difference in the quality of scientific report writing at the seniorsecondary school level related to differences in instructional approach. The results revealed that:a) the Knowledge Framework helped to improve the quality of both native-speaking andESL studentS writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology. The Knowledge Frameworkserved as an organizational tool for students to focus on the linguistic features necessary forexpressing key content information in their write-up.b) the Genre-based approach helped the students to improve their awareness of‘Procedure”, ‘Procedural recount”, and “Explanation” genres and focus on the language featuresfor expressing scientific content.c) the Knowledge Framework approach appeared to help students to improve the quality ofboth mainstream and ESL students’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.d) however, neither the KF nor the Genre-based approach substantially improved thequality of both mainstream and ESL students’ writing of lab reports when compared to the qualityof the students who were not taught either approach.e) the mainstream and ESL students showed no significant improvement above those in theControl group after using the KF and Genre approach.f) overall, the KF approach appeared to be more effective than the Genre-based approach toinstruction in improving the quality of both mainstream and ESL students’ writing of scientific labreports in senior Biology.g) while the study has contrasted the Knowledge Framework approach and the Genre-based approach, they were infact complementary.niTABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract iiTable of Contents ivList of Tables viList of Figures viiAcknowledgement viiiINTRODUCTION 1CHAPTER ONE Statement of The Problem 1Background 2Purpose of The Study 3Significance of The Study 4Limitations of The Study 5Definition of Terms 6CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LiTERATURE 8Introduction 8Writing a Scientific Lab Report: An Academic Task forLearning 9The Integration of Language and Content and WritingScience 18Genre Theory and Writing Science 23The Knowledge Framework 39Summary 48CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 50Hypotheses 50Study Groups 51Materials 52Procedures 55Analyses 64ivSummary 67CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 68Participants 68Study 70Analyses 79Summary 98CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 100Problem 100Background 100The Study 106Participants 107Results 108Conclusion 112Limitations of The Study 113Implications of The Study 116Bibliography 118Appendix A: Letter to School Superintendent 123Appendix B: Letter of Permission to Student Participants and Parents 125Appendix C: Pretest 2: What is a Scientific Laboratory Report? 127Appendix D: Writing Assessment Criteria 130Appendix E: Evaluation of Fonnal Scientific Laboratory Report 131Appendix F: Evaluation Grid: Lab Reports 136Appendix G: Survey 1: Using Genres to Write a Scientific Lab Report 138Appendix H: Survey 2: Using The Knowledge Framework to Writea Scientific Lab Report 141Appendix I: Genre: Writing Lab Reports 144Appendix J: Laboratory Reporting in Biology 145VLIST OF TABLESTable 2.1 Models of Integrated Language and Content Instruction 21Table 2.2 Theory of Context as Shaped by the Organization of Language 33Table 2.3 Genres and the Knowledge Framework 41Table 2.4 The Knowledge Framework for Learning 43Table 2.5 Identifying Key Visuals 44Table 3.1 The Knowledge Framework: Writing a Scientific LaboratoryReport (Generic Structure) 61Table 3.2 The Knowledge Framework: Writing a Scientific LaboratoryReport (Key Visuals) 62Table 4.1 Percentages of First Languages (Li) of Student Participants 70Table 4.2 Means and Standard Deviations of Pretest 1 Scores by All Students 71Table 4.3 Pretest 2 Results for All Students in the Study Groups 72Table 4.4 Posttest 1 Results of Lab Reports Written by All Students 73Table 4.5 Pretest 1 Results of Mainstream Students 74Table 4.6 Mainstream Writing Pretest Results 75Table 4.7 Posttest 1 Results by Mainstream Students 76Table 4.8 Pretest 1 Results of ESL Students 77Table 4.9 ESL Writing Pretest Results 78Table 4.10 Posttest 1 Results by ESL Students 79Table 4.11 Survey 1 and 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Items 1-12 82Table 4.12 Means and Standard Deviations for Items 13-28 from Surveyiand2 83Table 4.13 Means and Standard Deviations for Items 30-38 from Surveyland2 84Table 5.1 Means and Standard Deviations of Pretest 1 scores by All students 108Table 5.2 Pretest 2 Results for All Students in the Study Groups 109Table 5.3 Posttest 1 Results of Lab Reports Written by All Students 110viLIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.1 A Framework for Reviewing the Genre Theory 25Figure 2.2 Language as the Realization of Social Context 28Figure 2.3 Language in Relation to Its Connative Semiotics: Ideology, Genreand Register. 33Figure 3.1 Procedures for KF / Genre Study 57Figure 3.2 A Framework for the Study of the Genre-based Approach toLiteracy for Writing Senior Science Lab Reports. 59Figure 3.3 The Framework for the Study of KF approach to Senior ScienceLab Reports 61Figure 3.4 Qualitative Evaluation Framework for KF Approach 64Figure 3.5 Procedural Recount Genre in the Scientific Lab Report 65Figure 4.1 A Key Visual Designed by a Student in the KF Group 93Figure 4.2 ??Method?? Section from a Lab Report Written with the GenreApproach 96Figure 4.3 Sample “Discussion” Section from the Genre Lab Reports 97vuACKNOWLEDGEMENTI would like to thank the staff and students of Richmond Senior Secondary School for theirsupport in this research. I would like to especially thank Dr. Jim Leung and Mr. Ken Black ofRichmond Senior for their time and effort as teacher participants in the study.Edwin Liewvm1TIDUCTI[I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMAs more English as a Second Language (E.S.L.) students and native English studentschoose science as their focus of academic studies in the Canadian school system, there is also agreater emphasis placed on higher standards of student performance as a measure of success inscience learning. Since the learning of scientific concepts involves linking the theoretical and thepractical experiences of science, student learning is often measured by their performance on teststhat focus on conceptual theory and their performance on laboratory (lab) exercises that offer a“first-hand experience” with science. It has come to the attention of science educators andresearchers alike that student performance on laboratory work is poor: The laboratory reports lackcommunicability or clear expression of the learning of scientific concepts (Beasley, 1985; Klein etal., 1982; Kochendorfer, 1994; Renner, 1986; Vargas, 1986).Science students write scientific laboratory reports to communicate their learning ofscientific concepts. In writing scientific laboratory reports, students apply their language skills orlinguistic knowledge to organize and construct a body of text that represents the scientificinformation learned and process skills attained. Upon assessing student performance on labreports, science teachers find students are weak in their writing skills (Vargas, 1986) and areuncertain as to what information is most relevant for reporting (Beasley, 1985; Klein et al., 1982;Kochendorfer, 1994; Renner, 1986; Vargas, 1986). For E.S.L. and some recently mainstreamedstudents, their writing of scientific lab reports poses a heightened challenge because of thelanguage barrier.2II. BACKGROUNDScience laboratory work and reporting play a key role in science education because theyprovide the opportunities for students to participate in investigations and experimentation in whichthey exercise their own thinking, draw their own conclusions, and inform others in the scientificcommunity, about their results (Renner, 1986; Beizenherz and Olstacl, 1980). Laboratory activitiesinvolve students in the scientific enterprise of posing questions, hypothesizing, testing, problem-solving, and ultimately, making discoveries. They also give students concrete learningexperiences in which they can explore new ideas and relate concepts and theories to data collectedfrom personal observations (Renner, 1986; Klein et al. ,1982).Although laboratory work has always been promoted in the teaching of science, in someperiods during the history of science education it has been given a dominant role. During the majorscience curriculum reform movements of the 1960s some science teachers believed that “aconsiderable amount of laboratory work should lead, rather than lag behind, the classroom phasesof science teaching” (Schwab, 1964). In the 1960s curriculum planners placed heavy emphasis on“inquiry and the processes of science by suggesting that working on problems in the laboratory ismore important than finding conclusions” (Schwab, 1964). These reform recommendations forinvestigative laboratory work were only suitable for some students and certain purposes and in thefinal analysis did not provide students with sufficient educational experiences to succeed in achanging society or have greater relevance to their daily lives.Presently, it is the science teachers who assume the responsibility of changing the way theyplan, implement, and evaluate laboratory-oriented curricula so that they are appropriate for theirscience students. Among many factors and issues to address, for one, educators are recognizing ademographic change in their student body and are assisting their new immigrant students to adjustto a cross-cultural experience in science education. In particular, science teachers can introducevarious approaches to laboratory work and reporting so that the students can better learn from theirlab experiences and improve on their lab performances.3III. PURPOSE OF THE STUDYThe purpose of this study is to see how two approaches to instruction can be applied toimproving ESL and native-speaking students’ writing of scientific laboratory reports in seniorsecondary school science. One model for the integration of language and content can be describedby Mohan’s “knowledge framework for learning” (1986). It is an approach to Integration andLanguage and Content which involves the instruction and learning of both language skills andcontent infomrntion in a particular curriculum in an education context (Mohan, 1979, 1986; Early,1990; Early, Mohan & Hooper, 1989; Crandall, 1987, 1993; Cantoni-Harvey, 1987; Brinton,Snow & Wesche, 1989). Another is the genre-based approach to literacy instruction for writingscience (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Martin, 1992, 1993, Halliday, 1993, 1985; Christie & Rothery,1989; Painter & Martin, 1986; Callaghan & Rothery, 1988; Christie, 1990; Rothery, 1993).Based on the model of functional grammar of systemic linguistics that views language as a socialsemiotic that gives meaning (Martin, 1992,1993; Halliday, 1985, 1989, 1993; Christie & Rothery,1989) the genre-based approach to literacy in science is concerned with exploring the structure,function and usage of scientific language in the written mode.This study wifi examine how the Knowledge Framework approach and the genre-basedapproach to literacy compare in effectiveness as each is applied to teaching ESL and native-speaking students to write lab reports. While the Genre and the Knowledge Framework approachwill be contrasted, it should be understood clearly that they are not opposed alternatives. In fact,they can be combined as complementary approaches. The central question of this study asks:Is there a difference in the quality of scientific report writing at the seniorsecondary school level related to differences in instructional approach: TheKnowledge Framework approach or the genre-based approach to literacyinstruction.A body of anticipated research questions can be derived from the broader central topic ofthis study which explores the implications of the ILC and the genre-based approaches for secondlanguage learning and writing senior Biology:41. Which approach, ILC or genre-based, is more effective in improving both native-speakersand ESL learners’ writing of scientific lab reports?2. Which approach, ILC or genre-based, is more effective with native-speakers and which ismore effective with ESL learners?3. With respect to the genre-based approach, can students identify the appropriate genre orgenres to write their scientific lab reports? How do students deal with overlapping genres?*4• Are students able to use the knowledge framework to organize the activity of writing ascientific lab report? How do students divide the activity into the “specific, practical cases”and the “general, theoretical background knowledge”? Are students using graphics forrepresenting the knowledge structures for writing lab reports effectively? Can studentsidentify, process, and apply the language and cognitive skills organized in the knowledgeframework?* 5. How do ESL learners respond to using each of the approaches to learning language and / orscientific content knowledge?a) How does each approach suit their learning styles?b) What do students perceive to be the limitations of each approach (if there are any)?* Items #4 and #5 will be addressed in a reflective analysis of the students’ experiences with eachapproach done through an evaluation and assessment questionaire, Survey 1 and 2 (seeChapter 3: “Methodology”.)IV. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDYThe significance of this study is to explore how the ILC approach and the Genre-basedapproach to literacy can be implemented to improve the second language student’s writing of seniorscientific reports.. A critical-interpretive research approach with an empirical dimension isemployed to describe the nature of the improvement or lack there of in the student’s scientific labreport writing upon using the ILC or the genre-based approach. The student’s interaction withprocess writing guided by the knowledge structures of the Knowledge Framework approach or the5elements of the genre-based approach will be reflected in their writing of scientific laboratoryreports at the senior secondary level. This is a comparative study that explores the effectiveness ofeach of the ILC approach and the Genre-based approaches with respect to one another for writingscientific lab reports. It is the hope of this study to reveal the relative benefits or concerns witheach approach so as to increase our understanding of language and content integration and genreand their implications for writing senior science for learners of all levels of academic languageproficiency.V. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDYThe focus of this study is on the application of the ILC and the Genre-based approaches towriting senior science in the context of Biology. The subjects of this research are both mainstreamand native-speaking, Grade 11 Biology students and those for whom English is a secondlanguage. The following list outlines the limitations of the study:1. ESL and native-speaking students for this study are randomly selected from 3 Biology11 classes at Richmond Senior Secondary School in Richmond, B.C.2. Since this study focusses on writing scientific lab reports in Biology 11, the results maynot be applicable to the elementary or junior secondary level courses in science, nor is itapplicable to any other senior science courses such as Physics 11 or 12,Chemistry 11 or 12. However, some implications from this study may be drawn forinstruction in Biology 12.3. The native-speaking and ESL students come to this study with a variety of backgroundknowledge about and strategies for writing. It may be not feasible to establish a commonpattern of previous writing instruction strategies the students were taught beforebeginning this study.4. Considering the ethnic mix of the ESL population in this study, the findings may not reflectthe ability of ESL students of any particular ethnic origin or across all cultures.65. Although a teacher’s guide may be followed in instructing genre, teaching methodologiesare based on the personal ideologies and philosophies of the biology/language teacher. Theteacher’s own theory and practice of second language learning and instruction must beconsidered in the study’s findings.VI. DEFINITION OF TERMS• English as a Second Language (ESL students - students whose first or native language (Li) isdifferent from the language (L2) of the greater community in which they reside and whoseEnglish proficiency level is below that of native-speakers of English.• Culture - this refers to a set of human practices (i.e, rituals, customs, traditions, social actions)that produce meaning and to the objects that are the result of those practices. Itencompasses all forms of human engagement in those practices and their effects on humansacting together as a “culture”. (DSP, 1989)• The Knowledge Framework - as an approach it refers to the instruction andlearning of both language and content knowledge inherent in the classroom curriculum.It focusses on the development of language and cognitive abilities as well as academiccontent in ESL learners. It utilizes knowlegde structures (KSs) as a means of organizinglanguage and content knowledge for learning (Mohan, 1986).• mainstream - this term is used to refer to students who are enrolled in school coursesdeveloped by the B.C. Ministry of Education where the curricular content is taught in oneof the official languages, English or French, at the native-like proficiency level.For example, a recognized mainstream English course is English 10 and a mainstreamscience course is Biology 11.7• (Scientific’) Discourse - systematically organized ways of talking and writing, which giveexpression to the values and meanings of particular institutions. Scientific discourse mayrefer to the way language is used to talk and write about scientific concepts and knowledge:the values and meanings are inherent in the context of science.• Genre - any staged purposeful cultural activity in which language is used. This including oralgenres as well as written language ones. A genre is said to be charactized by having aschematic structure - a distinctive beginning, middle, and end. Genres are not set inconcrete or fixed and unchanging forever. They have been developed over time to achievespecific social purposes and are constantly evolving (e.g. sales exchange, interview, letter,essay, meeting, lecture, novel, joke, etc.) (DSP, 1989).• writing - The medium in which language is available to literate groups. Like speech, writing isan entirely cultural activity and therefore has particular cultural uses and cultural meanings.(DSP, 1989)8I cj© —I. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter contains a review of the literature in the following related topics:1. Writing a scientific laboratory report as an academic task for the learning of science.2. The Genre-based approach to literacy instruction for writing science.3. The Knowledge Framework approach to writing science.The focus of this review is to provide an introduction to each of the above related topics,examine their central themes from a critical perspective, and highlight the implications of theseapproaches as they are applied to this research.A. GENERAL BACKGROUNDSecond language acquisition and learning theorists believe that English as a SecondLanguage (ESL) students in language and content-area classrooms can learn the second languagemore effectively if the language and content of the curricular topics are presented in a meaningfulway for learning and time is alloted constructively to allow for ample opportunities for learning(Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1991; Krashen, 1981, 1982).Krashen (1981, 1982) suggests that integrated instruction in classroom situations canpresent “language input” that is just above the proficiency level of the learner and link it tomeaningful content. Krashen believes that target language or “comprehensible input” introducedthrough academic content not only facilitates the acquisition of language but also make the contentknowledge accessible to second language learners (1982)9According to Cummins (1991) there is a distinction between conversational and academicproficiency: basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive/academic languageproficiency (CALP). BICS are skills for face-to-face communication in a social context whileCALP can be described as aspects of language proficiency that are formal, abstract, “context-reduced and cognitively more demanding” (Coffier, 1987). In academic-content classrooms suchas science, specialized content language in assigned tasks is most difficult for ESL students to useand practice. They need opportunities to use this academic language more often in “context-embedded” situations. For example, a small group discussion on a scientific topic that invitesparticipation by or a jigsaw cooperative learning group would give ESL students some chances topractice their L2 in a relaxed environment. It takes between 4 to 8 years for ESL students to reachnational norms on standardized tests (Collier, 1987); therefore, as instructors, we cannot delay theinstruction of academic content and skills.II. WRITING A SCIENTIFIC LAB REPORT: AN ACADEMIC TASK FORLEARNINGStudents complete classroom tasks assigned by teachers to learn the content informationpresented in the task. For native-speaking students in the mainstream classroom the focus oflearning is mainly on acquiring the conceptual knowledge in the tasks, but for second languagelearners, the emphasis may be on the linguistic forms (grammar, syntax, lens, morphology, etc.),the subject matter, or both. The nature of the class curriculum, syllabus, and the learning andteaching goals and objectives in consideration of the needs of the students determine the design,implementation and evaluation of tasks in the classroom.Before beginning a discussion on the writing of a scientific lab report as a classroom taskfor learning, the notion of “academic task” will be described.10A. ACADEMIC TASKS: FOR CONTENT AND LANGUAGELEARNINGThe notion of classroom ‘academic task’ can be conceptualized according to syllabusdesign (Long & Crookes, unpublished, 1992), the function or purpose of the task in engaging theteaching-learning process (for language or content learning or both), hence the different types orclassification of tasks, the components of tasks that outline the steps for completion, and theenvironment in which the task learning takes place. A majority of the researchers appear tomaintain that an ‘academic task’ is a classroom activity that allows students to interact with andlearn about the information introduced in the task itself (Brown, 1991; Candlin, 1987; Doyle &Carter, 1984; Long, 1989; Long & Crookes, unpublished & 1992; Mohan, 1991; Nunan, 1988 &1989).Classrooms are places where students do work: they complete “academic tasks” (Mohan,1991). Students do assigned work, fill in worksheets, read textbooks, participate in groupprojects, write essays and reports. What students actively do in the classroom reflects theirlearning of knowledge and information and their development in cognitive ability. Since studentsshow achievement by doing tasks, then a task can be viewed as a “basic unit of analysis ofschoolwork” (Mohan, 1991). Therefore, curriculum can be seen as a “collection of academictasks”. Taking this perspective of curriculum, Mohan suggests that the task is a common unit ofanalysis for content work and language work”. This is most applicable to any curriculum, such asscience, that caters to the learning by both mainstream and ESL students. In light of the classroomuse of academic tasks that include second language learners, tasks should be designed in a waythat highlights the language and content objectives for conscious learning (Mohan, 1991).According to Doyle and Carter (1984), academic tasks are defmed by(a) the requirements for the products students are expected to hand in, such as anexpository essay or test paper;(b) the resources available to students while accomplishing work ... and(c) the operations that are to be used to generate the product, such as as memorizing alist of words for a test.11Doyle and Carter (1984) maintain that tasks set out a plan of learning objectives for students tomeet when they “do” certain activities and carry out classroom events (i.e. doing a worksheet to behanded in for marking). Students are grouped or organized in certain ways to achieve taskcompletion, e.g., individual seatwork, group discussions, presentations, etc. (Doyle & Carter,1984). Tasks completed in a certain manner reflect the way students think about the subject matterat hand. This seems to suggest that through the process of completing academic tasks students willacquire the content knowledge in the tasks. Can academic tasks provide a medium for the learningof both content information and language skills?Some researchers seem to view academic tasks from a language-learning perspective in thatthe tasks are designed to provide opportunities for learning language or linguistic forms and do notfocus on the learning of the content (Candlin, 1987; Long & Crookes, 1992; Nunan, 1989;Prabhu, 1987; Swales, 1990). They speak of “language” tasks that allow second languagelearners to interact with the target language while communicating about a situational topic.Working with a “traditional” language curriculum, teachers generally plan lessons to direct learnersto pay attention to L2 grammar (Fotos and Ellis, 1991), vocabulary, sentence structure and otherlinguistic forms, and have learners respond by displaying what they learned through written textsand verbal answers, or some actions that indicate achievement. Fortunately, beliefs about effectivepedagogy and successful second language acquisition (SLA) are changing and taking on a more“interactionistic” perspective: Language classroom tasks are becoming more like “communicativetasks” where opportunities to “perceive, comprehend, and ultimately internalize L2 words, forms,and structure” are offered to students (Pica, Kanagy & Falodun, 1990). Pica et. al. (1990)propose that task activity and goals take on many forms, and not all of these forms trigger SLAdirectly. Pica et. al. suggest 5 different types of communication tasks that allow students tointeract with their target language: “jig-saw”, “information-gap”, “problem-solving”, “decisionmaking”, and “opinion-exchange”. They make language tasks more interactive andcommunicative.12Do language tasks deemphasize the learning of content or is content learned through“doing’t the language tasks? Mohan (1991) makes the distinction that language tasks take alanguage viewpoint and content tasks take a content viewpoint. Mohan asks whether these twoviewpoints can be combined and a ‘good’ content task also can be ‘good’ language task.Consistent with this distinction, what types of tasks can be designed to serve a content-basedprogram that emphasizes English for Academic Purposes (EAP) such as a science course (Brinton,Snow & Wesche, 1989; Cleland & Evans 1984)? Mohan (1991, 1989 & 1986) and Early et. a!.(1989 & 1990) believe that the learning of language and content can be integrated in academic taskswhere linguistic form, such as grammar, and subject matter are held in equal value for learning.Whether an academic task is designed for the learning of content or language, thedistinction between the language and content objectives in the task should be made known to thelearner. Depending on the students’ language ability and the context of curricular instruction, the“activity” of an academic task may involve students in interacting in both the linguistic componentand the subject matter of the task topic. Hence, the evaluation of student learning may focus onboth language skills and conceptual knowledge acquired where language is a means of expressingknowledge.B. WRITING A LAB REPORT IN SCIENCEWriting a laboratory report is a “multifaceted” academic task for learning of the conceptsand the language of science (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1990). Through a variety of scientificskills and processes, students in a science course experiment and analyze data and exercise criticalthinking abilities to formulate an understanding of the environment around them. The studentsembark on a “first-hand” experience with science each time they learn about and explore aparticular concept or topic through laboratory work (Renner, 1986; Beasley, 1985; Klein et. a!.,1982; Beizenherz & Olstad, 1980). Often, they conduct scientific investigations to learn aboutthese concepts and document their experiences and findings on a formal laboratory report(Goodman, 1986; Kanare, 1985; Biology, 1986).13A completed formal laboratory report is often composed of smaller sections that describeall the pertinent information of the laboratory work done: the purpose (objectives or a hypothesis)of the lab experiment or investigation, materials, procedures, observations and data, discussion,and a conclusion. With careful thought as to the intention of each lab section, the write-up shouldconsist of a specific body of knowledge represented and communicated in clear writing.The following is a more detailed description of the lab report as an academic task with regards toexpectations for students completing the task:1) PURPOSE / OBJECTIVES I HYPOTHESISOften “students are left with the impression that the laboratory’s purpose is verifysomething that the teacher, textbook, or some other authority has told the students. Is that theproper role of the laboratory?” (Renner, 1986). It is not surprising that students are sometimesuncertain about why they do laboratory work at all. How do science students arrive at a purposefor a laboratory investigation or experiment?Renner (1986) suggested that students should be given the opportunity to first observe and“collect data regarding an unfamiliar phenomenon. Then they could ‘coordinate’ those experiencesand produce a logical system’.” He went on to state that students should:first gather data about a concept, next, put the data together and invent a concept; and then,they expand the concept to include related ideas. The last phase of the investigationincludes further laboratory investigations, questions, problems and readings.(Renner, 1986)Renner’s (1986) suggestion is that students should be allowed to discover scientific conceptsthrough lab work. The initial observation of an “unfamiliar phenomenon” gives them a chance toestablish a “systematic” base for lab investigation or experimentation. Then, a purpose forlaboratory work is thus generated for meaningful concept exploration.14Technically speaking, this first section of a lab report should describe what the laboratorywork is intended to find out. Students should make a distinction between a purpose forinvestigation and a hypothesis for experimentation. The “purpose” section is a clear and concisestatement that consists of the most essential elements that directly apply to the lab investigation.Writing an appropriate purpose for a lab poses difficulties for some students because they fail topresent the key infomiation communicated in best language. Certain problematic features ofwriting the “purpose” section of a lab report stem from the lack of the use of infinitives and theincorrect use of thefirst person for point of view (Vargas, 1986). In situations where a hypothesisis to be written for a lab experiment the cause and effect relationship between experimentalvariables are sometimes poorly established.2) MATERIALSThe “materials” section of the lab write-up should include a list of equipment and supplies,tools and utensils, chemical and/or specimen used in the lab investigation or experiment. Propernames and labels should be stated to avoid ambiguity. It may be necessary to identify the specificnumber or amount of the materials used in the lab to ensure accuracy and reliability. Any addition,omission, or change in materials must be documented.3) PROCEDURESThe “procedures” to a lab can be one of the most important parts of the write-up. Theprocedures provide the scientist with a step-by-step account of how the lab investigation orexperiment is to be conducted (Goodman, 1986; Kanare, 1985). This section contains the“instructions” to how to “do” the lab activity. It has to be clear and precise so that any scientist canunderstand and replicate the investigation intended in the lab work.In writing the “procedures” section, students should describe the detailed lab informationaccurately by using specific language. The lab information presented should include key terms andproper names of items handled. The language features of the write-up should focus on action-15oriented processes, the dimensions of time, space, and order, and voice (active versus passive)(Vargas, 1986). Safety precautions, which may not be directly involved in carrying out theprocedures unless indicated, should be articulated clearly for the protection of the lab student.Given the above, it is easier to see why students encounter problems in this section because theylack certain content and linguistic elements that could otherwise make the writing of theirprocedures clearer.Some science teachers prefer to restrict the term experiment to the type of investigationknown as the controlled experiments, in which every effort is made to describe in the “procedures”section the controls and variables involved that can affect the results. “All factors except for theindependent variable(s) are held constant, and its effects on the dependent variables are observed”(Macmillan, 1986).In certain lab investigations the “procedures” section may be duplicated from a prescribedlaboratory manual by making reference to the corresponding pages in the manual. Procedurequestions can be provided to guide the students through the experiment and focus on key steps andobservations in the lab. Any changes to the procedures should be noted on the lab report.4) OBSERVATIONS AND DATAObservation is one of the more important skills in science. By improving students’observational skills, science teachers also help their students increase their knowledge of conceptsunder investigation. To become careful observers, students can guide themselves by asking(Norris, 1984):• How complete are the observations?• How well are the observations reported?• How correct are the reports of the observations?Attention to completeness and detailed reporting may help students develop better observationskills, but “correctness” may not be as viable a quality to reporting an observation as the accurateor true representation of the phenomenon observed. “Correctness” is a value judgement or16inference. Stressing the process skill of observation can help students become better conceptuallearners who inquire and critically think about their scientific lab experience.All observations related to the purpose or objectives of the lab must be recorded in thestudents’ write-up. Students should visually represent their observations by drawing and labellingspecimen and graphs, and data tables. All necessary calculations must be made to arrive at anarbritrary “result”. The drawings should have a magnification for contrast with the real life image.Descriptions of the observations should be made to accompany the visuals.5) DISCUSSIONIn this section students need to give an interpretation of the observations and the datadocument. Students are encouraged to explain their results by relating their findings to relevantscientific concepts and theories that form the foundation of the lab investigation or experiment(Goodman, 1986; Kanare, 1985). They need to make cause and effect relationships between thevariable factors and the outcomes of the experiment. In reporting the results any discrepancies orexperimental errors should be included and sufficiently supported with logical explanations.For some students, especially those with limited facility in English, accomplishing thewritten task in this section poses a challenge. These students may not see the meaningfulrelationships between different parts of the experiments or be able to make connections to thecentral ideas in the investigations. Comparing and contrasting their findings with the theoreticalbackground is a science process skill at which students need more practice (Beasley, 1985;Beizenherz & Olsad, 1980). Students need to focus on language structures such as: cause andeffect (explanations), degree of comparison and contrast, i.e. “better, greater than”, andsimilarities -“same as” and differences - “different from”. Key visuals or graphic representation ofthe results can also help make connections and identify distinct content and language characteristicsfor comparison and contrast (Mohan, 1986; Early et. al. 1989; Dunbar, 1992).17In looking at academic writing tasks for ESL students Horowitz (1986) suggests thatwriters should “find, organize, and present data according to fairly explicit instructions.” Inwriting a “good” analysis and discussion of the fmdings, data collected needs to be “encoded intoacademic English” by “contextualizing” the task with sound grammar use.6) CONCLUSIONSIn this last section of the lab report students are to concisely state a summary of theirfindings. If a hypothesis was tested they need to accept or reject the hypothesis based on theoutcomes of their experiment. If certain numerical values serve as the result of the experiment,then they must be included. On writing science using the Genre-based approach to literacy, Veel(forthcoming) states that:The conclusion stage is essential in giving scientific value to experimental andobservational activities. It tells the reader what type of scientific meaning can be drawnform the activity and how the activity contributes to the store of scientific knowledge.Veel (forthcoming) identifies three reasons why students find writing conclusions challenging:1) Projection: using mental activity of the observer (e.g.”discovering, finding, learning”)to “project” the world of ideas, concepts and generalization in theconclusions.2) Generalization: Conclusions are stated in a generalized way.3) Abstraction: Using “nominalisation” to describe a chain of related events.In writing conclusions students should clearly reiterate the lab’s most essential results and fmdingsand relate them to the purpose of the lab investigation either by responding to the statement ofpurpose specifically and directly or addressing the question underlying the lab purpose.C. SUMMARYStudents complete assigned classroom tasks in hopes of learning the information presentedin the tasks. That information can be described as new language forms and/or content knowledge.Generally speaking tasks can be simple everyday activities. In other instances, tasks can be very18technical and ‘academic’ in nature and involve complex steps in meeting the goals and processingthe input in the tasks. Academic tasks introduced to students in a subject-area of science areevaluated and graded for the content knowledge learned and for the language or communicability ofthat knowledge. Writing a laboratory report is an example of an academic task in the content-areaof science.Beyond conceptualizing the notion of writing a lab report as an academic task for learning,there exists the perception that academic tasks are not viewed by students and teachers in the sameway. Students could perceive a task to contain “explicit” instructions for a certain activity andassume the tasks can be completed sufficiently with limited prior knowledge. Some students andteachers see teacher-initiated tasks to be the only vehicle for learning. When designing a task,some teachers believe they have to guess at creating a task that captures the essence of the learningof content knowledge or language forms. All of this leads to a possible misconception of thepurpose and value of an academic task such as a lab write-up in science. It is not clear to whatextent teachers and students should negotiate on the purpose and function of an academic task.III. THE INTEGRATION OF LANGUAGE ANTI CONTENT AND WRITINGSCIENCEWhat is the integration of language and content (ILC) instruction? Is language and contentintegration a teaching methodology and / or a prescription for a more effective curriculum for thelearning of content and language? Is ILC instruction suitable for a “language” curriculum or a“content-area” curriculum? Defming language and conceptual knowledge integration involvescareful consideration of the roles of the instructor and learner and their relationship in theclassroom where a curriculum rich in language structures and content information serves as amedium for teaching and learning. Language can be viewed as a medium for constructing andcommunicating conceptual knowledge and activities of culture and society. Integrating languageand content information for instruction includes the presentation of language items (grammar,19syntax, lexis, morphology, etc.) and subject matter (content knowledge) with a balanced emphasison both in a cohesive manner for learning (Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989; Cantoni-Harvey,1987; Crandall, 1987, 1993; Early, 1990; Early, Mohan & Hooper, 1989; Mohan, 1979, 1986).The notion of integration of language and content instruction emerged as the equivalentapproach for content-centered language learning (Crandall, 1993). Theories and practice of secondlanguage acquisition and learning have much support for this approach since it offers a way bywhich students for whom English is a second language can continue to develop their cognitiveskills and ability while they are also acquiring social and academic linguistic competency in thecontent-area classroom (Cummins, 1991; Krashen, 1981, 1982).Researchers such as Crandall (1993) believe that language and content-area instructors canpresent meaningful content and modified target language to promote both second languageacquisition and academic content learning:Language (ESL/bilingual) teachers can use content-area texts and tasks as a vehicle fordeveloping language proficiency while helping develop academic concepts and skills.Content-area teachers can adapt the language of their texts and instructional tasks (usingtechniques familiar to language teachers) to make their instruction accessible to secondlanguage learners while helping students develop needed content-area language skills.(Crandall, 1993).A. BACKGROUNDIntegrating language teaching and content teaching is related to English for SpecificPurposes (ESP) (Barron, 1991; Brinton, Snow, and Wesche, 1989; Crandall, 1987, 1993;). ESPprograms provided English instruction in some other academic discipline. ESP instruction shiftedits focus from making accessible the texts of science, business, medicine, law, and other careerprofessions to emphasizing language features or “what” people learn instead of the learningprocess or “how” they learn (Crandall, 1993). Instruction in this way is similar to the integrationof language and content development.20More recently instructors working with academic content curriculum have shown interest inintegrated language and content learning by stressing the importance of language across thecurriculum in the reading, writing, and oracy of mathematics, the sciences, or social sciences(Crandall, 1993). ILC instruction offers educators in content-area disciplines a strategy forimproving “writing across the curriculum” (Crandall, 1993). A number of program models ofintegrated language and content instruction are available to educators of various disciplines. Table2.1 represents 3 popular models to integrated language and content instruction discussed byCrandall (1993).In the Canadian science classroom, ESL and native-speaking students learn both theconcepts and language of science by completing academic tasks. The concepts of science arecomprised of facts, principles, and theories resulting from observation, investigation, andinterpretation focussed on the living world. The language of science is technical and specific.There is a certain glossary of words or vocabulary that is specific for describing the concepts inscience (Brinton, Snow &Wesche, 1989; Cleland and Evans, 1984).TABLE 2.1: Models of integrated language and content instruction (Crandall, 1993)PROGRAM MODELS OFINTEGRATED LANGUAGE AND CONTENT INSTRUCTIONAPPROACH CONTENT-BASED SHELTERED SUBJECT LANGUAGE ACROSSLANGUAGE MATTER TEACHING THE CURRICULUMINSTRUCTIONMODEL THEME-BASED SHELTERED ADJUNCTINSTRUCTION INSTRUCTIONDESCRIPTION • language curriculum • a content curriculum is • links a special SLL courseis developed around adapted to accommodate the with a content course inselected topics drawn from student’s limited proficiency which both SL learners &one content area or from in the language of instruction, are enrolled.across the curriculum (may be taught through Li) • same content base, but• fear of diminution or different focus of instruction:reduction of content lang. teacher = lang. skillscontent teacher = acad.concepwGOAL • to assist learners in • make content in L2 • to assist learners indeveloping academic lang. accessible to LEP students acquiring both lang. andskills, thinking, study - make transition to specifically content.skills, and content. mainstreamSTRATEGIES cooperative learning • demonstrations, visuals, • coordination of TWO& & other groupings graphic organizers, teachers.TECHNIQUES • task-based I experiential cooperative work: NNSs (‘ lecture, group work,learning with NSs. lab work)• whole lang. • verbal interaction vs.• graphic organizers teacher lectureTEACHER • ESL, bilingual, or • Content-area, bilingual, • content-area, languageforeign lang. foreign lang.STUDENTS • elementary -12, adult, • immersion, 2-way I • NNSs and NSsuniversity (theme-based) bilingual, NSsLEVEL OFPROFICIENCY • all levels. • intermediate to advanced • Advanced• Li: first language; . L2: second or target language; • NNSs: non-native speakers of English;• NSs: native speakers of English; • LEP: limited English proficiency.2122B. THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCEThe language of science is like any other language in that it has structure, rules andexceptions. Unlike ordinary English the language of science is precise and free of association fromunrelated concepts (Flood, 1960; Savory, 1971). It is specialized to convey meaning with littledistortion or ambiguity. It is interesting to note that when an originally well-defined scientific termbecomes a word of ordinary speech it usually suffers a widening of meaning and acquires numberof associations. For instance, the word “atomic”, whose meaning is quite clear to scientists, mayconjure up in the public mind a picture of widespread destruction or of unlimited power.Most scientific words have another important quality: by their form and structure theyreveal something about their meaning. Many scientific words are logically built up from simplerword-elements from Latin and Greek origin and the general meaning of the whole word can beinferred from an understanding of the parts (Flood, 1960; Savory, 1971; Mandell, 1974). Someterms are self-explanatory if the Latin and Greek roots are known; they have only to be ‘translated’for their meanings to become apparent in English.Where do scientific words originate from? Scientific word in English may conveniently bedivided into three groups:a) those taken from the ordinary English vocabulary;b) those taken virtually unchanged from another language;c) those which have been invented (Flood, 1960)Scientific words that are derived from Latin and Greek terms have retained their original meaningsand in some cases the meanings have been restricted and rendered more precise.Learning scientific concepts in part involves the learning of the language of science.Students are often faced with the challenge of learning a large number of new terms when studyingscience. Educators believe that students need to comprehend the vocabulary they encounter as theyread a text. The comprehension of scientific terms becomes more important when these words areused by students to construct written texts to express their knowledge and understanding ofscientific concepts. While native-speaking students may possess phonetic and syntactic knowledge23about a word, the semantic knowledge is what they also require to completely comprehend a wordin a given sentence. ESL students are at a greater disadvantage since most have not heard or seensome of the temis, let alone know the meaning of the word in context. For ESL students theirexperiences in learning science may primarily focus on dealing with the linguistic elements inscientific texts and discourse rather than embracing the rich knowledge gained from “doing”science. Therefore, it is necessary for science teachers to employ classroom approaches that assisttheir students in learning the language of science in order for them to better grasp the concepts ofscience.IV. GENRE THEORY AND WRITING SCIENCEA. INTRODUCTIONThe theory of genre is based on the functional grammar of systemic linguistics that viewslanguage as a social semiotic that and is a resource for meaning (Martin, 1992,1993; Halliday,1985, 1989, 1993; Christie & Rothery, 1989). The perspective that language is realized in asocial context gives rise to the concept of genre as a “staged, purposeful, goal-oriented activity”(Martin, 1993; Christie & Rothery, 1989). With implications for literacy, genres are oral orwritten interactions in which individuals in society engage. The process or activity of writing in thefield of Science characterizes one type of genre in an educational context.The purpose of this section of the review is to examine the theory and concept of genre inthe context of education from a critical perspective. Genre as a theoretical model is addressed inthe first part of this review and a “Genre-based approach” to pedagogy, specifically in writingScience, forms the focus of the second. The latter portion of this analysis of genre and scientificwriting will attempt to describe the benefits or shortcomings of the theory and pedagogicalapproaches through case studies of writers in their discourse communities. The framework for thisreview section is constructed to identify some pertinent issues in the theory of genre, drawattention to some concerns with the Genre-based approach to insiruction, and explore somequestions for the development and further research on the concept (Figure 2.1).2425Figure 2.1: A framework for reviewing the Genre Theory.H FRAMEWORK FOR REVIEW:GENRE THEORY fiND WRITING SCIENCESOCIAL FUNCTION OF- LANGUAGE (Halliday, 1989;Halliday & Hasan, 1989)THE MODEL OF SYSTEMICFUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS- (Hafliday, 1985, 1989; Halliday & Martin, 1993Fawcett, 1987)GENRE AND REGISTER- (Martin 1993, 1992; Callaghan & Rothery, 1988Rothery 1988; Ghadessy, 1988)WRITING SCIENCE(Halliday & Martin, 1993; Veel, In press;Martin, 1993; Rothery & Veel, In press)TEACHING WRITTEN GENRES(Painter & Martin, 1986;Christie & Rothery 1989; Christie, 1990)EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCHAND THE CLASSROOM(Swales, 1990; Veel, 1993)PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALSEMIOTICS (Halliday, 1989;Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Swales, 1990;Lemke, 1990; Hasan & Martin, 1989)CONCEPT OF GENRE(Martin, 1992, 1993;Halliday, 1985;Christie & Rothery, 1989)GENRETHEORYGENRE-BASEDAPPROACH TOPEDAGOGY(Painter & Martin, 1986;Stainton, 1992;Callaghan & Rothery, 1988;Christie & Rothery, 1989)SOCIAL THEORYSOCIOCULTURAL FACTORSOF LEARNINGSOCIOLINGUISTIC FACTORSIMPLEMENTATION OFGENRE BASED APPROACH26B. THE CONCEPT OF GENREWhat is genre ? Defining genre is not an easy task since the term connotes a range ofglosses from the generalized one of “any socialized interaction” in the context of greater society andculture to the more popular meaning of “a distinctive categorgy of discourse of any type, spoken orwritten, with or without literary aspirations” (Swales, 1990). Genre is a fuzzy concept for Swales,a somewhat loose term of art. In linguistics, closer attention is given to the term genre. Inconceptualizing genre, Swales (1990) cites Saville-Troike’s reference of the term to a “type ofcommunicative events” such as a joke, story, lecture, greeting and a conversation. Viewing theconcept of genre in this way warrants a look at 1) the functions of language, 2) the principle ofsocial semiotics, and 3) the model of systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1978; cited in 1985,1989, 1993).1) THE FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE?The notion of the “functions of language” refers to the way people “use” language. In themost general terms, people do different things with their language; that is, they expect to achieveby talking, writing, and by listening and reading, a large number of different aims and purposes.Halliday & Hasan (1989) view language as playing a critical role in building meaning. InHalliday’s term (1978, cited in 1989), language is primarily seen as a “social semiotic” and as aresource for meaning, centrally involved in the processes by which people negotiate, construct andchange the nature of their experience in a social context. Meaning is realized in language (in theform of text), which is thus shaped or patterned in response to the context of situation in which it isused (Fig. 2.2) (Martin, 1993; Halliday & Hasan, 1989). To study language then, is toconcentrate upon exploring how it is systematically organized towards important social ends. Inthis way, language has a “social” function.27Is the function of language an “active” or “passive” one? Does one have to actively uselanguage in conversation or writing or other output means to derive meaning from a social context?On the other hand, is it always possible to derive the social context from examining the function oflanguage in a particular text structure? Is this function of language uniform across cultures? Whatabout cross-cultural subtleties in second language contexts? Language as a resource of meaningsuggests that explicit, conscious interaction with language within a social context is necessary inorder to achieve a meaningful experience in that context.2) THE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL SEMIOTICSTo articulate the concept of genre, it is necessary to look closer at the systemic functionallinguistics treatment of language as a social semiotic (Halliday, 1989; Swales, 1990; Lemke, 1990;Halliday & Hasan, 1989). Martin (1993) states that language, as a social semiotic, “plays aninstrumental role in construing the social context in which we live” and in reciprocity, “language is,at the same time, construed by social context. Is language exclusively a social semiotic system?Martin (1993) goes on to suggest that language is not the only semiotic system (“cf. Kress and vanLeeuven 1990 on images, van Leeuven 1988 on music”); “nor is it claimed that the social contextconstrued by language is identical to that construed by other semiotic systems”. In Figure 2.4,Martin (1993) identifies the modeffing of the “realization relationship between a social system(social context) and a semiotic system (language). He clarifies the relationship as not one of causeand effect as in other physical systems but as one that allows for a bidirectional interplay of rolesand negotiation between language and social context.28Figure 2.2: Language as the realization of social context (Martin, 1993).Genre:Social contextLanguage“Social semiotics is a synthesis of several modem approaches to the study of socialmeaning and social action” (Lemke, 1990; Swales; 1990). One of them, obviously, is semioticsitself: the study of our social resources for communicating meaning. Historically semiotics wasinvented as part of the effort to fmd scientific basis for linguistics (Bakhtin, 1986). Semiotics isthe study of all systems of signs and symbols (including gestures, pictures, etc.) and how we usethem to communicate meanings. Social semiotics is not new in trying to unite the study of humanbehaviour, especially meaning-making behaviour (talking, writing, reasoning, drawing, etc.), withthe study of society. Linguistics gives particular attention to language as a semiotic resourcesystem.Linguistics itself is often concerned with viewing language as a tool of social action(Lemke, 1990). The way people construct meaning is determined by how language iscontextualized in a social situation (Lemke, 1990; Swales, 1990; Martin, 1993; Hasan & Martin,1989). In other words, scientists and artist, teachers and students, managers and workers talk andwrite about many subjects in characteristically different ways. They construct (or reconstruct) intheir speech, writing, and reasoning the different thematic patterns that “index” or identify theirsocial group (Lemke, 1990). In this way, contextualization is a very powerful notion. Who thendecides how language is contextualized in a given situation? What linguistic features of languagemarks the social context? This view of social semiotics is also shared by the view of SocialConstructionism in philosophy (cf. Wittgenstein, 1949; cited in Lemke, 1990). This also formsthe generalization of Haffiday’s (1978, cited in Lemke, 1990) model of language as “meaning29potential” a semantic resource. Social semiotics is basically a theory of how people make meaning.It addresses the question of how we make sense of how we relate to one another and how we makesense of the world.Language as a “social semiotic” implies a social theory of language where language as oneamong a number of systems of meaning that, taken all together, comprise human culture. Why asocial structure of language? The perspective of a social system of language may be contrastedwith other modes of interpretation, including psychological, psychoanalytic, and aesthetic ones.This social dimension seems to be significant in language education: it is one that is oftenneglected in discussion in curriculum and instruction. Learning is, of course, a social process andthe environment in which educational learning takes place is that of a social institution whether wethink of this in concrete terms as the classroom and the school with their clearly defmed socialstructures or in the more abstract sense of the school system, or even the educational process as itis conceived of in our greater community and society. Knowledge is exchanged in social contextsthrough interactions between teacher and student, classmates, or parent and child. Theserelationships are very much defmed in the value systems and ideology of the culture. Language asa communicative medium for knowledge construction in such contexts gets its meaning fromactivities in which it is embedded. There remains a question about language as knowledge. Forthe learning of any language, somewhere along the line the attention to linguistic form as contentknowledge is beneficial and critical to reaching a proficiency in the second language.It is essential to qualify here that the review above provides only a small window intounderstanding the main ideas that are pertinent to conceptualizing genre. The notion of genre maybe best understood when language is seen as a semiotic system that accomplishes social actions -that is, what people do.3) THE MODEL OF SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICSHow does the theoretical framework of systemic functional linguistics relate to the conceptof genre? This model of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) describes in an explicit and30systematic way the relationship between language use and its social context (Fig. 2.2) (Halliday,1985). Although the special features of SFL are continuously evolving, the model itself has fiveorientations that are critical and worth characterizing (Haffiday & Martin, 1993).The first orientation describes language as a “resource for meaning” rather than as a systemof rules. SFL is oriented, in other words, to speakers’ meaning potential (what they can mean)rather than what they can say. The second is the distinction between SFL’s concern with “texts”,rather than sentences, as the basic unit through which meaning is negotiated (Fawcett, 1987). Ittreats grammar as the realization of discourse - from which emerges the conception of a “funtionalgrammar” - naturally related to its text semantics (Halliday & Martin, 1993). Third, SFL focusseson united relations between texts and “social contexts” rather than on texts as decontextualizedstructural entities in their own right. Halliday & Martin (1993) elaborate that SFL looks for unitedrelationships between texts and the social practices they realize. “Fourth, SFL is concerned withlanguage as a system for construing meaning rather than as a conduit through which thoughts andfeelings are poured” (Halliday & Martin, 1993). In other words, it views language as a meaning-making system rather than a meaning-expressing one. It focuses on the role of grammar inconstructing the “uncommonsense interpretation of reality” which distinguishes one context,(whether social, political, cultural, academic, or others) from another. Finally, SFL is “oriented toextravagance, rather than parsimony (Halliday & Martin, 1993). It views language, life, theuniverse in communicative (i.e. semiotic) terms.The five orientations that describe the model of systemic functional linguistics clearly treatlanguage and social context as complementary abstractions, related by the important concept ofrealization. This model suggests a grammatically based deconstruction of text in social context toconstruct meaning.The Systemic Functional Model of Language developed by Halliday (1978; cited in 1985)is particularly relevant to education and has been implemented successfully in literacy programsaround the world for more than twenty-five years. Most recently it has been used in conjunctionwith research in Genre-based approaches to literacy in the University of Sydney, Wollongong,31Deakin, Curtin, Darwin Institute of Technology in Australia (Callaghan & Rothery, 1988). In theinstructional setting across the currculum, Halliday’s model provides teachers with a grammarwhich focusses on meaning rather than form and focusses on whole texts and their organization aswell as on sentences. This means that when teachers are helping their students create texts fordifferent purposes and audiences they can point explicitly to what has to be done. Across allacademic disciplines, students no longer have to guess what is expected when they write.4) DISCUSSIONS: CONCEPTUALIZING GENREGenre “refers to any staged purposeful social process through which culture is realized in alanguage” (Martin, 1985, cited in 1992) and this includes oral and written genres. A genre is saidto be characterized by a schematic structure - a distinctive beginning, middle, and end. Genres arenot concrete or fixed and unchanging forever. They have been developed over time to achievespecific social purposes and are constantly evolving (Martin, 1992; Swales, 1990). “In systemicfunctional linguistics this amounts to characterizing social context as a system of genres” (Martin,1993). Martin (1993) identifies some examples of genres to be “report, recount, procedure,exposition, discussion, explanation, exploration, serial, anecdote, exemplum, observation, andnews story”. The term genre is used here to encompass each of the linguistically realized activitytypes which constitute so much of our culture.The concept of genre needs to be defined clearly away from the longer established conceptof register (Ventola, 1984, cited in Swales 1990). Register is a well-established and centralconcept in linguistics, while genre is a recent addition found to be necessary as a result ofimportant studies to text structures (Martin, 1992; Callaghan & Rothery, 1988). Martin (Hasan &Martin, 1989) distinguishes genre and register to be two semiotic levels which are connotative andfind their expression through language. It is these two levels that are responsible for the distinctivepatterns of meanings found in texts. Register is just crucial to successful language use: its scopecorresponds roughly to subject matter, audience role, and speech/writing differences. Is this notan aspect of language use that refers to the success in writing or speech? Any comprehensive32account of learning about language would need to include an account of register and the way it isrealized in language.Register as a category has typically been analyzed in tenns of three variables labelledfield,tenor, and mode (Table 2.2; Figure 2.3; Martin, 1993). Field indicates the “type of activity inwhich the discourse operates, its content, ideas and ‘institutional focus” (Martin, 1993). The fieldcan be seen as the “social action” and asks “what is actually taking place” (Martin, 1993). It isassociated with the management of ideas. Tenor handles the status and role relationships of theparticipants (i.e. the reader and writer or the speaker and listener). Tenor refers to the “rolestructure” and asks “who is taking part” (Martin, 1993). Mode is concerned with the channel ofcommunication (i.e. speech or writing, or a combination of the two). Mode is the “symbolicrepresentation” and asks “what role language is playing” (Martin, 1993). The field, tenor, andmode seem to act collectively as determinants of text through their specification of the register; atthe same time, they are systematically associated with the linguistic system through the functionalcomponents of semantics. Genre can be seen as an integration of the three variables of register(Fig. 2.3). In other words, genres are realized through registers and registers in turn are realizedthrough language.Based on the “intrinsic” functional organization of language itself, the traditional view ofcontext represents a more diversified perspective. The systems and structures of language areorganized by metafunctions - “interpersonal” (tenor), “ideational” (field), and “textual” (mode)”(Table 2.2) (Martin, 1993). These metafunctions refer to the meaning language construed incontext of the ‘reality’ that is construed. This “intrinsic functionality is modelled as interactingwith the organization of social context (with field, tenor, and mode respectively” (Martin, 1993).33Table 2.2: Theory of context as shaped by the organization of language (Martin, 1993).Generalized Metafunction Registersemiotic function (organization of language) (organization of context)Language for construingthe SOCIAL as interpersonal meaning tenorintersubjective realityLanguage for construingEXPERIENCE as if ideational meaning field‘natural’ realityLanguage for organisingTEXT/PROCESS as textual meaning modesemiotic realityFig. 2.3: Language in relation to its connative semiotics - ideology, genre and register. Modelling tenor,field, and mode as the realization of genre (Martin, 1993)A broad definition of genre is one that describes a class of communicative events and themembers of which share a set of communicative purposes (Swales, 1990). These purposes are34recognized by the “expert members of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute therationale for the genre”. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse andinfluences and constrains choice of content and style. In addition to purpose, exemplars of a genreexhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style, content and intended audience.Lastly, some questions. How will teachers, students, parents, and the greater communityrespond to a Genre-based approach to language learning? This will be the focus of the followingpart of the review.C. GENRE-BASED APPROACH TO PEDAGOGY - A FOCUS ONWRITING SCIENCEFrom the perspective of genre theory and functional linguistics most of education involveslanguage learning. Learning science, for example, involves learning to address questions, exploreissues and reach solutions in ways appropriate to that discipline. This involves learning to talk andwrite in the ways of a scientist. Teaching science in turn means using language to enable studentsto talk and write new discourses - in particular, scientific discourse. It follows from thisperspective that knowledge about language is absolutely critical in education. This forms the basisof Martin and Painter’s (1986) recommendation of the Genre theory as model for curriculuminstruction.A Genre-based approach to language learning and instruction is applicable to promoting theimplementation of language across the cufficulum (Stainton, 1992) because some genres are foundto be common across different academic subjects. Based on the channel of communication ormode genre can be expressed through the spoken or written mode. The division of class, genderand ethnicity plays a role in the accessibility to written genres for both writers and readers. Somecommon genres required of students in their writing include: Narratives, Report (classifying andtaxonomizing), Procedure (sequencing events), Explanation (cause and effect), Description,Judgment and Exposition (Martin & Painter, 1986; Callaghan & Rothery, 1988; Christie &Rothery; 1989). These genres are based on detailed analyses of the lexicogrammatical patterning35of texts. The Genre-based approach to language pedagogy then makes explicit to the learner theknowledge about language form.1) WRITING IN SCIENCELanguage in science communicates about the relationships among the objects and absiractconcepts of nature. Words and numbers are symbols that represent units of meaning in language.By representing nature symbolically we can begin to understand, predict, and manipulate it. Theway that these words and numbers are organized in a structured text form the technical nature ofwriting in science. Bazerman (1988) supports the preceding notion by stating that although“symbols give us a picture of the way things (in science) are”, a problem emerges when symbolsare made precise, unambiguous, univocal, to create a clear one-to-one correspondence betweenobject and symbol”. Within the scientific community the language of science serves thecompetitive interests of separate individuals and research groups. For non-scientists scientificdiscourse becomes overwhelming and almost elitist.For one who adopts the western view of language it is natural to think of the language ofscience as an instrument for expressing ideas about the nature of physical and biological processes.However, it is a rather impoverished view of language which distorts the relationship betweenlanguage and other phenomena. Scientific language is distinctively more technical than “everydaylanguage”. It is not so natural to write the language of science to express scientific knowledge.The biggest demand that was explicitly made on a language of science was that it should beeffective in constructing “uncommon-sense technical taxonomies” since scientists give technicalterms and classify them to show their relationships in scientific discourse (Halliday & Martin,1993; Martin, 1993). “Uncommon-sense accounts of processes” are also established by scientificexplanations that complement taxonomizing reports. According to Martin (1993), modelingfieldin terms of taxonomies and explanations enables:36an analysis beyond the global staging of a genre which deals directly with theuncommon-sense knowledge that the various genres are mobilized, stage by stage,to construct. This in turn provides frameworks for sensitively situating genreswithin a discipline. Thus, a set of genres operate in a field and are essential to theconstruction of registers of scientific language. (Martin, 1993)Writing taxonomic reports in science can be viewed as documenting the ‘content’ of scienceeducation- the skills, processes, and knowledge that form the science curriculum.To write effectively in science it is necessary to comprehend and use the resources ofscientific terminology (lexis) and the technical grammar (nominal groups and clauses). Haffidayand Martin (1993) identify these lexical and grammatical elements as emerging resources ofscientific English. Scientific vocabulary is not particularly difficult to master since the teacher oftendefines new technical terms for students. It is often easier than the grammar. The technical termsbecome a problem to students, especially ESL students, when the relationships between theconcepts the terms represent are too complex and not clear. Technical terms cannot be defmed inisolation, each one has to be understood as part of a larger framework and each one is defined byreference to all the others.Halliday (in Halliday & Martin, 1993) identifies seven areas of difficulties which arecharacteristic of scientific English: 1) Interlocking definitions - terms that are used to defme eachother; 2) technical taxonomies - highly ordered constructions that are based on complex semanticrelationships; 3) special expressions - expressions with special grammar or “technical grammar”;4) lexical density- a measure of the density of information in any passage of text, according tohow tightly the lexical items (content words) have been packed into the grammatical structure;5) syntactic ambiguity - ambiguity in nominalization, verbal expression, and other syntacticalfeatures; 6) grammatical metaphors - substitution of one grammatical class or structure for another,e.g. “her arrival” instead of “she arrived”; 7) semantic discontinuity - semantic “leaps” from onethought to another, and often, the language is highly metaphorical in the grammatical sense. Thefeatures that Halliday described above certainly could help science and language teachers alike tofocus on problem areas to assist students in improving their writing in science. In reading andunderstanding science texts it is beneficial to criticize the ambiguities, analyze the expressions and37metaphors, and link and make semantic relationships explicit that are implicit. Of course, this isnot to suggest that reading and writing science texts routinely involves a detailed analysis of thelexical and grammatical features in the texts. Realistically, does the science teacher have theexpertise to analyze grammar and teach the scientific concepts at the same time?2) TEACHING WRITTEN GENRESIn the classroom the Genre-based approach to learning and instruction would focus onmaking the genres in science explicit to students (Christie & Rothery, 1989). In identifying theparticular genre to the students, it is necessary to describe the generic (schematic) structure of thescientific text (i.e. procedure recount of a laboratory experiment) and point out the languagefeatures (i.e. focus on specific “participants’ or tenor; use of past tense; temporal sequence ofevents: conjunctions; greater use of material or action processes) (Martin, 1990, in Christie, 1990;Veel, in press; Rothery, 1993; Rothery and Veel, in press). Three main stages in the Genre-basedapproach curriculum model for teaching different written genres have been described: Stage one iscalled modelling. In this stage, the context is set (i.e. the social function of genre), the scientifictext is modelled, the text is organized, and the grammatical and lexical features are identified for thestudents. In stage two, the students and teacher jointly construct a new text that resembles themodel (this stage may be optional for more able students. In the third stage, the students constructtheir texts independently. In evaluating the students’ work, the teacher needs to assess whetherstudents can identify situations appropriate to use a particular genre of interest to achieve theirpurpose, locate information and organize it into note form independently, and write the genre ontheir own with appropriate generic structure, text organization, and language features. Thisteaching cycle helps students to develop literacy in written genres in the discipline of science.3) EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCH AND THE CLASSROOMSThere is not a great deal of qualitative or quantitative research with an empirical orientationto analysis that supports or refutes the theory of genre and its approach to pedagogy. Most38research done in this area tends to be theoretically based and ethnographic in nature (this does notimply that theoretical and ethnographic research is not valid). Swales (1990) describes three casestudies of individual writers. Case studies appear to be appropriate to the exploratory phase of aninvestigation. Given that case studies focus on one subject at a time, are longitudinal, reveal apatterns of findings that are not generalizable to all, and have no control over behaviour events,they are nevertheless useful in documenting the benefits of student academic writing.In one of Swales’ (1990) case studies, Saiwa, the subject, strengthened her thesisstatements in her paragraphs by focusing on the propositions in the text and by adding contextualor metadiscoursal signs. Gene, the subject in Swales’ second case study, followed a different pathtowards recognizing subtle differences in audience in letter-writing genres and, since then, hasbeen able to deal with his own queries. In the third case study, Ali, whose previous writing waserratic, had more control over his written texts with the use of coda to summarize his writing.These revisions to text appear to be lexicogrammatical and semantic editings that represent soundpractice of process writing and are not exclusive to the Genre-based approach to writing. Whatthen are the differences? Is it in the text-modeffing stage of genre identification where self-analysisof writing can be appropriate for comparison or in the joint-construction stage where revisions areexplicit and integral to independent construction? At the more general level, how is one genredistinguished from another? The distinction may lie with the academic context in which the genreis identified or the process writing editing is made.Other evidence of success comes from informal, anecdotal comments made by Robert Veelof the Disadvantaged School Program, DSP, in New South Wales, Australia. The DSP programprovide an educational sanctuary for the bottom 16% of all students based on socio-economicstatus (SES). Regarding the topic of literacy Veel stated that “there has been a 514% increase inthe requests from schools for information and materials on genre” between 1990 and 1993. Veelwent on to support the Genre-based approach by reporting the following:39Three secondary schools ...have been using a Genre-based approach since 1989.All three schools have noted a significant improvement in the mean score of theirstudents who wro te the Year 10 Reference Tests (which are conducted state-widewith approximately 70,000 students. (The approach increased the mean score ofstudents of all levels.)Although the above two sets of testimonies shed some light on the pedagogical account ofthe Genre-based approach, there are other greater issues that need to be raised with regards to itsbenefits and adopting it in an educational setting.D. CONCLUSION: ISSUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCHThe genre theory can be seen as a theoretical model that is based on a social theory oflearning. It adopts a sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspective on language learning since ittreats language as social semiotic. Genre theorists wish, through further research, to identify andexplore the implications of social and cultural factors on the construct of the model, the languageenvironment and the learners using the language with respect to the meaning construed by thesocial context. These sociocultural and sociolinguistic factors include the social organization ofthe community and the different groups that make up society, its social classes and occupational,ethnic, cultural, and religious groups.Back in the science (or any other academic) classroom, implementing the Genre-basedapproach could demand more time and effort on the part of the content-area teacher to focus bothon the language features and the scientific knowledge in his or her instruction. What sort ofexpertise and training is necessary for content-area teachers? This could be one source ofresistance to adopting this approach. A teacher with a traditional ideology of education may notfind a benefit in the approach or view change as difficult.V. THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORKIn our discussion of the Knowledge Framework, as with genre, we will first discuss theKnowledge Framework as a theoretical model, and then discuss a Knowledge Framework-based40approach to pedagogy.As a theoretical model, like Martin’s concept of genre, Mohan’s concept of a KnowledgeFramework (KF) is located within the tradition of systemic functional linguistics and language as asocial semiotic. Both concepts start from the perspective of discourse in a social context.However, the KF model places special emphasis on the question of how social context isconstructed. Consistent with certain views in ethnography and cognitive anthropology, Mohan seea culture as containing a large range of “activities” (that is, social situations or socioculturalpractices). Doing a laboratory experiment is one example of an activity. The activity provides aconvenient unit of analysis for cultural behaviour and cultural knowledge. In an activity a personacts on their world and interprets their world; in an experiment, the student takes action andinterprets the experience. The investigation of an activity may involve observation of andparticipation in the activity, interviewing the participants, examining discourses related to theactivity and reflection on one’s own understanding of the activity. In the analysis, the aim is toanalyse the activity as a microworld of meaning; to see how the participant uses cultural knowledgeof the activity as a framework of meaning to interpret their experience and guide their actions. Forthis purpose it is helpful to see how this cultural knowledge is patterned into knowledge structures.Mohan suggests that for most activities there is core group of at least six structures which organisecultural knowledge: description, classification, sequence, principles, choice and evaluation.The activity, then, is an extended, organised social context. As such it provides acontextual “home” for the discourses which occur in relation to it. Context and discourse arerelated. Similarly, KF and genres are not opposed alternative models; they are related,complementary and mutually supportive to each other. There is in fact a close relation betweensome of the main genres and the major knowledge structures. Genres are adaptable with referenceto the knowledge structures in Mohan’s (1986) Knowledge Framework for the integration oflanguage and content (Table 2.3). Table 2.3 shows the main genres identified by Martin (1985;cited in 1992) and by Christie and Rothery (1989) as they are related to the knowledge structures.Similar to the KSs, the emphasis would be on both linguistic form and the content knowledge in41the scientific text. However, unlike the Knowledge Framework there is less focus on key visualsas graphic representations of genres and in lowering the language barrier for second languagelearners.Table 2.3: Genres and the Knowledge Framework (Martin, 1985, in 1992; Christie &Rothery, 1989; Mohan, 1991).CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES EVALUATIONreport (taxonomizing explanation judgementdescription recount (procedure) “interpersonal”DESCRIPTION SEQUENCE CHOICEThe Knowledge Framework-based approach to pedagogy is a model that promotes secondlanguage learning, academic language and cognitive skills development, and communicativelanguage use (Early, Mohan, & Hooper, 1989; Mohan, 1979, 1986, 1991). The theoreticalframework emphasizes the development of both language and content knowledge in a cooperativemanner as opposed to learning them separately. By focusing on the intersection of language,content, and thinking objectives, the Knowledge Framework-based approach proves tobe effective for ESL and native-speaking students in learning new concepts in their academicsetting (Mohan, 1991).Integrating language and content using the Knowledge Framework involves organizing theinformation relevant to a topic or an activity into the appropriate six knowledge structures(“Description”, “Classification”, “Principles”, “Sequence”, “Evaluation”, and “Choice”). Graphicconventions called “key visuals” are widely used in the Knowledge Framework as a “bridge” thatlinks language and content (Mohan, 1986, 1991; Early, 1989). They are visual representations ofsemantic relations and show the relationship between ideas while lowering the language barrier.421) KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURESThe Knowledge Framework can be used to assemble information or a topic and organize itinto six knowledge structures (“Description”, “Classification”, “Principles”, “Sequence”,“Evaluation” and “Choice”) that display both the theoretical background and the practical aspectsof the topic in a meaningful context (Mohan, 1986) (refer to Table 2.4). Each knowledge structurehas its distinct cognitive processes, language features and key visuals to graphically represent theknowledge structure. Key visuals can reduce the language demand in order for content to be betteracquired. “This applies to both ESL and native-speaking learners” (Early, Mohan & Hooper,1989).43Table 2.4: The Knowledge Framework for learning (Adapted from Mohan, 1986)THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORKCLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES EVALUATIONThinking Processes: Thinking Processes: Thinking Processes:Classifying, defining Explaining, predicting, evaluating, judging,inferring, understanding criticizingLanguage: Language: Language:Content Vocabulary Content Vocabulary Content VocabularyStructural Vocabulary Structural Vocabulary Structural VocabularyKey Visuals: Key Visuals: Key Visuals:Classification tree Cause/Effect table Evaluation gridTOPIC CAUSE EFFECT Situation Effect Evaluation/\A‘N/is B -DESCRIPTION SEQUENCE CHOICEThinking Processes: Thinking Processes: Thinking Processes:Describing, observing, sequencing, ordering deciding, problem-solvingmeasuring spatially or chronologically choosingLanguage: Language: Language:Content Vocabulary Content Vocabulary Content VocabularyStructural Vocabulary Structural Vocabulary Structural VocabularyKey Visuals: Key Visuals: Key Visuals:Diagrams Flow chart Decision treeALA B C yes A1,J no BCThe cognitive processes of each knowledge structure consist of related thinking skills thatstudents exercise when they are learning about a certain topic or concept. For example, underClassificationH on the topic of types of rocks, students may engage in “classifying”, “defining”,44“generalizing about the descriptions” or “understanding” the concepts of rocks. Each knowledgestructures consists of semantic relations which are expressed lexicogrammatically in discourse;they are realized through both vocabulary and grammar.Key visuals are graphic representations of the framework’s knowledge structures. Tables,charts, cycles, trees, venn diagrams and concept maps are examples of key visuals that help tointegrate language and content knowledge learning. The visuals help to reduce the language barrierby identifying important discourse structures and content items and link them in graphic form.Table 2.5 outlines the criteria for identifying key visuals (Early, Mohan & Hooper, 1989). Asvisual organizers, graphics clarify the purposes and the thinking processes to make the learning ofinformation meaningful (clark, 1991).Table 2.5: Identifying key visuals (adapted from Early, Mohan & Hooper, 1989).CRITERIA USEFUL FOR IDENTIFYING KEY VISUALSA KEY VISUAL IS MORE THAN A KEY VISUAL ISan attention stimulator a package carrying informationan illustration a visible framework of the shape of thecontenta visual aid an abstraction of basic informationa visual backdrop a focus on the core of the contenta simplification of the text a display of essential information withoutlanguage involveda representation an explicit depiction of relationshipsa particular and practical example a general and theoretical structurean enrichment a core element in understanding contenta reference point an asset, convenient to use and to develop45Early, Mohan, & Hooper (1989) identify three major applications for key visuals: “(1)generative, to promote language generation (related to content); (2) representative or explanatory,to increase content understanding; and (3) evaluative, to evaluate content and languageunderstanding. An effective key visual of a content topic is one that emphasizes the contentknowledge shaped in a way that reflects the semantic relationships among the key ideas with onlythe essential language elements used for communicating that knowledge. Key visuals can beutilized to extract information from academic discourse and organize it according to the knowledgestructure inherent in a given text. Mohan suggests that graphics and the texts from which they arederived “are semantically comparable; the two share the same knowledge structures and essentiallythe sametopical meaning; but they differ in textuality” or the shaping of the text structure (1989).Using key visuals teachers can guide students’ learning of abstract concepts by pictoriallymaking concrete connections between focal points across topics. Tang (1991) suggests that thelearning of language and content through knowledge structures, and the use of graphicrepresentations by students, are most effective under the direction of the teacher. Teachers can usegraphics to help students construct and shape their written texts. When students are organizingtheir language, knowledge, and thinking processes into written texts, teachers can use graphics toassist them in accessing their prior knowledge so the students can make a link among theexperiences, the graphics and the texts they create.2) WRITING SCIENCE USING THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORKThe Knowledge Framework approach to instruction can be applied to promote the learningof concepts, language and cognitive process skills in science. In the science classroom curricularconcepts or topics can be organized into the knowledge structures of the theoretical framework inorder to construct a written text such as scientific lab report that reflects the learning of theacademic discourse and scientific concepts. The approach can be designed “to elicit certainknowledge and discourse structures” and can aim to develop language competencies for writing lab46reports as an academic task (Mohan, 1986).The Knowledge Framework can be a tool for organizing information for writing a scientificlaboratory report. Table 3.1 (see page 66) describes how the thinking processes and the languagefeatures inherent in the topic of scientific lab reporting can be arranged into the six knowledgestructures for the task of writing. Table 3.2 (see page 67) suggests some key visuals that may beappropriate for representing the cognitive processes, the language and content information withinthe topic as it is organized into the six knowledge structures. For example, in the knowledgestructure of “sequence” the sentence fk&t, sterilize the inoculating loop by flaming it until itglows, and ffi, the loop cools use it to transfer the bacteria the agar plate” demonstratesthe use of language terms for chronological and spatial order for the thinking process ofsequencing lab procedural steps (Table 3.1). Table 3.2 shows a visual textuality of sequencing labprocedures by emphasizing the use of imperatives and flowchart arrows for the lab steps inchronological order.Mohan’s (1986) theoretical framework promotes the organization of thoughts and ideasfrom the laboratory experience and the selection of appropriate language items for the concisewriting of a scientific report. The way the language items and content information are organized iscrucial to the pragmatics and semantics of the scientific text written. The framework helps toestablish meaningful relationships between scientific discourse and content knowledge and makesthe information accessible to students of varying cognitive abilities and learning strategies. TheKnowledge Framework can make the new conceptual knowledge from the lab work relevant to thestudents and facilitate the assimilation of that information to what the students have already learned.D. SUMMARY: ISSUES FOR RESEARCHThe Knowledge Framework as an approach for writing science can be applied to theinstruction and learning of scientific concepts. The approach accommodates the learning needs ofboth ESL and native-speaking students by clearly identifying the language items, the contentvocabulary and the cognitive processes of scientific concepts and making them easier for learning.47For the Knowledge Framework approach to be implemented for instruction in the academic scienceclassroom curriculum planners or teachers need to examine their perspectives on the value oflearning language and conceptual knowledge together in a content-area program.Further research on the Knowledge Framework approach to learning science may focus onhow science or other content-area teachers feel about teaching language structures and skills in theirsubject classrooms. A debate may surface regarding the roles of “language” instructors teaching“language” and “content” instructors teaching “content”: It may be the perception of some teachersworking with this approach that they have to modify extensively their content programs to delivertheir subject material and that they may not be as well-qualified as a language instructor to teachlinguistic skills. Extending the issue science teachers would probably be concerned about whatlanguage structures and what content they present to their students. Mohan (1986: 19) suggests apossible solution: Content teachers can use the Knowledge Framework for developing thinkingabilities; language teachers can use the Knowledge Framework for developing discourse ability.On the issue of assessment using the Knowledge Framework, how do science teachersevaluate the learning of language skills and content knowledge? If the learning of both languagestructures and content information is equally valued in an integrated language and content modelfor instruction, should evaluation procedures be designed to appropriately measure the capabilitiesin both areas of learning? For some teachers, it may not be necessary to evaluate language skillsunless the linguistic devices impede the communicability or expression of the content material inthe students’ work.From their work on the Vancouver Research Project Early, Mohan & Hooper (1989)provide evidence that ESL students working with thematic units developed with the KnowledgeFramework are successful in producing “a whole range of fluencies in using the languge academicsubject matter”. From her study “teacher collaboration in integrating language and content”, Tang(1994) found that the “Knowledge Framework is a powerful tool for effecting teacher collaborationand for enabling ESL students to learn systematically academic English, read a novel, acquirecomputer literacy, develop thinking skills and socialize into the English-speaking classroom.” The48ESL and the computer studies teachers in Tang’s study “collaborated” in developing classroomtasks using the framework and planning contents and sequence of the instructional materials for thelearning of the Hypercard program. These two studies by Early et. a!. (1989) and Tang (1994)shed light on the Knowledge Framework by recommending the use of thematic units in content-area instruction and teacher collaboration as a way pooling the expertise of the language andcontent-area teachers for successful integration of language and content.VI. SUMMARYThis critical review focused on providing an understanding of the related issues of writing ascientific laboratory report as an academic classroom task for learning and presented for discussiontwo approaches to writing science, the Knowledge Framework-based approach and the Genre-based approach to literacy instruction. It was the intent of this review to describe the twoapproaches and consider their benefits and shortcomings for writing science by referring to thecurrent literature on the two concepts.Writing a scientific lab report is an academic task for learning language and contentknowledge in the content-area classroom. The task allows ESL and native-speaking students tocommunicate through written texts their learning of the scientific language and concepts that theyhave experienced when conducting their laboratory work.One approach that is applicable to this research on writing science is the Genre-basedapproach. Based on the principles of language as a social semiotic and the model of SystemicFunctional Linguistics, the Genre-based approach to writing scientific reports focuses on makinggenres in science explicit to students and identifying the appropriate genres and their schematic andlinguistic choices and the context or “register” for producing language. Through the 3-stageteaching cycle of modelling of text, joint construction of new text, and independent construction ofthe text, students can write scientific reports using the Genre approach.The Knowledge Framework is another approach that can be applied to writing scientific labreports. Working within the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics, the theoretical49framework integrates the learning of academic language and content by identifying, extracting, andorganizing into its knowledge structures the linguistic devices, conceptual knowledge, andcognitive processes inherent in the topic of writing a lab report. Key visuals are graphicrepresentations of the knowledge structures that act as a bridge for integrating language and contentfor learning.50TIDLcGYThis study was designed to answer the following question: Is there a difference inthe quality of scientific report writing at the senior secondary school level relatedto differences in instructional approach: The Knowledge Framework approach orthe Genre-based approach to literacy instruction. This section will describe the researchmethods employed to address the central question of this study by outlining the hypotheses,participants, materials, procedures, and analyses of the fmdings.I. HYPOTHESESGenerated from the broader central question of this research, the following is a set ofhypotheses proposed for testing in this present study:1. The Knowledge Framework (KF) approach is more effective than the Genre-based approach to instruction in improving the quality of both mainstream and ESLstudents’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.2. The Knowledge Framework (KF) approach will improve the quality of bothmainstream and ESL students’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.3. The Genre-based approach will improve the quality of both mainstream and ESLstudents’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.4. Mainstream students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were taught the Genre-basedapproach.515. Mainstream students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were not taught either theKF or Genre-based approach.6. Mainstream students taught the Genre-based approach will achieve higher evaluation scoreson their scientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were not taughteither the KF or Genre-based approach.7. ESL students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the ESL students who were taught the Genre-basedapproach.8. ESL students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the ESL students who were not taught either the KF or theGenre-based approach.9. ESL students taught the Genre-based approach will achieve higher evaluation scores ontheir scientific lab report writing than the ESL students who were not taught either the KFor the Genre-based approach.10. Students taught the KF approach will understand how to use the Knowledge Frameworkto focus on language and content features and use key visuals for writing scientific labreports.11. Students taught the Genre-based approach will understand how to the use “Procedure”,“Procedural Recount”, and “Explanation” genres to identify the generic structures and keylanguage features for writing scientific lab reports.II. STUDY GROUPSThe study groups in this research were comprised of students who were enrolled in threeclasses of Grade 11 Biology at a senior secondary school in the Richmond School District.Twenty students in each of the three classes volunteered to participate in this study. Each classserved as a study group and was designated as follows: The class that received the Knowledge52Framework approach was named the KF” group; the “Genr&’ group was taught the Genre-based;the third class received neither of the above instructional approaches and therefore served as the“Control group. The students in the study come from a middle-class background and a variety ofethnic cultures.III. MATERIALSInstructional Resources for KF approach to Writing Scientific Lab Reports.A unit for writing scientific lab reports implementing the KF approach was developed forthis study for one of the three participant groups. The unit included a series of lessons thatorganizes the activity of writing a lab report using the knowledge framework for learning toidentify and apply the appropriate knowledge structures and graphic conventions for language,content and cognitive processing. A set of evaluation criteria for scientific lab reports were used toassess the performance of the students using this KF approach and the Genre-based approach (see“Evaluation Criteria” below).• Teaching Guide for THE PROCEDURAL RECOUNT GENRE (DSP, 1989c).The purpose of this guide was to illustrate step by step and stage by stage the way to teachthe procedural recount genre to one of the three Biology 11 classes in this study. When the teacherwas conducting a unit from his biology curriculum, the procedural recount genre teaching guideserved as the instructional methodology for that part of the unit for writing a scientific labexperiment.• Survey ofEvaluation Criteriafor Scientflc Laboratory Reports (Appendix E)The purpose of this survey was find out what evaluation criteria senior science (Grades 11and 12) teachers develop and use to assess student performance on scientific lab reports. It askedwhat aspect of “language” and “content” do science teachers evaluate in their students’ lab reports.53The essential findings of this survey were analyzed and used for developing the Evaluation Criteriafor Writing Scientific Laboratory Reports for assessing the lab reports written by all the studentparticipants in this study.Evaluation Gridfor Writing Scientific Laboratory Reports (Appendix F)An evaluation criteria for assessing the scientific lab reports written by the participants wasdeveloped and used for all three study groups. The evaluation criteria employed a set ofdescriptors and numerical / value scale for each components of the lab report. This evaluation gridwas used to determine the performance of the participants after working with each of the twoapproaches or with neither of the approaches.• Pretest 1: (Gates-MacGinitie) Reading Comprehension Test.This pretest was given to the participants in all three study groups to determine their readingcomprehension ability prior to the study in order to maintain a consistent perspective on eachparticipant group’s performance and a reference for assessing their written lab reports. The sourceof this test was an adaptation of the Gates-MacGinitie, Level F, Form 2 for Grade 11. This testwill reveal each participant’s Grade Equivalent (G.E.) Reading level based on a 48-questionmultiple-choice test.• Pretest 2 . What is a Scientific Laboratory Report? (Appendix C)This purpose of this pretest was to identify the participants’ background knowledge aboutwriting a scientific lab report and to assess their writing ability before being introduced the twoapproaches (see Appendix. The first section of the pretest was a questionnaire asking for theparticipants previous science background level and achievement standing. The second section’sobjective was to fmd out the participant’s knowledge and experience about writing scientific labreports with an essay component. This pretest was intended to reveal how much the participantsknow about the topic. The essay section was evaluated using a set of writing assessment54descriptors (see Appendix D)Writing Assessment Criteria: Descriptors.This evaluation criteria will be used to assess the writing ability of all participants in thestudy in Pretest 2. It has five components (Communicability & Organization, Content,Vocabulary, Language Use, and Mechanics) with a range of values totalling 100.(See Appendix D)Survey I: Using Genres to Write a Scientific Lab Report (Appendix G)Each of the student who participated in the Genre-based approach testing (accept those inthe Knowledge Framework and the Control group) was asked to complete a survey regarding theirexperiences working with the three stages (modelling, joint negotiation of text, and independentconstruction) of the Genre approach to writing scientific lab reports. The survey was divided intoFIVE sections: The first section addressed the participants’ learning of procedural recount genreidentification, its generic structure, and the language features associated with the proceduralrecount genre (i.e. past tense, temporal sequence of events, action words (verbs)). The secondsection asked the participants about modelling and analyzing the sample lab report for the recountgenre and its related structures and features. In the third, the students were inquired about theirunderstanding of joint negotiation and construction. Their experience with the stage ofindependent text construction was recalled in the fourth section of the survey. The fifth sectionasked for the participants’ overall assessment and evaluation of their experience with the proceduralrecount genre approach with respect to its success for writing lab reports.• Survey II: Using the Knowledge Framework toWrite a Scientific Lab Report (Appendix H)The purpose of this survey was to inquire about the Knowledge Framework group’sexperience with the knowledge framework for writing scientific lab reports. The survey wasdivided into 3 sections focusing on:551) identifying and using the six knowledge structures and their thinking processes toorganize the components of lab report,2) using graphic conventions (key visuals) for representing the knowledge structures, and3) using structural vocabulary and content vocabulary for writing the lab reportcomponents.A letter to School Superintendents (Appendix A)A letter to the School Superintendents of the Richmond School District No. 38 was sent outto obtain permission to conduct the above study.• A letter ofPermission to StudentParticipants and Parents (Appendix B).A letter was sent out to each participating student and their parents describing the nature ofthis study of two approaches to writing scientific lab reports.IV. PROCEDURESThe first step of this study involved sending out the two letters (the letter to the SchoolSuperintendent and the letter to Student Participants and Parents) to obtain permission to conductthe study. The actual procedures of the study can be described in the following way (see figure3.1):1. The teacher! researcher selected 3 classes of mainstream Biology 11 randomly in whichhe was teaching. Two classes were designated “Experimental” and the third class was the“Control” group.2. The two experimental classes were further divided into the “KF” (Knowledge Framework)and “Genre” groups. No particular preference was given for the designation.3. Once permission from the School Board was granted, the letter ofPermission to StudentParticipants and Parent was given out to each student.4. The next step involves administering the two pretests to all three participant groups:56Pretest 1: Reading Comprehension Test and Pretest 2: What is a Scientific Lab Report?The pretests results were NOT analysed by the teacher / reseacher until AFTER the KFapproach and the Genre-based approach have been instructed. This was to prevent anybias in the teaching stage to compensate for the participants’ reading and writing ability inEnglish.5. After the two pretests, the teacher I researcher began to teach the KF approach unit to the“KF” group and teach the procedural recount genre as a method for writing scientific labreports to the student participants in the “Genre” class. To ensure no bias and overlapsexist with all three groups, an impartial observer was invited to attend a couple of theclasses during instruction (see “KF Approach Instruction” and “Genre-based TeachingCycle” below).6. The third “control” group did not receive any of the other two instructional approaches.This group was given a “generic” lab format guideline with no special instructions from theteacher Iresearcher (see Appendix J).7. At the end of the KF approach and procedural recount genre teaching cycle, all studentswere asked to write a formal lab report based on the current topic presented in theBiology 11 curriculum.8. Upon completing the written scientific lab reports the reports were evaluated and analyzedusing the Evaluation Criteria for Writing Scientific Laboratory Reports. The written labreports were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.9. Steps 7 and 8 were repeated for consistency and to allow the students to grasp theapproach.10. SURVEY 1: Using Genres to write a Lab Report was administered to the “Genre”group and SURVEY 2: Using the Knowledge Framework to Write a Scientific LabReport was given to the “KF” group at the end of the teaching stage of the study. Thesurveys were analysed.57Figure 3.1: Procedures for KF / Genre study.f PRETEST 1: READING COMPREHENSION TESTIPRETEST 2: WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY REPORT?KF GENRE-BASED NO SPECIFICAPPROACH TEACHING INSTRUCTIONINSTRUCTION CYCLE4 4 4I STUDENT WRITTEN SCIENTIFIC LAB REPORTSTEXTS ANALYSES IA. TEACHING STAGEThe teaching stage of this study was designed to implement the KF and the Genre-basedapproaches to each of the experimental groups. The following frameworks describe how the rolesof teacher / researcher and students would interacted in the lessons as each of the approaches wasintroduced for writing lab reports (figure 3.2 and 3.3).KF APPROACH & GENRE-BASED APPROACH STUDY: PROCEDURESrKFt% cinsJGENRECLASS1CONTRi14%_CLASS_JSURVEY 2*SURVEY 1I581) GENRE-BASED TEACHING CYCLE1. In the first step of the teaching cycle the term “genre” was introduced and defined for thestudents. In accessing their prior knowledge, students identified the term with one that describesdifferent varieties of music, professional situation, or social environment.2. Next, the distinction between “written” and “spoken” genres were made. The studentswere then presented the genres of “procedures”, “procedural recount” and “explanation” genresand their schematic structure and language features. Descriptions, explanations and examples ofthe genres were given.3. In modelling the text, students were asked to describe the procedures to completing a dailychore, recount an event that happened the night before, and explain a simple scientific concept thatrelates to their daily lives. Next, students were directed to deconstruct a text, which was a writtenlab report, by identifying its schematic structure (“Aim”, “Method” and “Result”) and languagefeatures (past tense, etc.).4. Since lab experimental reports consist of “procedure” and “procedural recount” genres andadded dimension of “explanation” as the senior secondary level, the schematic structure for acomplete scientific lab report was revised to include the following stages: “Aim”, “Materials”,“Methodt1,“Results”, “Discussion” (“explanation” genre) and “Conclusion” (refer to Appendix I).The students were taught the revised schematic structure and the key language features of the threegenres as they are applied to each section of the lab report.5. The topic of “Staining Bacteria” was used to present the Genre-based approach towriting lab reports. The teacher and the students jointly wrote all sections of the lab report usingthe 6-stage generic structure as a guide. All aspects of the key language features weredemonstrated.6. In the independent construction stage of the teaching cycle students were given a differentlab investigation where they had to write their lab reports using Genre. The lab reports were then59collected for evaluation.Figure 3.2: A framework for the study of the genre-based approach to literacy for writingsenior science lab reports.FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING THE GENRE-BASED APPROACHFOR WRITING SCIENTIFIC LAB REPORTSI BIOLOGY /RESEARCHERL TEACHER2) THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK APPROACH INSTRUCTIONPROCESS1. The Knowledge Framework and its 6 knowledge structures were first taught to thestudents. Each of the knowledge structures were introduced and defined. The focus, the thinkingBIOLOGY 11 CLASS #1GENRE-BASED APPROACH(Mainstream / ESLSTUDENTS J[PROCESS (ROCESS ‘1-*’ERVE)• text deconstructioni • model text I• joint construction • joint construction• independent text • evaluation &construction assessment(PRODUCT )jiiALUATE &.LYZEDwritten_textT ASSESS JREPORT FINDINGS # 1I IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION Iskills, the language features (structural vocabulary and content vocabulary), and the key visuals of60each knowledge structures were described.2. An example topic was presented to demonstrate the principles of the KnowledgeFramework.3. Next, the topic of writing a scientific report for the lab investigation “Staining Bacteria”was outlined and organized to the six knowledge structures of the theoretical framework. Tables3.1 and 3.2 show the framework was used to generate the integrated language and contentinformation and the key visuals for writing the report for this lab.4. Given a new laboratory investigation topic, the students were asked to conduct the lab andwrite a scientific report for the lab. The completed reports were then finally evaluated.CLASSIFICATIONFocus:Componentsof aLabReportThinkingProcesses:ClassifyingLanguage:•genericnouns-Purpose/Objectives!Hypothesis, Materials,Procedures,Observations, Discussion,&Conclusion•speciesnouns-section,componentpart.•verbsofpossession-have•verbsofclassmembership-be,include,placeunder,consistof,madeupof,.g.The“Hypothesis”jasectionofascientificlabreport.DESCRIPTIONFocus:Characteristicfeaturesof eachcomponentof alabreport.ThinkingProcesses:Describing,observing, comparing,contrasting.Language:Adjectives -descriptive,depthandlengthofinformation,format,paragraphform,detail,general,specific•Adjectives-Absolute,comparatives(-er)superlatives(-est),more,most•Adverbs-more,most•comparison-similar to,comparedto,either, both,alike,equal toE.g:Inthe“Observations”,dataarecomparedandcontrasted.PRINCIPLESFocus:Formulatingandtestinghypotheses,explaininglabresults.ThinkingProcesses:Explaining,predicting,inferring, generalizing,interpretingdata, understanding/applyingprinciplesandtheories,causeandeffectLanguage:Cause-result,cause,produce,enable,dueto,must,ought,should,becauseEffect(result)-sothat, thus,therefore,consequently, hence, forthisreason.If...then.Example:Aplaquedevelopedaroundtheantibiotictetracyclinebecausebacteriacouldnotgrovinthe presenceof that antibiotic.SEQUENCEFocus:Astep-by-stepaccountof theproceduresperformedinalab.ThinkingProcesses:Sequencing,orderingspatiallyorchronologicallytheproceduresof alab.Language:OrderChronological-first,second,next,then,before, after,finally, intheend.Spatial-lefttorightorrighttoleft,toptoottom,neartofar,insidetooutside,here.E.g.First,sterilizetheinoculatingloopbylamingituntilitglows,andthen,aftertheloopcoolsuseittotransferthebacteriaontotheagarplate.EVALUATIONFocus:EvaluatinglabdataandvaluesThinkingProcesses:criticizing,justifyinglabresultsLanguage:Adjectives -sufficient,insufficient,correct/incorrect,right/wrong,effective,ineffectiveVerbs-I believe, basedon,E.g.Ibelievethedatawecollectedwa:sufficient forustodeterminethemosteffectiveantibioticsforthebacteriaB.coli. CHOICEFocus:Concludinganexperiment orinvestigation;“Rejecting”or“Accepting’hypotheses.ThinkingProcesses:drawingconclusions,detectingerrorsshort-comings,recommending,solvinlabproblemsLanguage:I think, choose,inmyopinion, prefer,insummary,IconcludethatThehypothesisisrejected/accepted.Modals-can,should,wouldE.g.Inconclusion,ourhypothesisisrejectedbasedonthislaboutcome.Table3.1THEKNOWLEIGEFRAMEWORKTOPIC:WRITINGASCIENTIFICLABORATORYREPORTB A C K G R OKUNNODW L E D G ELIEWA C T I 0 ‘IIS I T U A T I 0 NS I T U A T I 0 NPRINCIPLESKeyVisualsCause andEffectTable:Observations&DiscussionsEffectsofAntibioticsonE.coliAntibioticsPlaque*Lysis**TetracyclineYesYesAmpicillinNoNoKanamycinNoNoNeomycinYesYes*azoneof nobacterial growth**bacterial cellwall ruptured: deathSEQUENCEKeyVisualsFlowChart:ProceduresCulturingBacteria:PlatestreakingEVALUATIONKeyVisualsEvaluationDecisionGrid:Discussion&ConclusionGramStainResults:BacteriaCellColorGram*E.colipink/red(-)B.subtilispurple(+)*positive(+)ornegative(-)reactiontoGram’sIodinestain.CHOICEKeyVisualsDecisionTree:ConclusionHypothesisfResultsConclusionpurpleAcceptGram(+)HypothesisIfE.coligramstainspurple,thenitisgram(+)pink/redRejectGram(-)HypothesisCLASSIFICATIONTable3.2THEKNOWLEDGEFRAMEWORKTOPIC:WRITINGASCIENTIFICLABORATORYREPORTLIEWB A C K G R OKUNNODW L E D G EKeyVisualsClassificationTree:(ComponentsofaLabReport)TitleIConclusionObjectives!/DiscussionHypothesi//Purpose/ /ObservationsMaterialsProcedureDESCRIPTIONA C T I 0 NKeyVisualsDiagramof avirus:Observationsproteincoat 1-capsidacid—’(head)(DNA)sheath fibersbacteriophageT4length=225nanometers(nrn)63Figure 3.3: The framework for the study of KF approach to writing senior science lab reports.FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING THE KF APPROACHFOR WRITING SCIENTIFIC LAB REPORTSBIOLOGY 11 CLASS #2THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK APPROACHI IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION I(Mainstream/ESLSTUDENTS J( BIOLOGY / RESEARCHERTEACHERPROCES S• identify topic or activity• observe a specific example• receive backgroundknowledge of a specific case• interpret particular case usinggeneral principles• use knowledge structures foraction situation & background• use graphics for organization• identify language and thinkingskills• create written text based onactivityPROCESS• identify topic or activity• present a specific eg.• present backgroundknowledge of case• link particular case togeneral principles• apply the knowledgeframework• use KS graphics• guide the use oflanguage and thinkingskillsPRODUCT EVALUATE & ANALY• written text ASSESSREPORT FINDINGS #264V. ANALYSESA. QUANTITATIVEKF APPROACH AND GENRE-BASED APPROACH. LAB REPORTS.One format of evaluation criteria as a means of quantative analysis was developed to assessthe lab reports written by all three participant groups. The evaluation grid for the lab reportsexamined the language and content information using a set of descriptors with an assigned valuefor each of the components or sections of the lab report (refer to Appendix F).B. QUALITATIVEKF APPROACH: LAB REPORTSThe lab reports written by the students in the “KF’ class can be analyzed qualitatively usingthe following qualitative assessment grid (Figure 3.4):Figure 3.4: Qualitative evaluation framework for KF approach.KF APPROACH: QUALITATIVE EVALUATIONCOMPONENTS DESCRIPTION• IDENTIFICATION & USE OFKNOWLEDGE STRUCTURESLAB COMPONENTS• THINKING PROCESSES• USE OF CONTENT VOCABULARY• USE OF STRUCTURAL VOCABULARY• USE OF KEY VISUALS (where appropriate)65GENRE-BASED APPROACH: LAB REPORTSEach survey was numbered and each statement item response was numbered. The writtentexts can be analyzed in terms of:a) GENERIC STRUCTURE: overall text structure. In the procedural recount genre(including “procedures and “explanations” genres), the 6 sections of staging are: “Aim”,“Materials” “Method”, “Results”, “Discussion” and “Conclusions” (see Figure 3.5)Figure 3.5: (Modified) procedural recount genre in the scientific lab report.GENRE-BASED APPROACH LABORATORY REPORTSCHEMATIC STRUCTURE COMPONENTSAIM •PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESISMATERIALS • MATERIALSMETHOD • PROCEDURESRESULTS • DATA AND OBSERVATIONSDISCUSSION* • DISCUSSIONS AND ANALYSISCONCLUSIONS • CONCLUSIONS* This stage was added as the schematic structure modified for writing lab reports atsenior science level.b) KEY LANGUAGE FEATURES (adapted from Veel, forthcoming):The following linguistic features characterize written texts constructed employing the Genre-basedapproach for writing science:PROCEDURE GENREi) Material Processes: e.g. “Hold your inoculating ioop...”ii) Steps expressed as commands: e.g. “Put on your apron...”iii) Sequence words: e.g. “Secondly, label your petri dish.”iv) Dependent clauses of time: e.g. “Flame the ioop until it glows...”66v) References to place and manner: e.g. “Streak the plate with the loop.”PROCEDURAL RECOUNT GENREi) Material Processes in “Results”: e.g. “We removed the lid of the petri dish.”ii) Mental Processes: e.g. “We performed an investigation totest the effects of antibioticson the growth of E. coli bacteria.”iii) Human Participants (optional): “We noticed that...”iv) Past tense: e.g. “We saw plaquev) Circumstances of time and space: e.g. “After 48 hours ...“, “In the test tube...”EXPLANATION GENRE: Sequential. Causal. Theoretical. Factorial, or ConsequentialExample: CAUSAL EXPLANATIONi) Sequencing devices: e.g. “The antibiotic can then stop the growth of the E. coli.”ii) Causal conjunctions: e.g. “As a result, there was a clear area around the antibiotic.”iii) Dependent clauses of cause: e.g. “Since there was no plaque, this antibiotic wasineffective in preventing bacteria growth.”iv) Circumstances of cause: e.g. “There was a plaque because the antibiotic worked.”v) Processes of Causation: e.g. “The chemicals in the antibiotics caused the bacteria tolyse.”vi) Nominalisations: e.g. “The prevention of bacterial growth ...“vii) Complex nominal groups: e.g. “Chemical substances in the antibiotics caused...”CONTROL CLASS: LAB REPORTSThe lab reports written by this class will be analyzed by using a wholistic means that drawsfrom the above KF and Genre-based approach evaluation format. Specifically, the focus of theevaluation here is on the linguistic quality and content information written in each section of the labreport (“Hypothesis”, “Materials”, “Procedures”,”Observations”, “Discussion & Conclusions”,etc.).VI. SUMMARYThe preceeding information described the design and methodology for conducting thisresearch.67681IRIULTThe following chapter presents the results of the study. The first section consists of theresults of the two pretests (the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test and the Writingtest: What is a Scientific Laboratory Report?”) and the evaluation of the laboratory reports writtenby students in the three study groups. The second section will focus on the analysis of the data.This section will also describe the qualitative data derived from the two surveys and the open-ended comment section found at the end of each of the survey forms and will address thehypotheses of this study.I. PARTICIPANTSRichmond B.C. is a “bedroom” community located immediately south of Vancouver,British Columbia. The Richmond school district has approximately 25,000 students from variouscultural backgrounds. The participants for this study were senior secondary school students fromRichmond who were enrolled in the senior science course of Biology 11.Twenty mainstream and ESL students in each of three Biology 11 classes volunteered asparticipants for this study. All 60 were enrolled in regular, mainstream Biology 11 classes inwhich no other “special” second language instruction was given. Three classes were randomlyselected and designated as the “KF”, the “Genre”, and the “Control” groups to test theeffectiveness of the approaches. The “Control” group received no instruction in either the KF orthe Genre-based approach. The proficiency levels in reading and writing English of the thesestudents were determined with pretests referred to as ‘Pretest 1” and Pretest 2”. ESL studentswere randomly selected with proficiency levels at low to upper intermediate to advanced (Level 3,4 or 5). Out of 60 participants there was a total of 8 ESL students (those students whose Englishproficiency level was below that of native-speakers): 3 in the “Genre” group, 3 in the “KF” group69and 2 in the “control” group.Gender representation of the participants were determined by the nature of each classroommixture. The ages of the participants were consistent with those of their Grade 11 cohorts atapproximately 16 to 18 years old. Taking into consideration the demographics of the ESL studentpopulation in the Vancouver Lower Mainland, the majority of the students in Richmond schoolswere of Asian descent. Approximately 40% of the total student population in the Richmond schooldistrict is ESL and over 80% of whom speak an Asian language (Chinese, South Asian, Tagalog,Japanese, Korean) as their first language (Richmond School District #38, 1994). Of the 60students participating in this study, 14 were Cantonese speakers, 4 were Mandarin, 4 wereTagalog, 4 were Punjabi, 2 were Spanish, 1 was Swahili, 1 was Polish, and 1 was Japanese.The ethnic backgrounds of the participants for this study. Table 4.1 displays the percentages of thefirst languages of the student participants in this study.70Table 4.1: Percentages of first languages (Li) of student participants.PERCENTAGE OF FIRST LANGUAGESFIRST LANGUAGE (Li) PERCENTAGE (No.)ENGLISH 48.3 % (29/60)CANTONESE 23.3 % (14/60)MANDARIN 6.7 % (4/60)TAGALOG (PHILLIPINO) 6.7 % (4/60)PUNJABI 6.7 % (4/60)SPANISH 3.3 % (2/60)SWAHILI 1.7 % (1/60)POLISH 1.7 % (1/60)JAPANESE 1.7 % (1/60)The socioeconomic status of the participants was quite similar. The mainstream and ESLstudents in the study groups at this Richmond school could be said to be of middle-class status.Although the students varied in intellectual ability and attitude, they had relatively the samebackground knowledge or educational level in science upon enroffing in the Biology 11 courses.The students in these classes had at least achieved a Science 10 standing in B.C. ,the equivalent, orhigher from schools around the country and the world. Most students had some prior knowledgeof writing scientific lab reports in secondary science.II. STUDYThe quantitative data were collected from 3 tests (Pretest 1, Pretest 2 and Posttest 1 labreports administered to the student participants in each group. An impartial observer sat in on allthree study conditions and reported no apparent bias in teaching approach.71A. ALL STUDENTS: ESL & MAINSTREAMPRETEST 1: GATES-MACGINII]E READiNG COMPREHENSION TESTThe purpose of the Gates-MacGinitie Test was to determine students’ reading ability. Thistest provided an estimate of the overall reading comprehension level of the participants in the threegroups. The reading level of each student participant was represented by a score out of a possible48 on the multiple-choice test. The following Table 4.2 displays the means and standarddeviations on the reading test (Pretest 1) for each group of participants in the study:Table 4.2: Means and Standard Deviations of Pretest 1 scores by all students.OVERALL PRETEST 1: GATES-MACGINITIEREADING COMPREHENSION TESTGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 40.90 6.28 20KF 37.25 8.17 20CONTROL 36.10 7.52 20The results in Table 4.2 indicated that mean scores varied from 36.10 (7.52) for the Controlgroup, 37.25 (8.17) for the KF group, to 40.90 (6.28) for the Genre group. The Genregroup had the highest mean score of 40.90 on Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test.There was difference of 3.65 in mean scores between the Genre group and the KF group.PRETEST 2 (WRiTING’): WHAT IS A SC1EN1iFiC LABORATORY REPORTThe writing component in Pretest 2 attempted to access students’ prior knowledge oflaboratory work and report writing skills. The students’ writing was evaluated using theWritingAssesment Criteria which focused on topic communicability and organization, adequate content,72vocabulary, language use, and punctuation and mechanics (see Appendix D). Each student writingwas given a score out of 100. Table 4.3 shows the means and standard deviations of the Pretest 2writing test obtained by the three study groups.Table 4.3: Pretest 2 results for all students in the study groups.OVERALL PRETEST 2: WRITING TESTGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 80.68 5.73 19KF 78.70 7.16 20CONTROL 79.35 6.67 20The results of Pretest 2 revealed fairly close mean scores. On this writing test the Genre group hadthe highest overall mean score among the three groups with 80.68 (5.73). It was necessary tonote that the mean score for the Genre group was based on 19 of the 20 participants. The KFgroup had a mean score of 78.70 (7.16) while the Control had 79.35 (6.67).POSITEST 1: SCIENTIFIC LAB REPORTS (ALL STUDENTS’)The student participants in all three study groups wrote scientific lab reports using theinstructional method that was presented to them in their classes for this research. Collectively, thelab reports written by the students in the three groups were refered to as “Posttest 1”. These labreports represent the product” of the two instructional approaches applied by the participants andthose reports written by students in the Control group who received neither of the two approachestested in this study. Each lab report was assessed for its quality using an Evaluation (Criteria) Gridfor Writing Scientific Laboratory Reports that was developed specificly for this research. Sinceboth the Genre-based and the KF approaches emphasized the use of relevant linguistic features and73key topic information, the evaluation grid was used to isolate those language and content featuresthat were significant and characteristic of academic writing appropriate for scientific lab reporting.Each component or section of the lab report was assessed and given a mark. The total possiblescore attainable by each student for a complete lab report was 25. The following table 4.4illustrates the means and standard deviations for the evaluated lab reports:Table 4.4: Posttest 1 results of lab reports written by all students.OVERALL POSTTEST 1: LAB REPORTSGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 16.05 2.72 20KF 17.15 2.46 20CONTROL 16.75 2.34 20Posttest 1 results showed a mean score of 17.15 (2.46) for the KF group, 16.05(2.72) for the Genre group, and 16.75 (2.34) for the Control group. Further analysis of thesePosttest 1 results in the next section of this chapter will reveal the possible significant differencesamong the three study groups.B. MAINSTREAM STUDENTSThe mainstream students in the study groups comprised 52 of the 60 sample population.The following results show the mainstream students’ means and standard deviations on the tworeading and writing pretests (1 and 2) and Posttest 1.74MAINSTREAM PRETEST 1: GATES-MACGINlYlE READING COMPREHENSION TESTTable 4.5 displayed the mean scores and standard deviations for the mainstream students inall three study groups:Table 4.5: Pretest 1 results of mainstream studentsMAINSTREAM PRETEST 1: GATES-MACGINITIEREADING COMPREHENSION TESTGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 43.00 3.28 17KF 39.42 6.33 17CONTROL 37.50 6.51 18OVERALL 39.92 5.95 52The KF group with 17 mainstream students had a mean score of 39.42 (6.33) while the Genregroup had mean of 43.00 (3.28). The result also showed a mean score of 37.50 (6.51) forthe Control class. The overall mean for the three groups was 39.92 (5.95).MAINSTREAM PRETEST 2 (WRITING’): WHAT IS A SCIEN’IThIC LABORATORYREPORTThe mainstream students in all three study groups posted fairly similar mean scores. Table4.6 displayed the results of the mainstream writing tests:75Table 4.6: Mainstream writing pretest results.MAINSTREAM PRETEST 2: WRITING TESTGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 81.50 5.42 16KF 80.41 6.05 17CONTROL 80.61 5.68 18OVERALL 80.82 5.63 51A total of 51 mainstream students in the three study groups wrote pretest 2 prior to the presentationof the two instructional approaches. The results show a mean score of 81.50 (5.42) for theGenre group. The Control group had a mean score of 80.61 while the KF had a mean of 80.41on these pretests.MAINSTREAM POSTT’EST 1: SC1ENiik1C LAB REPORTSThe following data in table 4.7 report the quality of the lab reports written by mainstreamstudents in the three study groups. A mark out of 25 was given to reflect each student’sperformance on writing the lab report using the instructional method he or she was introduced tothat group.76Table 4.7: Posttest 1 results by mainstream students.MAINSTREAM POSTTEST 1: LAB REPORTSGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 16.18 2.92 17KF 17.65 2.21 17CONTROL 16.83 2.35 18OVERALL 16.88 2.53 52The results in table 4.7 showed a range of means and standard deviations that varied from16.18 (2.92) for the Genre group, 16.83 (2.35) for the Control group, to 17.65 (2.21) forthe KF group. The overall mean score and standard deviation for the three mainstream groups was16.88 (2.53). A closer examination into these mainstream Posttest 1 results will be presented inthe “Ana1ysis section of this chapter.C. ESL STUDENTSThe number of ESL students in the three study groups was identified and special attentionwas given to their results on Posttest 1: the lab reports written by the students in the study. Out ofthe total random population of 60 students, there were only 8 ESL students in the study. Thefollowing table displays the results of the ESL students’ means and standard deviations for Pretest1, Pretest 2 and Posttest 1.77ESL PRETEST 1: GATES-MACGIN1TIE READTNG COMPREHENSION TESTThe following data show the means and standard deviations of the ESL students on Pretest1 Reading Test:Table 4.8: Pretest 1 results of ESL students.ESL PRETEST 1: GATES-MACGINITIEREADING COMPREHENSION TESTGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 29.00 6.24 3KF 25.00 6.92 3CONTROL 23.50 0.71 2OVERALL 26.13 5.57 8The above results indicated that the Genre group had a mean score of 29.00 (6.24) while the KFgroup had a value of 25.00 (6.92). The mean and standard deviation for the Control group was23.50 and 0.71 respectively. The overall mean for the ESL students on Pretest 1 was 26.13(5.57).ESL PRETEST 2 (WRfflNG’: WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY REPORTPretest 2 Writing Test results were also collected from the ESL student samples. Thefollowing table displays the data:78Table 4.9: ESL writing pretest results.ESL PRETEST 2: WRITING TESTGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 76.33 6.43 3KF 69.00 5.29 3CONTROL 68.00 2.83 2OVERALL 71.50 6.09 8The results reported a range of means and standard deviations varying from 68.00 (2.83) for theControl group, 69.00 (5.29) for the KF group, to 76.33 (6.43) for the Genre group. Theoverall mean for the three groups was 71.50 and the standard deviation was 6.09.ESL POSTfEST 1: SCIENTIFIC LAB REPORTSThe following data in Table 4.10 show the means and standard deviations for the Posttest 1lab reports written by the ESL students in the three groups:79Table 4.10: Posttest 1 results by ESL students.ESL POSTTEST 1: LAB REPORTSGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 15.33 1.15 3KF 14.33 2.08 3CONTROL 16.00 2.82 2OVERALL 15.13 1.81 8The ESL Posttest 1 results illustrated that the Genre group achieved a higher mean score of15.33 (1.15) while the KF group had a mean of 14.33 (2.08). Table 4.8 also showed a meanvalue 16.00 (2.82) for the Control group. The overall mean score on Posttest 1 for the ESLstudents was 15.13 with a standard deviation of 1.81.III. ANALYSESAnalysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test the above hypotheses of the study(see “Chapter 3”). Means and standard deviations for Pretest 1: Gates-MacGinitie ReadingComprehension test, the Pretest 2 writing test, and the Posttest 1: Lab Reports for all students(ESL and Mainstream combined) by study group are reported in Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4respectively. By nature of the cultural mix in all three classes, the number of ESL studentsincluded in the random sample was low, representing less than five cases in each cell, i.e., 3, 3,and 2 (Tables 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10). The ESL students as a group were, therefore, not included inthe ANCOVA. An Analysis of Covariance to measure differences due to study group with Pretest1 and Pretest 2 held as covariates was conducted revealing significant differences due to group80(F(2,58) = 3.09, p = .05). There were significant differences in Pretest 2 (F(1,58) =31.04, p = .02), but not Pretest 1 (F(1,58) = .09, p = .76). ANCOVA is an omnibus testthat reveals there are significant differences, but does not specify what they are. Three a prioricontrasts were computed using procedures recommended by Shavelson (1981).Mean differences were -1.31, -0.91, and 0.4 (Genre-KF, Genre-Control, KF-Control).One significant contrast at alpha 0.05 between the Genre and KF group was observed, while theother two constrasts were not significant. The KF group scored significantly higher than theGenre group.A. SURVEY 1 AND 2Survey 1 and 2 were designed to inquire about the participants’ experiences working witheach of the two instructional approaches to writing scientific lab reports. Survey 1 was conductedwith the Genre group since the items in the survey dealt with features of the “procedure”,“procedural recount”, and “explanation” genres and the three-stage teaching cycle for implementingthe Genre-based approach. The KF group received Survey 2 which focused on the KnowledgeFramework and the use of its knowledge structures, language features, and key visuals for writinglab reports.The respondents read each itemized statement about a particular feature or topic of thesurvey and then choose from a four-point scale a response that represented their opinion:STRONGLY AGREE (1) - AGREE (2) - DISAGREE (3) - STRONGLYDISAGREE (4).A comparative representative of overall student responses to both Survey 1 (Genre-basedapproach) and Survey 2 (KF approach) will be displayed. The means and standard deviations forthese two surveys will be used to address the hypotheses of this study. The format for reportingthese results will allow for the comparison of survey responses and experiences related to theinstructional approaches that share a common base for discussion. Each of the items from theSurvey 1: Genre (37) and Survey 2: KF (38) will be presented.81The following three sets of results represent the participants’ understanding of the conceptof Genre and the Knowledge Framework and their defining characteristics (Table 4.11), thestudents writing of scientific lab reports using the Genre-based approach and the KnowledgeFramework (KF) (Table 4.12), and the participants’ overall impression and experience workingwith Genre and the Knowledge Framework (Table 4.13):82Table 4.11: Survey 1 and 2 means and standard deviations for Items 1-12.IDENTIFYING GENRE ANDUNDERSTANDING THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK (KF)SURVEY 1 SURVEY 2GENRE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK*ffEM MEAN STD. *ITEM MEAN STD.DEV. DEV.1. Understand ‘genre’ 1.80 0.41 1. Understand use of 1.80 0.41Knowledge Framework3. “Procedure” genre 1.45 0.61 2. Identify six knowledge 2.15 0.59structures (KS)4. “Procedural Recount” genre 1.55 0.685. Identify parts of a 1.45 0.51 3. Knowledge Framework 1.95 0.69lab report to organize lab reportof a lab report7. Identify “Procedural 2.05 0.76Recount” genre for lab___________________________________________________8. Identify LANGUAGE 1.85 1.04 6. Identify LANGUAGE 2.00 0.65FEATURES for genre for KS7. Identify STRUCTURAL 1.90 0.64& CONTENT vocal,8. Identify KEY VISUALS 1.85 0.7511. Identify LANGUAGE: 1.90 1.02 11. Identify LANGUAGE 2.15 0.88tense, sequence words, verbs for each lab component12. Identify “human 1.80 0.62participants”, time, space12. Identify appropriate 1.90 0.72KEY VISUALS foreach lab component2.30 0.736. Identify “Procedure” genrefor lab report components1.75 0.55 4. Identify all components 1.60 0.895. Identify TH[NKINGSKILLS for KS* The item number corresponds to the that on the appropriate survey (1 or 2).The number of cases for all items in both surveys is 20.83Table 4.12: Means and standard deviations for Items 13-28 from Survey 1 and 2.WRITING THE LAB REPORTUSING THE GENRE AND KF APPROACHESSURVEY 1 SURVEY 2GENRE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORKITEM MEAN STD. ITEM MEAN STD.DEV. DEV.13. Identify purpose of 1.95 0.61 13. Identify purpose of 1.95 0.94lab activity lab activity15. Able to apply 2.50 0.83TFIINKH’TG SKILLS16. Able to use 1.95 0.89 16. Able to use STRUCr. 2.25 0.85LANGUAGE & CONTENT vocab17. Use of diagrams, tables 1.80 0.77 17. Use of diagrams, tables 1.75 0.72charts to write lab charts to write lab19. Able to write the AIM 2.00 0.86 18. Able to write PURPOSE 1.70 0.57or FIYPOTHESIS20. Able to write the 1.60 0.75 19. Able to write the 1.50 0.76MATERIALS section MATERIALS section21. Had difficulty writing 2.55 0.68 20. Had difficulty writing 2.45 0.94METHOD section PROCEDURES section22. Able to use imperatives 2.20 0.89 21. Able to use imperatives 2.10 0.79in METHOD section in PROCEDURES23. Able to use sequence 1.85 0.67 22. Able to use sequence 1.85 0.67words in METHOD words in PROCEDURES24 Able to use prepositions 1.80 0.70 23. Able to use prepositions 2.00 0.73to indicate time & space to indicate time & space24. Visuals were helpful 1.45 0.60hi OBSERVATIONS25. Able to use past tense 2.00 0.65 26. Able to use past tense 2.05 0.51in RESULTS in RESULTS26. Use ‘explanation” 2.45 0.89 27. Use STRUCTURAL 1.80 0.62genre for DISCUSSION vocab in explainingDISCUSSIONS28. Writing CONCLUSION 1.80 1.06 28. Writing CONCLUSION 2.30 0.8084Table 4.13: Means and standard deviations for items 30 to 38 from Survey 1 and 2.EXPERIENCE WITH USINGTHE GENRE AND KF APPROACHESITEM MEAN STD. ITEM MEAN STD.DEV. DEV.30. Understand how to 1.85 0.67 30. Understand how to use 2.20 0.70use Genre approach Knowledge Framework31. Did not understand the 2.45 1.00 31. Did not understand 2.50 0.83concept of Genre Knowledge Framework32. Prefer Genre approach 2.55 0.69 32. Prefer Knowledge 2.20 0.83Framework (KF)33. “Genre” helped to write 2.55 1.00 33. KF helped to write 2.15 0.59better lab reports better lab reports34. Importance of Language 1.80 0.52 34. Importance of Language 1.90 0.72in writing lab reports in writing lab reports35. Learning LANGUAGE 2.05 0.94 35. Learning LANGUAGE 2.30 0.80features was difficult features was difficult36. “Genre” helped to focus 2.20 0.52 36. KF helped to focus on 1.90 0.45on the language of science the language of science37. After using Genre, writing 2.60 0.60 37. After using KF, writing 2.50 0.61of reports did NOT change of reports did NOT change38. Able to focus on 2.00 0.65LANGUAGE & COM’ENTThe preceeding tables compared the responses to items on the two surveys that share similar topicalfeatures that relate directly to each of the two approaches. Each item included the mean andstandard deviation of the student responses along a four-point scale. The means represented thestudents’ opinion about that feature of the approach.85B. HYPOTHESESThe above results were used to address the hypotheses of this study.fl OVERALL STUDENTS: MAINSTREAM AND ESL COMBII’1ED1. The Knowledge Framework (KF’) approach is more effective than the Genre-based approach to instruction in improving the quality of both mainstream and ESLstudents’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.Results of the study supported this hypothesis. Overall Posttest 1 results in Table 4.4showed that the group taught the KF approach (17.15) achieved a significantly higher meanscores than the group taught the Genre approach (16.05). An Analysis of Covariance conductedto measure differences due to study group with Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 held as covariates revealed asignificant difference due to group (F(2,58) = 3.09, p = .05). A mean difference between theGenre and KF groups was noted at -1.31 (Genre - KF). There was a significance constrast atalpha 0.05 between the Genre and KF group observed.Upon analyzing survey 1 and 2 results in Tables 4.11, it was apparent that 65% ofstudents in the KF group agreed (2.15) with the statement that the Knowledge Frameworkhelped them write better lab reports (Table 4.13, Item 33). Another 10% of the KF studentsstrongly agreed that their lab reports were better in quality after using the KnowledgeFramework approach. The mean and standard deviation for the Genre survey reveal that moststudents disagreed (2.55) with the statement that the Genre approach helped them write betterquality lab reports (Table 4.13, Item 33). Further analysis shows that only 35% of the Genreclass students agreed and 15% strongly agreed. Comparing the percentages in this surveyitem 33, a total of 75% of the students in the KF group either agreed or strongly agreed withthe approach while only a total of 50% of the Genre group students either agreed or stronglyagreed with their approach.86Some students provided additional comments reflecting their overall impression of the twoapproaches for writing scientific lab reports. The following are some excerpts from the surveys:THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK- ‘intentions and ideas were great but learning the “knowledge framework” takes up a lot oftime.”- “Overall it was helpful. I liked the key visuals.”- “The Knowledge Framework helped to write lab reports but were much more timeconsuming.”- “I think it is good that the knowledge framework helps kids who had troubles with labreports become better students. Thanks for the new ideas.”THE GENRE-BASED APPROACH- “The Genre way of writing lab reports was a little confusing and hard to understand.”- “It was hard to understand what Genre was.”- “It (Genre) was difficult to get used to.”The comments the students made about the two approaches appeared to be negative. The studentsfound it appropriate to use the comment section to criticize the approaches since the initial portionof the survey focussed on the benefits or positive qualities of the two approaches. Generally, theKF students found the Knowledge Framework approach “helpful” but “time-consuming”. Thestudents working with the Genre approach felt the concept of Genre was difficult to apply and “getused to” to writing lab reports.Responses to item 30 on Table 4.13 indicates that 75% (2.20) of the KF studentsunderstood how to write a scientific lab report using the Knowledge Framework even though 55%(2.50) of these same students did not understand the concept of the Knowledge Framework andits knowledge structures very well. Ninety-five percent (1.85) of the Genre students said theyunderstood how to use procedure and procedural recount genres to write lab reports. However,8750% (2.45) of the Genre students did not understand the concept of genre for writing scientificlab reports. It appears that the students generally understood how to apply the concepts of Genreand Knowledge Framework but did not fully understand the “underlying idea” or concept of theseapproaches.Examining other means and standard deviations in Table 4.13, item 32 showed that 55%(2.20) of the study participants working with the KF approach preferred Knowledge Frameworkmethod of writing lab reports. Item 32 in the Genre survey displayed a mean of 2.55, indicatingthat the students did not prefer the Genre approach to other lab report instructional formats andapproaches. Frequency analysis of the student groups showed that only 35% preferred the Genreapproach. Item 37 illustrated that 55% (2.50) of the KF students disagreed with the statementthat the Knowledge Framework (KF) approach did NOT change their writing of lab reportscompared to 50% (2.60) of the Genre students who disagreed.Although there were no direct comparisons made, the above results andanalyses seem to support the hypothesis that the Knowledge Framework approachis more effective than the Genre-based approach to instruction in improving thequality of students’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.2. The Knowledge Framework (KF approach will improve the quality of bothmainstream and ESL students’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.In addressing the above hypothesis the means and standard deviations of the OverallPosttest 1 for the KF group and the Control group were to be compared. Table 4.4 showed thatthe mean score for the lab reports written by KF students (17.15) was higher than that for thosereports written by the Control students (16.75). When the means were analyzed, there was nosignificance contrast at alpha 0.05 between the KF group and the Control group. One explanationfor these results might involve the reliability and sensitivity of the Evaluation Grid (see AppendixF) used for assessing the lab reports written by the students in all three study groups. Rating by88two independent raters were entered in the SPSS Reliability Program to test for inter-raterreliability. Results revealed a correlation of 0.93 between the two raters. There was an alphascore of 0.96 indicating an extremely high inter-rater reliability. Although the Evaluation Gridwas reliable, it might not have been sufficiently sensitive to detect a great significant differencebetween the KF and the Control group.The results in Table 4.13 above showed that KF students prefer the KnowledgeFramework approach over other formats and approaches they have used. These results, alongwith the slightly higher mean value for the KF group, were not sufficient insubstantiating the hypothesis that the KF approach will improve the quality ofboth mainstream and ESL students’ writing of scientific lab reports in seniorBiology.3. The Genre-based approach will improve the quality of both mainstream and ESLstudents’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.The results of this study do not substantiate the hypothesis that the Genre-based approach will improve the quality of both mainstream and ESL students’writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology. Evidence for this came from Table4.4 which revealed a higher mean score for the Control group (16.75) than for the Genre group(16.05). The mean difference between these two group is -0.91 (Genre-Control) and representedno significant constrast at alpha 0.05. Consistent with these findings is that 65% of the studentsin the Genre group did not prefer the Genre approach to other formats and approaches to writingscientific lab reports. However, the Genre approach did have its benefits: Fifty percent of theGenre students either agreed or strongly agreed that the genre approach helped them to writebetter lab reports. Other positive qualities of the Genre approach will be presented below.892’) MAINSTREAM STUDENTS4. Mainstream students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were taught the Genre-basedapproach.Due to the limitaions of the sample population of the study, it was not possible to analyzethe mainstream students as a group. However, the results showed that all of the participants in theKF group scored significantly higher on the lab reports than those in the Genre group, suggestingthat the mainstream students benefited from the KF approach.The responses to items 32, 33, and 37 on Survey 1 and 2 suggested a high preference forthe Knowledge Framework approach to writing better lab reports (Table 4.13). The aboveresults supported the hypothesis that mainstream students taught the KF approachwill achieve higher evaluation scores on their scientific lab-report writing than themainstream students who were taught the Genre-based approach.5. Mainstream students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were not taught either theKF or Genre-based approach.The results of this study were not able to support the hypothesis thatmainstream students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scoreson their scientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were nottaught either the KF or Genre-based approach. A comparison of the group mean valuesbetween the mainstream students in KF group and those in the Control group in Table 4.7 revealedthat the KF group (17.65) attained a mean difference of 0.82 higher than the Control group(16.83) (KF-Control). Considering the mean scores of these two groups of mainstream students,90the 0.82 mean difference did suggest that the mainstream students in the KF class achieved higherevaluation scores than those in the Control class.6. Mainstream students taught the Genre-based approach will achieve higher evaluation scoreson their scientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were not taughteither the KF or Genre-based approach.Table 4.7 illustrated the means and standard deviations of the mainstream Posttest 1 labreports. The mainstream Control group (16.83) had a higher mean score than the mainstreamGenre group (16.18). Although the small mean difference favours the Control group, there wasno significant difference at alpha 0.05. These results appeared to suggest thatmainstream students taught the Genre-based approach do not achieve higherevaluation scores on their scientific lab report writing than those students whowere not taught either the KF or Genre-based approach (Control group).3) ESL STUDENTSThe following hypotheses were developed to include the observations of the ESL studentparticipants in the study. It was the intent of this study to test these hypotheses and reveal the ESLstudents experience working with the two approaches to writing lab reports. Posttest 1 results inTable 4.10 yielded insubstantial evidence to either support or reject hypotheses 7, 8, and 9. Thedata were invalid for analysis since the random sample was too low, and therefore, the findings forESL are inconclusive.7. ESL students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab rei ort writing than the ESL students who were taught the Genre-basedapproach.It appeared that if the sample size for the ESL population was increased,91the expected results might substantiate the hypothesis that ESL students taughtthe KF approach do not achieve higher evaluation scores on their scientific labreports than the ESL students who were taught the Genre-based approach.8. ESL students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the ESL students who were not taught either the KF or theGenre-based approach.9. ESL students taught the Genre-based approach will achieve higher evaluation scores ontheir scientific lab report writing than the ESL students who were not taught either the KFor the Genre-based approach.Table 4.10 results of ESL Posttest 1 suggested that the ESL students in theControl group achieved higher evaluation scores on their scientific lab reportsthan the ESL students who were taught the KF or the Genre-based approach.3) WRiTING LAB REPORTS USING THE KF AND THE GENRE APPROACHES10. Students taught the KF approach will understand how to use the Knowledge Frameworkto focus on language and content features and use key visuals for writing scientific labreports.Survey 2 responses ifiustrated in Table 4.11 and 4.12 as means and standard deviationsprovided the study with the student participant& understanding of the concept of the KnowledgeFramework and its knowledge structures and key visuals for writing scientific lab reports. InTable 4.11, the responses to items 1 and 2 show that 100% of the students in the KF groupunderstood how to use the Knowledge Framework to writing lab reports (1.80 or agree) and75% of the KF students were able to identify the six knowledge structures of the KnowledgeFramework (2.15 or agree). The responses to items 30 and 31 in Table 4.13 indicated that 75%92the students understood how to write scientific lab reports using the Knowledge Framework (2.20or agree) and 45% of the students understood the concept of the Knowledge Framework and itsknowledge structures for writing lab reports (2.50 or “somewhat” agree).The Knowledge Framework can be used as an organizational tool for structuring a topic ina way that focuses on its thinicing process skills, language items and content knowledge forsuccessful learning (Mohan, 1991, 1986; Early, Mohan & Hooper, 1989) In this study, thetheoretical framework was applied to integrate systematically the language and content features ofthe topic of writing a scientific lab report (Figures 3.3 and 3.4). The results of Survey 2 in Table4.11 suggest that the KF students (80%) understood how to use the Knowledge Framework toorganize the components of the scientific lab report (Item 3: 1.95 or agree). Responses to items5, 6, and 7 on the survey indicated that most students in the KF group agreed with the statementsthat they were able to identify the thinking skills (2.30) and the language features (2.00) of theframework’s six knowledge structures (“Classfication”, “Principles”, “Description”, etc.), anddistinguish the difference between structural vocabulary and content vocabulary of each of theknowledge structures for writing lab reports (1.90). For each component of the lab report, theKF students were able identify the thinldng skills (65%) and the linguistic features (65%) (Table4.11).One of the main defining features of the Knowledge Framework is the use of key visuals orgraphic representations of the knowledge structures to reduce the language barrier for the learningof content information (Mohan, 1991, 1986; Early, Mohan & looper, 1989; Tang, 1994, 1991).The responses to the survey statements in Table 4.11 and 4.12 revealed that 80% of the studentsin the KF group were able to identify key visuals that are appropriate for each of the six knowledgestructures of the framework (mean — 1.85) and 16 of the 20 students could identify theappropriate key visuals or graphics for each component of the lab report (1.90). 85-95% of theKF students found the use of diagrams, tables, charts, etc. helped them in writing the‘Observation” section of their labs (Table 4.12, item 17 and 24). The following figure is anexample of a visual created by a student in the KF group for her lab report (Posttest 1):93Figure 4.1: A key visual designed by a student in the KF group.In Figure 4.1, the KF student used a decision tree to demonstrate the knowledge structure of“Choice”. The student’s statement of hypothesis alluded to testing the 3 antibiotics for plaque (azone of no bacterial growth). However, the student did not include in her hypothesis on whichbacteria she was testing the antibiotics. In her “results” column it appears that E. coil and B.subtilis are the two species of bacteria on which the antibiotics Chioramphenicol, Tetracycline, andOxytetracilne were tested. According to the student’s key visual, the hypothesis was set up to berejected in order to reveal one of the three antibiotics to have an most outstanding effect on thegrowth of each of the two bacteria. Identifying the most effective antibiotic for each of the bacteriaformed the student’s conclusion. The following is an excerpt from her lab write-up:“Every antibiotic worked on both E.coli and B. subtilis. Chioramphenicol (C) worked thebest on the E. coil bacteria while Tetracycline (TE) worked the best on the B. subtiisbacteria.”I HYPOTHESIS ICONCLUSION:RESULTS I CONCLUSION IMeasurement of Plaque diameterE. coli: C = 30mm Hypothesis rejected:TE = 16mm Chioramphenicol isOT = 19mm most effective.All 3 *antibiotjcs used /will show approximatelythe same size plaquesubtiis: C = 29mm— Hypothesis rejected:TE = 30mm Tetracycline is mostOT = 20mm effective.= Chioramphenicol, TE = Tetracycilne, OT = OxytetracydineIn writing the scientific lab reports, the KF students agreed that they were able to apply94the appropriate thinking skills of the knowledge structures (50%) and use structural and contentvocabulary correctly in writing various sections of their labs (60%) (Table 4.12, items 15 and 16).In writing their ‘Procedures” section the lab, 17 out of 20 students in the KF group knew howto use “sequence” words such as “first” and “next” and prepositions to indicate time and space forlinking the pertinent steps of the lab experiment (Table 4.12, items 22 and 23). The responses toitem 21 in Table 4.12 suggested that the students in the KF group knew how to use key words inthe imperative form to describe the activities in the lab procedures (2.10).Items 25,26 and 27 in Table 4.12 illustrated that the KF students were able to compare andcontrast their experimental fmdings with the theoretical background knowledge of the lab topic andactivity (75%), analyze and explain their findings using past tense (85%), and use structuralvocabulary such as “as a result” or “because” to establish cause and effect relationships (70%) inwriting the “Discussion” section of their labs. In writing their conclusions to the lab work, thestudents were able use the phrase “In conclusion, we found...” to begin their statements offindings (Item 28, mean = 2.30).Overall, the students (80%) in the KF group felt they understood the importance oflanguage features in the Knowledge Framework to writng better lab report. Forty-five percentof the students thought the learning of the language features was difficult. In the final analysis ofsurvey 2 responses, eighty percent of the KF students thought the Knowledge Frameworkallowed them to focus on the language and content features for writing scientific lab reports.The above results substantiated the hypothesis that students taught the KFapproach will understand how to use the Knowledge Framework to focus onlanguage and content features and use key visuals for writing scientific labreports.11. Students taught the Genre-based approach will understand how to the use “Procedure”.95“Procedural Recount”, and “Explanation” genres to identify the generic structures and keylanguage features for writing scientific lab reports.Survey 1 responses displayed in Table 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13 support thehypothesis that Students taught the Genre-based approach will understand how tothe use “Procedure”, “Procedural Recount”, and “Explanation” genres to identifythe generic structures and key language features for writing scientific lab reports.Items 1 and 2 in Table 4.11 showed that 100% of the Genre students understood andcould explain the term “genre” (mean =1.80) and 70% of these students knew that there are“written” and “spoken genres”. Ninety to ninety-five percent of the students in the Genreclass knew that the “Procedure” genre was used to describe a sequence of activities to do in a lab(1.45) and the “Procedural recount” genre was used to record the conduct and results ofexperimentation or to record a set of observations made in a laboratory exercise (1.55). Thestudents introduced the Genre-based approach were able to identify the “Procedure” genre for the“Aim, Materials and Method” sections of an experimental report (1.75) and the “Proceduralrecount” genre for the “Results” and “Conclusion” sections of the report (2.05). The students(75%) were also able to identify the language features (past tense, sequence words, action words)for the “Procedure” and “Procedural recount” genres in writing scientific lab reports.At the independent construction stage of the teaching cycle where students were directed towrite the lab reports on their own, the Genre students found it easy to write the “Aim” (2.00) andthe “Material” (1.60) sections of their labs (Table 4.12, items 19 and 20). In writing the“Method” section their labs, 70-85% of the students agreed that they knew how to useimperatives, sequence words (i.e. conjunctive adverbs), and prepositions for indicating time andspace. The following are two samples taken from student lab reports written using the Genrebased approach:96Figure 4.2: “Method” section from a lab report written with the Genre approach.SAMPLE 1“METHOD:First, smear the samples of B. coli and B. subtilis into separate petri dishes. Then, on theoutside of the dishes, in pen, divide the dish into four equal sections. Now put a tablet oftetracycline in one of the sections in each dish. Next put a tablet of oxytetracycine in oneof the sections in each dish. Finally put a tablet of Chioramphenicol in one of the sectionsof each dish maldng sure there is one empty section in each dish.”SAMPLE 2“METHOD:5. Thereupon, sterilize your inoculating loop. To do this, hold the loop under the flameunder the flame until it glows red. Then, let it cool without letting it touch anysurfaces.The sample writing and the responses in the survey above indicated that the students in the Genregroup were able to use linguistic features to represent the appropriate material processes(“sterilize your inoculating loop.”), write lab activity steps expressed as commands (i.e.“Put”, “divide”, etc.), use dependent clauses of time (“...until it glows red.”) and makereferences to place and manner (“...under the flame”). The responses to item 25 in Table4.12 showed that 80% of the students used past tense in writing their “Results” section. Also,80% of these students found the use of graphic conventions helpful in writing their lab reports.There were no specific graphics recommended by the Genre approach and therefore, the use ofvisuals were optional. Those students who used visuals needed additional direction and assistancein making the diagrams, tables, and graphs workable and appropriate for representing theirexperimental findings.The Genre approach emphasizes the application of the “Procedural recount” genre and its97features to writing the “Results” section of the lab report. The responses to item 12 in Table 4.11suggested that students did use human participants (“we”) and the circumstances of timeand space (“...in each petri dish.”). Upon closer analysis 90% of the students either agreed orstrongly agreed with items 12 statement and 80% agreed with the statement that they usedpast tense in writing their “Results” section.In writing the “Discussion” section of their labs, 55-60% of the Genre students were ableto give and select the appropriate “Explanation” genre format (i.e. “theoretical”, “sequential”,“causal”, etc.) (Table 4.12, items 26 and 27). In the joint construction exercises, the studentsexpressed difficulty in identifying the characteristics of each of the various “Explanation” genreformats. Students were not always able to use conjunctions, dependent clauses,circumstances, and processes for the causal explanation genre in writing the “Discussion”section. The sample writing below illustrates the use of causal conjunctions (“therefore”) anddependent clauses of cause (“if the plaque... was larger):Figure 4.3: Sample “Discussion” section from the Genre lab reports.SAMPLE“DISCUSSION:According to our knowledge of antibiotics, we were aware that they wouldprevent the building of bacterial cell walls. Therefore, if the plaque, or field of deadbacteria, was larger, then the antibiotic was more effective.”The Genre students were able to use the “In conclusion, we found...” in writing their conclusions(75% agreed).Overall, the students in the Genre group felt that they understood the importance of98language features in writing better lab reports (95% either agreed or strongly agreed) andthought the genre approach to writing lab reports allowed them to focus on the language of scienceso that they were could better express in writing what they learned from the lab activity (75%).IV. SUMMARYThe results from Pretest 1 Reading test, Pretest 2 Writing test, Posttest 1 laboratoryreports, and Survey 1 and 2 indicated that there is a difference in the quality of scientific reportwriting at the senior secondary school level related to differences in instructional approach. In thisstudy, the KF approach was successfully implemented to writing lab reports by focusing on thelearning of the language of science and the content knowledge in the lab activity. The Genre-basedapproach was also successfully applied to teaching the writing of lab reports. This approachhelped students to focus on “genre” and its generic structures and linguistic features for writing labreports. The posttest results coupled with Survey 1 and 2 responses revealed that each of the twoapproaches made a positive difference to various degrees in the student participants’ lab reporting.The data from the various tests in this study were able to show the effects of each of thetwo approaches on writing scientific lab reports and delineate the quality of performances by theESL and mainstream students. The results of this research yield the following informationregarding the implications of the KF and Genre-based approach on writing lab reports:a) The KF approach helped to improve the quality of both mainstream and ESL students’writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology. The Knowledge Framework served as anorganizational tool for students to focus on the linguistic features necessary for expressing keycontent information in their lab write-up.b) The Genre-based approach helped the students to improve their awareness of99“Procedure”, “Procedural recount”, and “Explanation” genres and focus on the language featuresfor expressing scientific content.c) The KF approach appeared to help students to improve the quality of both mainstreamand ESL students’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology. The Genre-based approachdid seem to have helped students write significantly better quality lab reports in senior Biology.d) However, neither the KF nor the Genre approach substantially improved the quality ofboth mainstream and ESL students’ writing of lab reports when compared to the quality of thestudents who were not taught either approach. Again, there were no significant differencesbetween the each of the experimental group and the Control group.e) The mainstream and ESL students as two distinct populations showed no significantimprovement above those in the Control group after using the KF and Genre approach. Themainstream students taught the KF approach did achieve higher evaluation scores than those in theControl group, but the difference was not signficant. The mainstream students who were taughtthe Genre-based approach did not achieve higher evaluation scores than those who were taughtneither of the two approaches. The small sample size of the ESL students in all three groups didnot allow for analysis.f) Overall, the KF approach appeared to be more effective than the Genre-based approachto instruction in improving the quality of both mainstream and ESL students’ writing of scientificlab reports in senior Biology.100I CIIAIPTIIRL’’ A11IDI. PROBLEMThere appears to be a greater emphasis placed on higher standards of student performanceas a measure of success in learning for both English as a Second Language (E.S.L.) and nativeEnglish students alike who choose science as their focus of academic studies in the Canadianschool system. Since the learning of scientific concepts involves linking the theoretical and thepractical experiences of science, student learning is often measured by their performance on teststhat emphasize conceptual theory and their performance on laboratory exercises that offer a “firsthand experience” with science. It has come to the attention of science educators and researchersalike that student performance on laboratory work in science is poor and the student laboratoryreports lack communicability or clear expression of the learning of scientific concepts(Kochendorfer, 1994; Vargas, 1986; Renner, 1986; Beasley, 1985; Klein et al., 1982).In science students write lab reports, they apply their language skills or linguisticknowledge to organize and construct a piece of writing that represents the scientific conceptslearned and process skills attained. Science teachers find students are weak in their writing skills(Vargas, 1986) and are uncertain as to what information is most relevant for reporting(Kochendorfer, 1994; Renner, 1986; Beasley, 1985; Klein et a!., 1982). For E.S.L. and somerecently mainstreamed students, the writing of scientific lab reports poses a heightened challengebecause of the language barrier.II. BACKGROUNDScience laboratory work and reporting play a significant role in science education becausethey give students a chance to participate in investigations and experimentation in which they101exercise their own thinking, draw their own conclusions, and inform others in the scientificcommunity about their results (Renner, 1986; Beizenherz and Olstad, 1980). Laboratory activitiesgive concrete learning experiences by involving students in the scientific enterprise of posingquestions, hypothesizing, testing, problem-solving, and ultimately, making discoveries (Renner,1986; Klein et al. ,1982).Although laboratory work has always been promoted in the teaching of science, in someperiods during the history of science education it has been given a dominant role. During the majorscience curriculum reform movements of the 1960s some science teachers believed that “aconsiderable amount of laboratory work should lead, rather than lag behind, the classroom phasesof science teaching” (Schwab, 1964). In the 1960s curriculum planners suggested that working onproblems in the laboratory was more important than finding conclusions. (Schwab, 1964). Thesereform recommendations for laboratory work in the final analysis did not provide students withsufficient educational experiences to succeed in a changing society or have greater relevance to theirdaily lives.Science teachers presently assume the responsibility of changing the way they plan,implement, and evaluate laboratory-oriented curricula so that they are appropriate for their sciencestudents. Among many factors and issues to address, for one, educators are recognizing ademographic change in their student body and are assisting their new immigrant students to adjustto a cross-cultural experience in science education. In particular, science teachers are exploringvarious approaches to successful laboratory work and reporting so that their students can betterlearn from their lab experiences and improve on their lab performances.Science students complete classroom tasks assigned by teachers to learn the contentinformation presented in the task. Writing a scientific laboratory report is an academic task(Biology, 1986; Brown, 1991; Candilin, 1987; Doyle & Carter, 1984; Goodman, 1986; Kanare,1985; Long, 1989; Long & Crookes, unpublished & 1992; Mohan, 1991; Nunan, 1988 & 1989;Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1990). For native-spealcing students in the mainstream classroom thefocus of learning is mainly on acquiring the scientific conceptual knowledge in the tasks, but for102second language learners, the emphasis may be on the linguistic forms (grammar, syntax, lexis,morphology, etc.), the subject matter, or both.Second language acquisition and learning theorists believe that ESL students in languageand content-area classrooms can learn the second language more effectively if the language andcontent of the curricular topics are presented in a meaningful way for learning and time is allotedconstructively to allow for ample opportunities for learning (Cummins, 1991; Coffier, 1987;Krashen, 1981, 1982). Krashen (1981, 1982) suggests that integrated instruction in the academicclassroom should present “language input” that is just above the proficiency level of the learner andlink it to meaningful content. Cummins (1991), who makes the distinction between conversational(BICS) and academic proficiency (CALP) believes that ESL students need opportunities to usespecialized academic language in “context-embedded” situations in content classrooms such asscience. It takes between 4 to 8 years for ESL students to reach national norms on standardizedtests (Collier, 1987); therefore, the instruction of academic content and skills cannot be delayed.Two approaches to instruction that focus on language skills and academic content can beapplied to improving ESL and native-speaking students’ writing of scientific laboratory reports insenior secondary school science: The Knowledge Framework approach, which involves using theKnowledge Framework for the instruction and learning of both language skills and contentinformation in a particular curriculum in an education context (Mohan, 1979, 1986; Early, 1990;Early, Mohan & Hooper, 1989; Crandall, 1987, 1993; Cantoni-Harvey, 1987; Brinton, Snow &Wesche, 1989) and the Genre approach is based on a model of functional grammar of systemiclinguistics that views language as a social semiotic that gives meaning (Halliday & Martin, 1993;Martin, 1992, 1993, Halliday, 1993, 1985; Christie & Rothery, 1989; Painter & Martin, 1986;Callaghan & Rothery, 1988; Christie, 1990; Rothery, 1993). The Genre-based approach toliteracy in science is concerned with exploring the structure, function and usage of scientificlanguage in the written mode.103A. THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK APPROACH TO WRiTINGSCIENCEIntegrating language and content information for instruction includes the presentation oflanguage items (grammar, syntax, lexis, morphology, etc.) and subject matter (content knowledge)with a balanced emphasis on both in a cohesive manner for learning (Mohan, 1979, 1986; Early,1990; Early, Mohan & Hooper, 1989; ; Crandall, 1987, 1993; Cantoni-Harvey, 1987; Brinton,Snow & Wesche, 1989). The Knowledge Framework approach for learning is one model of KFthat promotes second language learning, academic language and cognitive skills development, andthe communicative language use (Mohan, 1979, 1986, 1991; Early, Mohan, & Hooper, 1989).The theoretical framework emphasizes the development of both language and content knowledgetogether by focusing on the intersection of language, content, and thinking objectives.Applying the Knowledge Framework involves identifying language structures and contentvocabulary in a particular text or discourse situation and organizing the information into the sixknowledge structures of ‘Description”, “Classification”, “Principles”, “Sequence”, “Evaluation”,and “Choice”, which are based on the cognitive processes intended in the text or situation. Keyvisuals are graphics used in the Framework as a “bridge” that links language and content (Mohan,1986, 1991; Early, 1989) and helps to lower the language barrier.In the science classroom, the knowledge structures of the theoretical framework can beused to organize curricular concepts or topics for writing a scientific lab report. The approach canbe designed “to elicit certain knowledge and discourse structures” and can aim to develop languagecompetencies for writing lab reports as an academic task (Mohan, 1986).B. GENRE-BASED APPROACH FOR WRITING SCIENCEBased on a functional grammar of systemic linguistics that views language as a socialsemiotic that gives meaning, genre can be viewed as a “staged, purposeful, goal-oriented activity”(Martin, 1992,1993; Halliday, 1985, 1989, 1993; Christie & Rothery, 1989). Consistent withHaffiday & Hassan (1989), Martin (1993) believes that language, as social semiotic, “plays an104instrumental role in construing the social context we live” and in reciprocity, “language is, at thesame time, construed by social context”.The concept of genre can be defined as distinctly different from the longer establishedconcept of register (Ventola, 1984, cited in Swales 1990). Martin (Hasan & Martin, 1989)distinguishes genre and register to be two semiotic levels which are connotative and find theirexpression through language. Register as a category can be analyzed in terms of three variableslabelledfield (the content activity of the situation), tenor (the social action), and mode (the channelof communication).A Genre-based approach can be applied to promoting the implementation of languageacross the curriculum approach (Stainton, 1992). Some genres are found to be common acrossdifferent academic subjects. Report (classifying and taxonomizing), Procedure (sequencingevents), Explanation (cause and effect) are examples of genres required of students in their writing(Martin & Painter, 1986; Callaghan & Rothery, 1988; Christie & Rothery; 1989). The Genre-based approach makes explicit the knowledge about language form to the learner.The Genre-based approach to writing scientific lab reports focuses on identifying theappropriate genres and their schematic and linguistic choices and the context or “register” forproducing language for each component of the lab report. Through the 3-stage teaching cycle ofmodelling of text, joint construction of new text, and independent construction of the text, studentsapply the key language features for “Procedure”, “Procedural Recount”, and “Explanation” forwriting scientific reports.C. SUMMARYIn summary, the body of research and literature in area of language education appears tosuggest the KF and Genre approaches can be applied across the curriculum. Both the KnowledgeFramework approach and the Genre-based approach can be implemented for writing lab reports insenior science. Both are well-founded on theories of language learning that emphasize theimportance of discourse abilities for expressing meaningful content knowledge in the academic task105of writing. The research presented suggests that students, especially ESL, can benefit immenselyfrom the purposes of the KF and Genre-based approach for writing scientific laboratory reports.To answer the central question of this study, “is there a difference in the quality of scientific reportwriting at the senior secondary school level related to differences in instructional approach, theKnowledge Framework approach or the genre-based approach to literacy instruction”, twopretests, one posttest for evaluating scientific lab report writing and two surveys were developedand conducted to test the effects of the two approaches on writing science. Data collected from thisstudy were used to test the following hypotheses:1. The Knowledge Framework (KF) approach is more effective than the Genre-basedapproach to instruction in improving the quality of both mainstream and ESL students’writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.2. The Knowledge Framework (KF) approach will improve the quality of both mainstreamand ESL students’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.3. The Genre-based approach wifi improve the quality of both mainstream and ESLstudents’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.4. Mainstream students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were taught the Genre-basedapproach.5. Mainstream students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were not taught either theKF or Genre-based approach.6. Mainstream students taught the Genre-based approach will achieve higher evaluation scoreson their scientific lab report writing than the mainstream students who were not taughteither the KF or Genre-based approach.7. ESL students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the ESL students who were taught the Genre-based106approach.8. ESL students taught the KF approach will achieve higher evaluation scores on theirscientific lab report writing than the ESL students who were not taught either the KF or theGenre-based approach.9. ESL students taught the Genre-based approach will achieve higher evaluation scores ontheir scientific lab report writing than the ESL students who were not taught either the KFor the Genre-based approach.10. Students taught the KF approach will understand how to use the Knowledge Frameworkto focus on language and content features and use key visuals for writing scientific labreports.11. Students taught the Genre-based approach will understand how to the use “Procedure”,“Procedural Recount”, and “Explanation” genres to identify the generic structures and keylanguage features for writing scientific lab reports.III.THE STUDYThis study examined how the KF approach and the genre-based approach to literacycompared in effectiveness as each was applied to teaching ESL and native-speaking students towrite lab reports. The study groups in this research were comprised of students who were enrolledin three classes of Grade 11 Biology at a senior secondary school in the Richmond School District.Twenty students in each of the three classes volunteered to participate in this study. Each classserved as a study group and was designated as follows: The class that received the KF approachwas named the “KF” group; the “Genre” group was taught the Genre-based; the third classreceived neither of the above instructional approaches and therefore served as the “Control” group.The students in the study came from a middle-class background and a variety of ethnic cultures.Three classes of mainstream Biology 11 were randomly selected for the study. Theresearch began with administering two pretests to all three (Genre, KF, and Control) participant107groups: Pretest 1: Reading Comprehension Test and Pretest 2: What is a Scientific Lab Report?After the two pretests, the teacher! researcher began to teach the KF approach unit to the “KF”group and teach the “Procedure”, Procedural Recount” and “Explanation” genres to the Genreclass. The Control group did not receive any of the other two instructional approaches. At the endof the KF and Genre teaching cycles, all students were directed to write formal lab reports basedon the current topic presented in the Biology 11 curriculum. The lab reports were then evaluatedand analyzed using the Evaluation Criteria for Writing Scientific Laboratory Reports. SURVEY 1:Using Genres to write a Lab Report was administered to the “Genre” group and SURVEY 2:Using the Knowledge Framework to Write a Scientific Lab Report was given to the “KF” group atthe end of the study. The surveys were analysed for student responses to their experiences withthe approaches.IV. PARTICIPANTSThe participants for this study were senior secondary school students from the RichmondSchool District who were enrolled in the senior science course of Biology 11. A total of 60participants in three classes were randomly selected and designated as the “KF”, the “Genre”, andthe “Control” groups to test the effectiveness of the approaches. “Pretest 1” and “Pretest 2” wereused to determine the students’ proficiency levels in reading and writing English. Out of 60participants there was a total of 8 ESL students (those students whose English proficiency levelwas below that of native-speakers): 3 in the “Genre” group, 3 in the “KF” group and 2 in the“control” group. The proficiency levels of the ESL students ranged from low to upper intermediateto advanced (Level 3, 4 or 5). Eight different first languages other than English were representedin the study groups. The students varied in intellectual ability, attitude, motivation for learning.108V. RESULTSA. PRETEST 1The Gates-MacGinitie test gave an estimate of the overall reading comprehension level ofthe participants in the three groups. Overall (mainstream and ESL combined) Pretest 1 meanscores in Table 5.1 ranged from 36.10 (7.52) for the Control group, 37.25 (8.17) for the KFgroup, to 40.90 (6.28) for the Genre group. The mainstream and ESL students in the KF group(37.25) had a lower mean score than those in the Genre group (40.90) on the Gates-MacGinitieReading Comprehension Test.Table 5.1: Means and Standard Deviations of Pretest 1 scores by all students.OVERALL PRETEST 1: GATES-MACGINITIEREADING COMPREHENSION TESTGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 40.90 6.28 20KF 37.25 8.17 20CONTROL 36.10 7.52 20Looking at the mainstream and ESL students as separate populations on the Reading Test(Table 4.5 and 4.8), the mainstream students in the KF group had a mean score of 39.42 (6.33)while the ESL students in the same KF group had a value of 25.00 (6.92). The mainstreamGenre students had a mean of 43.00 (3.28) on the Gates-MacGinitie while the ESL Genrestudents had a mean value of 29.00 (6.24). Comparing the mainstream and ESL students inthe Control group, the results also showed a mean score of 37.50 (6.51) for the mainstreamstudents and a mean of 23.50 (0.71) for the ESL student. The overall mean for mainstream109students in the three groups was 39.92 (5.95). The overall mean for the ESL students onPretest 1 was 26.13 (5.57).B. PRETEST 2In Pretest 2, the students’ prior knowledge of laboratory work and report writing skillswere assessed. Table 5.2 shows the means and standard deviations of the Pretest 2 writing testobtained by the three study groups. The results of overall Pretest 2 revealed a range of meanscores from 78.70 (7.16) for the KF group, 79.35 (6.67) for the Control group, to 80.68(5.73) for the Genre group.Table 5.2: Pretest 2 results for all students in the study groups.OVERALL PRETEST 2: WRITING TESTGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 80.68 5.73 19KF 78.70 7.16 20CONTROL 79.35 6.67 20The Pretest 2 results in Table 4.6 showed a mean score of 81.50 (5.42) for themainstream Genre group, 80.61 for the mainstream Control group, and 80.41 for themainstream KF group. There was total of 51 out of 52 mainstream students in the samplepopulation wrote Pretest 2. For the ESL students, the Pretest 2 results varied from 68.00 (2.83)for the Control group, 69.00 (5.29) for the KF group, to 76.33 (6.42) for the Genre group(Table 4.9). The overall mean for the ESL students in the three groups was 71.50 and thestandard deviation was 6.09 while the overall mean for the mainstream students on the Pretest 2Writing Test was 80.82 (5.63).110C. POSTTEST 1Posttest 1 results showed the evaluation of the lab reports written by students in the threestudy groups. In Table 5.3, overall Posttest 1 data ifiustrated a mean score of 17.15 (2.46) forthe KF group, 16.05 (2.72) for the Genre group, and 16.75 (2.34) for the Control group.Table 5.3: Posttest 1 results of lab reports written by all students.OVERALL POSTTEST 1: LAB REPORTSGROUP MEAN STANDARD CASESDEVIATIONGENRE 16.05 2.72 20KF 17.15 2.46 20CONTROL 16.75 2.34 20From Tables 4.7 and 4.10, the results showed means and standard deviations of 16.18 (2.92)for the mainstream students in the Genre group and 15.33 (1.15) for the ESL students in theGenre group. In the KF group, the mainstream students had a mean of 17.65 (2.21) while theESL participants had a mean value 14.33 (2.08). Comparing the students in the Control group,the mainstream participants had a mean score of 16.83 (2.35) for the Control group while theESL students had a mean of 16.00 (2.82). The overall mean score and standard deviation forthe three mainstream groups was 16.88 (2.53). The overall mean score on Posttest 1 for theESL students was 15.13 with a standard deviation of 1.81.D. SURVEY 1 AND 2The two surveys (Survey 1 and 2) were administered to obtain students’ responses thatreflected their understanding and overall impression of the KF and the Genre-based approaches for111writing science. The results of the surveys indicated that the two groups of students on the wholedid find the two approaches helpful in writing scientific lab reports.In identifying and applying the generic structure and linguistic features of the “Procedure”,‘Procedural Recount”, and “Explanation” genres for writing each component of a scientific labreport, one hundred percent of the students in the Genre group could explain the term “genre”and 90-95% of the students knew the purpose and function of the most appropriate genre forwriting each section of the lab (Table 4.11). 75% of the students in the Genre group agreed(1.95) that they were able to identify the language features such as imperatives, past tense,sequence words, etc. for each genre. Overall, the Genre students thought the approach helpedthem to focus on the language of science so they could write better lab reports (75%).A high percentage of students understood and knew how to apply the KnowledgeFramework and its knowledge structures, language features, and key visuals for writing scientificlab reports. From Survey 2, the students responses indicated that 100% of the KF studentsunderstood how to use the Knowledge Framework for writing labs, 85% expressed that theywere able to identify the six knowledge structures, and 80% of them understood how to use thetheoretical framework to organize the sections of their labs. Further analyses of these surveyssuggest that 85-95% of the KF students found key visuals helpful in their lab write-up. Overall,80% of the students in the KF group felt they understood how to recognize and use theappropriate linguistic features for writing a better lab report. Eight percent agreed that theKnowledge Framework allowed them to focus on the language and content features of a scientificlab report.One common thread of dislikes shared by the students in the two experimental groups wasthe length of time it took for them to learn and write the labs using the two methods. They thoughtwriting using the approaches was very time-consuming. Nevertheless, it was understood that,with anything new, some time needs to be alloted to learn it.112Generally, the students working the KF approach preferred it more than those workingwith the Genre approach. Item 32 in Table 13 reveal that 55% (2.20) of the KF studentspreferred the Knowledge Framework while only 35% (2.55) of the Genre students preferred itto other lab report instructional formats and approaches.VI. CONCLUSIONThe Knowledge Framework (KF) and the Genre-based approaches have made a differencein the students’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology. The data from the study showedthat the Knowledge Framework was effective, but not significantly, in improving the quality of thestudents’ lab reports. Generally, the students who were introduced the Genre-based approachfound that it helped to write better lab reports. The following is a final summary of the findings ofthis research:1. The KF approach was more effective than the Genre-based approach toinstruction in improving the quality of both mainstream and ESL students’ writingof scientific lab reports in senior Biology.2. The KF approach did not subtantially improve the quality of bothmainstream and ESL students’ writing of scientific lab reports in senior Biology.The was a difference in favour of the KF approach over any other approaches with which thestudents have worked.3. The students taught the Genre-based approach did not show a significantimprovement on the quality of their scientific lab-report writing. However, fiftypercent of the Genre group agreed that the genre approach helped them to write better lab reports.4. The mainstream students who were taught the KF approach achieved higherevaluation scores on their scientific lab reports than those who were taught theGenre-based approach.1135. The mainstream students who were taught the KF approach did not achievesignificantly higher evaluation scores on their scientific lab reports that themainstream students who were not taught either the KF or Genre-based approach.However, the mainstream students in the KF group did attain a higher mean score than themainstream students in the Control group.6. The mainstream students taught the Genre-based approach did not achievehigher evaluation scores on their scientific lab report writing than those studentswho were not taught either the KF or Genre-based approach (Control group).7. ESL students taught the KF approach did not achieve higher evaluationscores on their scientific lab reports than the ESL students who were taught theGenre-based approach. The statement hypothesis was supported by data collected from asignificantly low sample population of ESL students, and therefore, might not be valid.8. The ESL students in the Control group achieved higher evaluation scoreson their scientific lab reports than the ESL students who were taught the KFapproach. This statement of hypothesis was supported by low sample data and might not bevalid.9. The ESL students in the Control group achieved higher evaluation scoreson their scientific lab reports than the ESL students who were taught the Genreapproach. This statement of hypothesis was supported by low sample data and might not bevalid.10. The students taught the KF approach understood how to use the KnowledgeFramework to focus on language and content features and use key visuals forwriting scientific lab reports. The students found the use of key content and structurallanguage features and key visuals to be very beneficial to writing lab reports.11. The students taught the Genre-based approach felt that they understoodhow to the use “Procedure”, “Procedural Recount”, and “Explanation” genres toidentify the generic structures and key language features for writing scientific lab114reports. The students also expressed that they were able apply the generic structures and the keylanguage features of the three types genres to writing the sections of their lab reports.12. While the study has contrasted the Knowledge Framework approach and theGenre-based approach, the two approaches are infact complementary.VII. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDYThis study intended to examine how the Knowledge Framework (KF) and the Genre-basedapproaches could be implemented into the secondary school science for the learning of academiclanguage and content through writing a scientific lab report. This research attempted to address allaspects of the two approaches in the context of the classroom situations and the students from theRichmond school district who participated in the study. The following is a description of thelimitations of this study:A. STUDENTS1. The ESL and mainstream students who volunteered to take part in this study were fromthree randomly chosen classes of Biology 11 at Richmond Senior Secondary School in Richmond,B.C. The number of ESL students in the sample population was low at 13%, 8 out of 60participants, and was insufficient and insubstantial in making the ESL results valid for addressingthe hypotheses that concerned ESL students in the study. The ESL population represented in theseclasses was different from the Richmond School District norm of approximately 40% across thecurriculum. In other courses, the percentage often exceeds over 40% depending on the Englishusage demand of the course (i.e. Mathematics, Physics, or Computer Science). Nevertheless, itwas the nature of the senior Biology course that there was a low number of ESL studentscompared to that of mainstream students. One reason for the low percentage of ESL students inthese Biology classes could be that the language usage in the course content was at the mainstreamor native-speaking level.1152. The three groups of student participants were involved in the research: Two groups werethe experimental and one served as the Control group. Each of the experimental groups was taughtone of the two approaches to writing scientific lab reports. The KF group was introduced to theKnowledge Framework and its knowledge structures and the Genre group was presented the“Procedure”, “Procedural Recount”, and the “Explanation” genres. The success of each approachwas partiy dependent on the presentation of the teaching cycle for learning. The students’ responseto each stage of the teaching process was crucial to their learning of the new approaches. Theteacher/researcher monitored the progress of each group throughout the teaching cycle as the keycharacteristic features and benefits of each approach were presented. The students’ learning ofeach approach was reflected in their sample write-up and formal lab report submitted and evaluatedas Posttest 1 results.3. The background, intellectual and natural ability of the student participants play a significantrole in their learning of the new approaches for writing Science. Students who have consistentlyachieved high standings in science courses may have found little difficulty in the learning ofscientific content regardless of whether there was a specific lab writing methodology at the seniorsecondary school level. This may explain why the Control group had a higher mean score on thePosttest 1 lab report that the Genre group (Table 4.4). Although the students in the Control werenot taught a particular approach to writing science, as Grade 11 science students they have learnedmany techniques to writing lab reports in their past schooling and had applied them succesfully inthis study.4. The study was conducted over a 3-month period with 60 student volunteers. The actualinstructional process of each of the approaches (not including the time for the two pretests to bewritten) took approximately 2-classroom hours. The students in each group were given threemonths to apply the approaches to writing 3 labs (certain lab activities and demonstrations did notrequire lab write-ups) with the knowledge that the third lab report would be evaluated for thestudy. Three months might not have been sufficient time for the students to grasp the concepts andtechniques of the two approaches. It is possible that with more time for learning the approaches116the lab reports would be better written.5. One of the limitations of this study might be the sample size of the student participants.Twenty students for each study group represented 67% of the total number of students (30) in astandard classroom in the Richmond School District. A higher number of the student populationfor the study could yield more substantial results.6. The three classes of Biology 11 students that comprised the study groups for this researchwere taught by the same teacher/researcher. The elimination of any teacher bias by introducing twoother teachers into the study could produce more significant results since the overlap of approachesin the teaching process would be reduced. However, the teacher/researcher for this study did havea impartial visitor to his class lessons to observe and help the researcher to reduce teacher bias.7. The Evaluation Grid for assessing the Posttest 1 lab reports in all three study groups wasdeveloped in conjunction with 8 different science teachers from Richmond (see appendix). TheEvaluation Grid had criteria descriptors that focused on the language and content knowledgefeatures of each section of the lab report. Even though it was reliable, the grid might not have beensensitive to show a great significant difference among the three groups of lab reports. Table 4.4reveals fairly similar means and a low variability for the groups indicating that the 60 students hada narrow spread of scores.VIII. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDYThe Knowledge Framework and the Genre-based approaches have their benefits and thepotential to improve the quality of scientific writing at the senior secondary school level. The twoapproaches have many implications for teacher education, second language learning, and scienceeducation. This study has shown how instructional approaches that emphasize the languagefeatures and content knowledge inherent in a particular academic or social context can beimplemented in the learning of science. The following is a series of questions related to the topicof language learning through writing science that was not addressed in this research study:1171. What is the value of the learning of academic language for teachers across the curriculum?In an academic content curriculum does an instructor have the expertise, resources, andtime to teach the language of their discipline? How should the language of science betaught without de-emphasizing scientific content?2. Should students be offered a course at the secondary school level that focuses on academicor technical writing skills? Will an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) writing coursebetter prepare students for the task of writing across the curriculum at the secondaryschool level (Leki & Carson, 1994)?3. Should teachers evaluate language and/or content in their academic content classrooms?What is the value of formal language skill assessment in the content-area of science?4. How is the KF approach or the Genre-based approach applied to bilingualism education?This raises the question as to how far the knowledge structures and the genres vary acrosslanguages and cultures.Further research should be designed to explore these issues. Science is often considered tobe the cornerstone of research and development and important to a country’s technologicaladvancement. We need to assure that our students receive the best instruction possible andcontinue to pursue their interests in Science.118BIBLIOGRAPHYBakhtin, M.M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. Speech genres and other late essays.M.M. Bakhtin (translated by V. McGee). Austin: Unversity of Texas Press. 60-102.Barron, C. (1991). Material thoughts: ESP and culture. English for Specific Purposes. 10173-187.Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimentalarticle in science. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.Beasley, W. (1985). Improving student laboratory performance: How much practice makesperfect? Science Education, 69(4), 567.Beizenherz, P., and Olstad, R. (1980). The use of laboratory instruction in high school biology.American Biology Teacher. 42(3), 166.Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A. & Wesche, M.B. (1989). Content-based language instruction.New York: Newbury House.B.C. Ministry of Education (1987). Biology 11 and 12 Curriculum Guide. B.C. Schools Dept.Curriculum Development Branch.B.C. Ministry of Education (1992). Status of Minisirv Programs and Initiatives to SupportEducation Reform in British Columbia: 1992-1993.Brown, J.D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Brown, T. & Perry, J.R. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabularyacquisition. TESOL Ouarterly. 25 (4), 655-670.Callaghan, M. & Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching factual writing: A genre-based approach. TheReport of the DSP Literacy Project Metropolitan East Region, Australia.Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based learning. In C. Candlin & D.F. Murphy (eds.)LANGUAGE LEARNING TASKS. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Cantoni-Harvey, G. (1987). Content-area language instruction: Approaches and strategies.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (1988). Vocabulary and language teaching (applied linguistics andlanguage study series). London: Longman.Christie, F. (ed.) (1990). Fresh look at the basics: Literacy for a changing world. Melbourne:Australian Council for Educational Research.Christie, F. & Rothery, J. (1989). Writing in schools. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin UniversityPress.Clarke, J.H. (1991). Using visual organizers to focus on thinking. Journal of Reading.4(7), 526-534.119Cleland, B. & Evans, R. (1984). Learning English through general science. Melbourne:Longman Cheshire.Collier, V.P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition second language for academic purposes.TESOL quarterly. 21(4), 617-641.Crandall, J. (1987). ESL through content-area instruction (Mathematics, Science, Social Studies).Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.Crandall, J. (1993). Content-centred learning in the U.S. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.ii 111-126.Cummins, J. (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual contexts.Reading in Two Languages. Hulstijn, J.H. & Matter, J.F. (Eds.) AILA REVIEW 8.Disadvantaged Schools Program (1989a). The Discussion Genre. Sydney: DisadvantagedSchools Program, Metropolitan East Region.Disadvantaged Schools Program (1989b). The Report Genre. Sydney: Disadvantaged SchoolsProgram, Metropolitan East Region.Disadvantaged Schools Program (1989c). The Recount Genre. Sydney: Disadvantaged SchoolsProgram, Metropolitan East Region.Dittmar, N. (1988). SLA models and issues: Acquisition of semantics. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics. 9, 54-7 1.Doyle, W. & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. CURRICULUM INOUIRY.14(2), 129-149.Dunbar, S. (1992). Integrating language and content: A case study. TESL CANADA JOUNAL10 (1), 62-69.Early, M. (1990). Enabling first and second language learners in the classroom. LanguageArm. ..2., 567-575.Early, M. (1989). Using key visuals to aid ESL students’ comprehension of content classroomtests. READING-CANADA-LECTURE 7(4).Early, M., Mohan, B.A. and Hooper, H.R. (1989). The Vancouver School Board Language andContent Project. In J.H. Esling (Ed.), Multicultural Education and Policy: ESL in the1990’s. Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Fawcett, R.P. (1987). The semantics of clause and verb for relational processes in English. In:New developments in systemic linguistics Vol 1: Theory and description. M.A.K.Halliday & R. Fawcett (eds.) London: Pinter.Flood, W.E. (1960). Scientific words: Their structure and meaning. N.Y.: Duell, Sloan andPearce, Oldboume Book Co. Ltd.Fotos, S. and Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOLOuarterlv. 25(4), 605-628.120Gass, S. (1988). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics 92-106.Goodman, H.D. et. a!. (1986). Biology: Laboratory investigations. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Halliday, M.A.K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language. context, and text. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J.R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power.London: Falmer & Pittsburg: Unversity of Pittsburg Press.Hasan, R. & Martin J.R. (Eds.) (1989). Language development: Learning language. learningculture. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex (Advances in Discourses Processes 27 - Meaning andChoice in Language: studies for Michael Halliday).Horowitz, D.M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESLclassroom. TESOL Ouarterlv. 20(3), 445-462.Kamler, B. (1992). The social construction of free topic choice in the process writing classroomThe Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. Vol. 15, No.2, 105-121.Kanare, H.W. (1985). Writing a laboratory notebook. Washington, D.C.: American ChemicalSociety.Kessler, C., Quinn, M.E. (1987). ESL and Science Learning. ESL Through Content-AreaInstruction (Mathematics. Science. Social Studies. Crandall, J. (Ed.) Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.Klein, S.E., Yager, R.E., and McCurdy, D.W. (1982). The laboratory is vital in scienceinstruction in the secondary school. The Science Teacher. 49(2), 20.Kochendorfer, L. (1994). Biology teachers as researchers. The American Biology Teacher. 56(3),135-137.Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:Pergamon Press.Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford:Pergamon Press.Leki, I. & Carson, J. (1994). Students’ Perceptions of EAP writing Instruction and WritingNeeds Across the Disciplines. TESOL qUARTERLY. Vol. 28, No.1, 81-101.Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language . learning and values. Norwood, N.J.: AblexLanguage and Educational Processes.Long, M.H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. Unversitv of Hawaii WorkingPapers in ESL 8(2), 1-26.121Long, M.H. and Crookes, G. (In press). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task.To appear in G. Crookes and S.M. Gass (eds.), Task and language learning. Clevedon,Avon: Multilingual Matters.Long, M.H. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOLquarterly. 26(1), 27-56.MacMillan, C. (1986). Biology: Laboratory manual. (B.C. Edition). Ontario: CoffierMacMillan Publishers.McGroaty, M. (1992). Cooperative learning: The benefits for content-area teaching. In P.A.Richard-Amato & Snow, M.A. The multicultural classroom. White Plains, N.Y.:Longman.Mandell, A. (1974). The language of science. Wash.: NSTA.Martin, J.R. (1992). English text, system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Martin, J.R. (1993). Genre and literacy - modeling context in educational linguistics.A.R.A.L. 13, 142-172.Meyerson, M.J., Ford, M.S., Jones, W. P., and Ward, M.A. (1991). Science vocabularyknowledge of third and fifth grade students. Science Education 75 (4), 419-428.Mohan, B. A. (1991). LEP students and the integration of language and content knowledgestructures and tasks. In: Proceedings of the First Research Symposium onLimited English Proficient Students’ Issues. Simich-Dudgeon, C. (ed.) Washington,D.C.: OBEMLA. 113-160.Mohan, B. A. (1989). Knowledge structures and academic discouse. Language Socialization.Word 40(1-2), 99-115.Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading: MA: Addision- Wesley.Mohan, B. A. (1979). Relating language teaching and content teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 13,171-182.Nagy, W.E. & Herman, P.A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implicationsfor acquisition and instruction. In: The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition. McKeown, M.G. and Curtis, M.E. (Eds.) N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 19-35.Norris, S. P. (1984). Defining observational competence. Science Education. 68(2), 129-142.Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: C.U.P.Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: O.U.P.Painter, C. & Martin, J.R. (1986). Writing to mean: Teaching genres across the curriculum.Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (Occasional papers 9) 62-97.Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Ouarterly, 25 (4),629-653.122Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1990). Choosing and using communication tasks for secondlanguage instruction and research. Ms. University of Pennsylvania.Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.TESOL Ouarterly. Vol. 25, No. 3, 407-430.Renner, J.W. et al. (1985). Rediscovering the lab. The Science Teacher, 53(1), 44-45.Rothery, J. (1993). Exploring literacy in school english. Sydney: Sydney Metropolitan EastRegion’s Disadvantaged Schools Program, NSW Department of Education.Rothery, J. & Veel, R. (In press). Exposing the ideology of literature - The power ofdeconstruction. Sydney: Sydney Metropolitan East Region’s Disadvantaged SchoolsProgram, NSW Department of Education.Savory, T. (1971). Latin and greek for biologists. Cambridge: Merrow Technical. Library.Schwab, J.J. (1964). The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Shavelson, R.J. (1981) Statistical Reasoning for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston: Allyn &Bacon, Inc.Snow, M.A. & Brinton, D.M. (1988). Content-based language instruction: Investigating theeffectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Ouarterlv, 22(4), 553-574.Snow, M.A., Met. M., & Genesee, F., (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration oflanguage and content instruction. TESOL Ouarterlv. 23,201-217.Stainton, C. (1992). Language awareness: Genre awareness - a focused review of theliterature. Language Awareness 1, No. 2, 109 - 119.Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Tang, G. M.(1994). Teacher collaboration in integrating language and content. TESL CanadaJournal. 11(2), 100-116.Tang, G. M.(1991). The role and value of graphic representation of knowledge structuresin ESL student learning: An ethnographic study. TESL Canada Journal. 9(1), 29-41.Thornton, J.W. (1971). The laboratory: A place to investigate. Washington, D.C. AmericanInstitute of Biological Sciences.Vargas, M.F. (1986). Writing skills for science labs. The Science Teacher. 53(8), 29-33.Veel, R. (In press). Exploring literacy in school science. Sydney: Sydney Metropolitan EastRegion’s Disadvantaged Schools Program, NSW Department of Education.Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.,Oxford.123APPENDIX ATHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADepartment of Language Education2125 Main MallI riTi—J Vancouver B.C. Canada V6 1 Z4Tel: (604) 822-5788Fa:(604) 822-3154Edwin Liewll8East62ndAve.Vancouver, B.C.V5X 2E6October 4, 1993Mr. 3.1. RantanenDistrict School SuperintendentSchool District #38 Richmond7811 Granville Ave.Richmond, B.C.Dear Mr. Rantanen:I am a teacher who is currently teaching Biology 11 and ESL at Richmond SeniorSecondary School. I am also a graduate (MA.) student completing my second year ofresearchstudies with the Language Education Department at the University ofBritish Columbia. Presently,I am conducting a study on comparing “Two Approaches to Writing Laboratory Reports in SeniorScience: The Integration ofLanguage and Content Approach and the Genre-Based Approach.”The focus of this study will be on the implementation of these two instructional approaches to• iting in science and determine their effectiveness on student writing of scientific laboratoryreports. I believe this research will have significant implications for the instruction, ofESL learnersin the secondary school setting.The Integration ofLanguage and Content (ILC) approach and the Genre-based approachcan be implemented in both the language and content-area classroom for instruction of the fourlanguage skills of English, particulárlyin reading and writing. The two instructional approachesutilize standard teaching strategies (i.e. lecture, group work, etc.) and emphasize the purpose, useand function of language in the academic context Hence, the approaches are applicable to teachingwriting in a senior science class such as Biology 11.in order to acquire a frame of reference for assessing the student participant& reading and -writing ability, a pretest in reading and writing will be administered prior to the study. The GatesMcGinite Reading Comprehension Test will be used as a pretest for the participants in the Biology11 classes. A writing pretest will be developed for this research.I would like ask for your permission to conduct the above research and to administer theGates-McGinitie Reading Comprehension Test to the Biology 11 student participants as the firststep of the study. All data collected will be kept confidential with documentation and reportingstrictly for the purpose of this research study. I anticipate the study will take approximately twomonths to complete. I will submit a report of the findings of the study to you after the study hasbeen completed and the data have been analyzed.124If you should have any questions or concerns iegardIng the details of this study, please feelfree to contact me at Richmond Senior at 668-6400 (or at home at 322-7663) or my facultyadvisor, Dr. Lee Gunderson, at the UBC Department of Language Education at 822-6287. 1,would like to thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you..Sincerely yours,Edwin Liew125APPENDIX BC 0 L E S E Co N D A I R EJRICHMON DSENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL7171 MINORU BLVD. RICHMOND. B.C.. V6Y 1Z3 PHONE (6O4)668-64OO FAX 668-6405Principal Vice Principal Vice PrincipaRobert T. Carkner Dieter R. Morneyer Robert D. Scan-January 4, 1994Students and ParentsBiology 11 ClassesRichmond Senior Secondary SchoolDear Students and Parents/Guardians:I am a teacher who is currently teaching Biology II and ESL at Richmond SeniorSecondary SchooL I am also a graduate (Maste?s of Arts) student completing my second year ofresearch studies th the Language Education Department at the University of British Columbia. Iwould like to inform you that I am presently conducting a study on comparing “Two Approachesto Writing Laboratory Reports in Senior Science: The Integration ofLanguage and ContentApproach and the Genre-Based Approach.” The focus of this study will be on the implementationof these two instructional approaches to writing in science and determine their effectiveness on.smdent writing of scientific laboratory reports. I believe this research will have significantimplications for the instniction ofESL learners and malntxeam Science students in the secondaryschool setting.The Integration ofLanguage and Content (ILC) approach and the Genre-based approachcan be implemented in both the language and content-area classroom for instruction of the fourlanguage ki1lc ofEnglish, ,particularly in reading and writing. The two instructional approachesutilize standard teaching strategies (i.e. lecture, group work etc.) and emphasize the purpose, useand function of language in the academic contet Hence, the appEoaches are applicable to teachingwriting in a senior science class such as Biology 11. These two approaches are by no means• pedagogically extraordinary or adversely different from other standard methodologies used byteachers at the secondary leveLIn order to acquire a frame of reference for assessing the student participants reading andwriting ability, a pretest in reading and writing will be administered prior to the study. The GatesMcGinite Reading Comprehension Test will be used as a pretest for the participants in the Biology11 classes. A writing pretest will be developed for this research.The Richmond School District and the administrative staff at Richmond Senior SecondarySchool have given me the permission to conduct the study. I would also like to ask for your(student and parents) permission to take part in the above study and be included in the research datacollection. Your participation would be, of course, voluntary. Please note that there is nojeopardy to the student’s status in the Biology 11 course ifhe/she should refuse to participate.All data collected will be kept confidential with documentation and reporting strictly for thepurpose of this research study. I anticipate the study will take approximately two months tocomplete. All student participants will be informed of the result of the study once it has beencompleted and the data have been analyzed.1 of 2126If you would 111cc to be part of the above study and its data collection, please indicate withyour signatures in the spaces below.My daughter / son I would like to participate in the above study:STUDENT SIGNATURE:PARENT/GUARDIAN SIGNATURE:_____________________DATE:If you choose NOT to be included in the study and its data collection, please indicatebelow with your signatures.My daughter I son and I would NOT like to take part in the above study:STUDENT SIGNATURE:__________________________PARENT/GUARDIAN SIGNATIJRE:___________________DATE:If you should have any questions or concerns reganling the details of this study, please feelfree to contact me at Richmond Senior at 668-6400 or my faculty adVisor, Dr. Lee Gundezson, atthe UBC Department of Language Education at 822-6287. I hope you will be able to contribute tothis research, and I would like to thank you in advance for your co-operation.Sincerely yours,Edwin Liew2 of 2127APPENDIX CILC & GENRE STUDYPretest 2PRETEST 2:LhIMT IS A SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY REPORT?NOTE: The purpose of this pretest is to identify the student participantS knowledge of scientificlaboratory reporting and their writing ability. The results of this test will NOT be included in theBiology 11 course grade standing.PART A: ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AS BEST AS YOU CANNAME:BLOCK:___________DATE:____________ GRADE:___1. Which of the following science course(s) have you taken before Biology 11 andwhat letter grade standing did you obtain in the courses?Place an ‘tX” beside the course(s).Science 10 Letter Grade:Science and Technology 11 Letter Grade:____E Physics 11 Letter Grade:E Chemistry 11 Letter Grade:LI Earth Science 11 Letter Grade:_El Others:__ _________________Letter Grade:2. Which of the following science course(s) are you taking NOW? Place an “X” besidethe course(s).El Physics 11 Li Physics 12LI Chemistry 11 LI Chemistry 12El Earth Science 11 El Others:_____ _______________1 of 3128PART B: WRITE A BRIEF, CONCISE 100-WORD COMPOSITION ON TBE FOLLOWING TOPIC.TOPIC: What is a scientific laboratory report? Discuss why scientists write lab reports.Consider and include the different components or sections of a typical lab report.Give details and examples. Please use the space below.COMPOSmON:2 of 3130APPENDIX DStudent’s Name: Test Date:Components Range DescriptionCommunicability 20-18 Excellent to Very Good: fluent expression • ideas. & Organization clearly stated/supported succinct well-organized points logicallydeveloped ‘ cohesive17-14 Good: somewhat choppy loosely organized but main ideas stand out• limited support. weak logic13-10 Fair to Poor: non-fluent ideas confused or disconnected • lockslogical sequencing and development9-7 Very Poor: does not communicate • no organization (OR) not• enough wtitien to evaluateContent 30-27 Excellent to Very Good: substantive • thorough development of• thesis • relevant to assigned topic26-22 Good: adequate range • limited development of thesis mostlyrelevant to topic, but general21-17 Fair to Poor: little substance • inadequate development of topic16-13 Very Poor: non-substantive • irrelevant • (OR) not enough toevaluateVocabulary 20-18 Excellent to Very Good: sophisticated range effective word/idiomchoice and usage • shows word tomi mastery appropriate register. 17-14 Good: adequate range • occasional errors of word/idiom form, choice.usage, but mcanin not obscured. 13-10 Fair to Poor: limited range • frequent crrors of word/idiom form,choice. usage’ meaning confused or obscured9-7 Very Poor: essentially translation.’ little knowledge ot EnglishV vocabulary, idioms, word form• (OR) not enough to evaluateLanguage Use 25-22 Excellent to Very Good: cffcctivc complex constructions • fcwerrors of subject-verb agrccmcnt. tense, number, word order/function.articles, pronouns, prepositions. 21-13 - Good: minor problems in complex constructions several errors ofsubject-verb agreement. tense, number, word order/function, articles.pronouns, prepositions, but meaning seldom obscuredV- 17-11 Fair to Poor: major problems in simple/complex construcuons•frequent fragments. run-otis. deletions and errors of subject-verbagreement. tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns.prepositions10-5 Very Poor: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules’dominated by fragments. nm-oa deletions and errors of subject-verbagreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns.prepositions’ (OR) not enough to evaluateMechanics 5 Excellent to Very Good: demonstrates mastery of conventionsfew errors of spelling. punctuation. capitalization. paragraphing4 Good: occasional errors of spelling. punctuation. capitalization.paragraphing3 Fair to Poor: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation. capitalization.paragraphing2 Very Poor: no mastery of contentions • dominated by errors ofspelling. punctuation, capitalization. paragraphing’ (On) not enough to• evaluateTotal Score Reader CommentsC Copyright 1977. 1979 by HI. Jacobs. F. Hartiiel, J. 1-lughcy. and D. Wormuth. Coliege Station. Texas.131APPENDIX EE ‘V&I. UAT IO OF FORf&ISCXENFIFIC L.ABOR.ATORY REPOR2TO: MEMBERS OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENTFROM: ED LIEWiiruir ro EB BY 3:OOPff, TUISUAT, srrr. 14, 1993.RE: A SURVEY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LAB REPORTSACROSS THE SCIENCES.Dear Colleagues:I am conducting a survey of the evaluation criteriadeveloped by science teachers to assess student achievementon scientific lab reports. This survey is part of a greaterresearch project that compares two instructional approaches(the integration of language and content approach and thegenre—based approach to teaching science) for writingscientific reports that place emphasis on both the languageusage and the content matter in reporting the lab work. Theproject focus here will have direct instructionalimplications for ESL learners in science classrooms.I would like to invite your participation in thissurvey by describing how you evaluate your students labreports in the evaluation grid below. The grid isstructured to include the “standard” COMPONENTS of ascientific lab report. You may modify this grid to suityour preference or attach a sample of the lab evaluationcriteria you are currently using. I would like to emphasizeTWO features of this evaluation grid that are significant tothis survey:1. LANGUAGE: Under this beading, please list or describeany linguistic items or qualities you lookfor in your evaluation. The language itemsmay include: grammar, spelling, diction,proper tense, simple versus complex sentencestructures, style, conciseness, coherence,repetitions, proper use of parts of speech(e.g. “photosynthesis” (noun),“photosynthesize” (verb)), note form versuscomplete sentences, and others.1322. CONTENT: Under this heading, please list or describethe content items or information you expectyour students to include in their scientificreporting. The content knowledge andinformation may include: specializedvocabulary and terms, accuracy of reporting,clear description of “hypothesis, purpose orobjectives”, “materials”, etc., “procedure”or “discussion” questions answered, graphs,tables, drawings, calculations, erroranalyses, clear “conclusion”, specificsversus generalizations, and others.9133LAB REPORT EVALUATION GRIDPlease coaplete the following grid:31344.COECLUSIONS VALUEOTHERS VALUEQuEsTioNs:1. a) Do you use an OVERALL MARKING SCHEME?— yes / nob) What are the COMPONENTS and the VALUE of each section?COMPONENTS VALUETotal .ark value2. If you any additional co.aents about LAB REPORTEVALUATIONS, please feel free to use the space below.I would like to thank you very such for participating inthis survey. I hope to publish the results when they becoseavailable.135136APPENDIX FEVALUATION GRIDLAB LANGUAGE CONTENT VALUECOMPONENTS• TITLE • meaningful title and • specific to lab(Given) representative of experimentexperiment 0• proper tense, spelling• HYPOTHESIS If HYPOTHESIS is used • testableor • “IF - THEN” statement • give “educatedPURPOSE • complete sentence structure guess” or tentativeor explanationOBJECTIVE(S) • proper use of scientificor words • coherent ideas 5AIM • use of infmitives: “To • completenessinvestigate...” • background info.• clear meaningful relate to labrelationship among • guide the planningkey words of the experiment or• fluent expression investigation• appropriate tense• MATERIALS • point form • list of materials used• no sentence form required • note changes to• use of numbers and materials list 2Standard Intematonal (SI) • detailed descriptionunits of measurement of materials used.• safety precautions forhazardous materials• PROCEDURES • clear sentence structure • make note ofor • proper tense modifications toMETHOD • use of imperatives, logical proceduresand chronological • detailed description 5connectors using equipment• prepositions for space & names and units oftime measurement• “Refer to procedures on correctlypage ..“ • optional: use of visuals137• DATA & • sentence form of • use sentencesOBSERVATIONS description of charts, sparinglytables, diagrams • completeness of• visual organization graphics•allaxes&parts 5properly labelled• “qualitative” and“quantitative obs.described separately• accuracy• DISCUSSIONS • proper sentences • good interpretation,& ANALYSIS of • paragraph use • critical assessmentRESULTS • clarity, conciseness • relate to theory and• communicability background• language use: past tense knowledge• mechanics: spelling, punct. • comprehensive• structural vocab: explanationse.g. cause & effect - • calculations 5“because”, “result in” • compare findings to“known” or “true”results.• answer all questions• generate questions• Error analysis:- numerical errors- attempt to explain• CONCLUSIONS • sentence form • reject or accept• past tense hypothesis• conciseness • definite conclusions 3• clear statementTOTAL VALUE: 25138APPENDIX GILC & GENRE STUDYSurvey 1The following survey is designed for the study: “Two Approaches to Writing LaboratoryReports in Senior Science: The Integration of Language and Content Approach and the Genre-Based Approach.” The purpose of this survey is to find out the student participants’ experiences inworking with the three stages (modelling, joint negotiation of text, and independent construction)of the GENRE approach to writing scientific lab reports.Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You are under no obligation to take part andthere is no jeopardy to your class standing in Biology 11 fyou choose not to participate. If youdecide to take this survey, the information you give will be kept confidential. Your input is mostappreciated. Please take 5 -10 minutes to complete the following questions. There are 5 sections:INSTRUCflONS:PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING SCALE TO INDICATE YOUR OPINION OR FEELINGSABOUT EACH OF THE STATEMENTS THAT DESCRIBES USING THE GENREAPPROACH:PLEASE USE THE SCANTRON SHEET PROVIDED TO MARK [— I YOUR ANSWERS.SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL RECOUNT GENRE IDENTIFICATION1. I understand and can explain what the term” genre” means.2. I knew that there are “written” and “spoken genres”.3. I knew that the “Procedure” genre is used to describe a sequence of activities to do in a lab.4. I knew that the “Procedural recount” genre is used to record the conduct and results ofexperimentation or to record a set of observations made in a laboratory exercise.5. I was able to identify the parts (Aim, Materials, Method, Results, Discussion & Conclusion)of a lab experimental report.6. I was able to identify the “Procedure” Genre for the “Aim, Materials, and Method” parts of theexperimental report.7. I was able to identify the “Procedural Recount” genre for the “Results” and “Conclusion”sections of a lab experimental report.11 SURVEY 1:II USING GENRES TO WRITEIL A SCIENTIFIC LAB REPORTA = STRONGLY AGREEB = AGREEC = DISAGREED = STRONGLY DISAGREE1 of 3139A = STRONGLY AGREE C = DISAGREEB = AGREE D = STRONGLY DISAGREE8. 1 was able to identify the LANGUAGE features (past tense, sequence words, action words)for the Procedure and Procedural Recount genres in writing scientific lab report.SECTION 2: MODELLING: SETTING THE CONTEXT9. Analyzing the sample lab report and its parts help me to understand the procedure andprocedural recount genre.10. The 6 parts of an experimental report that represent the generic structure of the procedure andprocedural recount genres were clearly identified on the sample lab report.11. I could identify the use of past tense, sequence words, action verbs in the sample labreport.12. I could identify the human participants (e.g. “we”) and the circumstance of time andspace (e.g. “on the slide” or “for 5 minutes”)SECTION 3: JOINT NEGOTIATION13. In the joint negotiation exercise, I was able to identify the purpose of my lab activity.14. I found the joint negotiation exercise useful and beneficial for writing my own lab report15. I found it helpful when the teacher wrote the AIM, MATERIALS, METHODS, RESULTS,DISCUSSION, and the CONCLUSION sections of the lab with us together.16. I was able to use the LANGUAGE features (past tense, temporal & sequence words, actionwords) in the joint negotiation exercise.17. I found the use of diagrams, tables, charts, etc. was helpful in writing the lab together withthe teacher.SECTION 4: INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION18. In writing my own lab, I found it difficult to set up the 6 sections of the lab.19. In writing my own lab, I found it easy to write the AIM for my topic.20. In writing my own lab, I found it easy to write the MATERIAL section in list format.21. In writing my METHOD section of the lab, I had difficulty knowing what to write.22. In writing my METHOD section of the lab, I knew how to use key words such as “put”,“collect”, “label”, “place”,etc. at the beginning of each of my sentences.23. In writing my METHOD section of the lab, I knew how to use sequence words such as“first”, “then”, “next”, “finally”, etc.2 of 3140A = STRONGLY AGREE C = DISAGREEB = AGREE D = STRONGLY DISAGREE24. In writing my METHOD section of the lab, I knew how use phrases such as “in the dish”,“for 5 minutes”, “in the test tube”, etc. to indicate time and space.25. In writing my RESULTS section, I used past tense.26. In writing my DISCUSSION section, I knew how give “theoretical”, “sequential”, or“causal explanations” for my lab results.27. In writing my DISCUSSION section, I was able to select the appropriate “explanation” genreformat (i.e. “theoretical”, “sequential”, “causal”, etc.) for my lab results.28. In writing my CONCLUSION, I started with the phrase “In conclusion, we found...”29. I went over my rough draft with a classmate and did peer editing before writing a good copy.SECTION 5: USING THE GENRE APPROACH30. I understood how to write a scientific lab report using the procedure and procedural recountgenre approach.31. I did not understand the concept of genre for writing scientific lab reports.32. Compared to other formats and approaches to writing lab reports, I prefer using the genreapproach.33. The genre approach helped to write better lab reports.34. I feel I understand the importance of language features in writing a better lab report.35. I think learning the language features was difficult.36. The genre approach to writing lab reports allows me to focus on the language of science soI can better express in writing what I learned from the lab activity.37. After using the genre approach, I feel my writing of lab reports did NOT change.IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PLEASE USE THE SPACEBELOW:END OF SURVEYTHANK YOU FOR TAKING PART IN THIS SURVEY.Ed Liew (668-6400)3 of 3141APPENDIX HILC & GENRE STUDYSurvey 2SURVEY 2:II USING THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORKTO WRITE A SCIENTIFIC LAB REPORTThe following survey is designed for the study: “Two Approaches to Writing LaboratoryReports in Senior Science: The Integration of Language and Content Approach and the Genre-Based Approach.” The purpose of survey 2 is to ask about the student participants’ experienceswith the knowledge framework for writing scientific lab reports.Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You are under no obligation to take part andthere is no jeopardy to your class standing in Biology 11 fyou choose not to participate. If youdecide to take this survey, the information you give will be kept confidential. Your input is mostappreciated. Please take 10-15 minutes to complete the following questions. There are 3 sections:INSTRUCTIONS:PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING SCALE TO INDICATE YOUR OPINION OR FEELINGSABOUT EACH OF THE STATEMENTS THAT DESCRIBES USING THE GENREAPPROACH:A = STRONGLY AGREEB = AGREEC = DISAGREED = STRONGLY DISAGREEPLEASE USE THE SCANTRON SHEET PROVIDED TO MARK [—1 YOUR ANSWERS.SECTION 1: THE KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK: KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES.1. I understand how the Knowledge Framework is used for writing lab reports.2. I was able to identify the six knowledge structures (i.e. Principles, Sequence, etc.) of theknowledge framework.3. I understand how to use the knowledge framework to organize the components of thescientific lab report.4. I was able to identify all the components or sections (“Purpose”, “Materials”, “Procedures”etc.) of a scientific lab report.5. I was able to identify the THINKING SKILLS for each of the six knowledge structures.6. I was able to identify the LANGUAGE features for each of the six knowledge structures.7. I could identify the difference between STRUCTURAL vocabulary and CONTENTvocabulary for each of the six knowledge structures.1 of 3142A = STRONGLY AGREE C = DISAGREEB = AGREE D = STRONGLY DISAGREESECTION 2: KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES FOR WRITING LAB REPORTS.8. I was able to identify the KEY VISUALS (graphics) that are appropriate for each of the sixknowledge structures.9. I was able to identify the appropriate knowledge structures for each component of the labreport (i.e., “Sequence” is can be used for organizing and writing the “Procedures” section.)10. I was able to identify the THINKING SKILLS for each component or section of the labreport.11. I was able to identify the LANGUAGE features for each component of the lab report.12. I could identify the appropriate KEY VISUAL or graphics for each component of the labreport.SECTION 3: WRITING THE SCIENTIFIC LAB REPORT13. In writing my lab report, I was able to identify the overall purpose of my lab activity.14. I found it easy to list all the components (“Hypothesis”, “Materials”, “Procedures”, etc.) of ascientific lab report.15. I was able to apply the THINKING SKILLS in writing my lab reports.16. I was able to use STRUCTURAL and CONTENT vocabulary coffectly in writing the varioussections of my lab.17. I found the use of diagrams, tables, charts, etc. helpful in writing the lab.18. In writing my own lab, I found it easy to write the HYPOTHESIS (PURPOSE) for my topic.19. In writing my own lab, I found it easy to write the MATERIALS section in a list format.20. In writing my PROCEDURES section of the lab, I had difficulty knowing WHAT and HOWto write it.21. In writing my PROCEDURES section of the lab, I knew how to use key words such as“put”, “collect”, “label”, “place”,etc. at the beginning of each of my sentences.22. In writing my PROCEDURES section of the lab, I knew how to use sequence words such as“first”, “then”, “next”, “finally”, etc.23. In writing my PROCEDURES section of the lab, I knew how use prepositions in phrasessuch as “in the dish”, “for 5 minutes”, “in the test tube”, etc. to indicate time and space.24. In writing my DATA & OBSERVATIONS section, I found the use of tables, charts, anddiagrams very helpful.2 of 3143A = STRONGLY AGREE C = DISAGREEB = AGREE D = STRONGLY DISAGREE25. In writing my DISCUSSIONS & ANALYSIS section of my lab, I was able tocompare and contrast my findings in the lab with the theoretical background knowledge of thelab topic and activity.26. In writing my DISCUSSION section, I was able to analyze and explain my findings usingpast tense.27. In writing my DISCUSSION, I was able to explain cause and effect relationships usingSTRUCTURAL vocabulary such as “as a result”, “because”, “therefore”, “caused by...” etc.28. In writing my CONCLUSIONS, I started with the phrase “In conclusion, we found...”29. In writing my CONCLUSIONS, I would use the phrase, “The hypothesis was rejected (oraccepted) because...”, when there was a HYPOTHESIS for my lab.30. I understood how to write a scientific lab report using the KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK.31. I did not understand the concept of the Knowledge Framework and its knowledge structuresfor writing scientific lab reports.32. Compared to other formats and approaches to writing lab reports, I prefer using theKnowledge Framework.33. The Knowledge Framework helped to write better lab reports.34. I feel I understand the importance of language features in writing a better lab report.35. I think learning the language features was difficult.36. The Knowledge Framework approach to writing lab reports allows me to focus on thelanguage of science so I can better express in writing what I learned from the lab activity.37. After using the Knowledge Framework, I feel my writing of lab reports did NOT change.38. The Knowledge Framework allows me to focus on the LANGUAGE and the CONTENTfeatures of a scientific lab report.IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, PLEASE USE THE SPACEBELOW:END OF SURVEYTHANK YOU FOR TAKING PART IN THIS SURVEY.Ed Liew (668-6400)3 of 3144APPENDIX IGENREGENRE: WRITING LAB REPORTSGENERIC STRUCTURE & TEXTAIMPROCEDUREMATERIALSMETHODPROCEDURALRECOUNTRESULTSEXPLANATION DISCUSSION• SEQUENTIAL• CAUSAL• THEORETICAL• FACTORIAL• CONSEQUENTIALPROCEDURAL CONCLUSIONRECOUNT145APPENDIX JCONTROL GROUPii1pLt ‘1[11 LRBOFIIITOFIY HEPOHTING W;Jitt IN BIOLOGYIbkTITLE • The NAME of the laboratory (lab) investigation*HYPOTHESIS • The hypothesis is what you think will happen during theinvestigation. It is often posed as an “If. ..then” statement.* PURPOSE or OBJECTIVES: In some lab investigations, you areasked to examine the anatomy or structures and functions ofbiological specimens such as plant or animal cell slides orsample dissections.MATERIALS • A list of all the eciuiyment and other supplies you will need toto complete the investigation.PROCEDURE • The procedure is a step-by-step explanation of exactly whatyou did in the investigation.PROCEDURE QUESTIONS: Often, there will be questionsin the procedure section that will help you understand whatis happening in the investigation.OBSERVATIONS • Your data is what you have observed. It is often recordedin the form of tables, graphs, and drawingsDISCUSSION • It explains what you have learned.• Your hypothesis: Accept or Reject it.• Discuss the THEORY behind the experiment you conducted• Talk about your results and your sources of ERRORS.• Complete all discussion questions in the lab manualCONCLUSION • Write a statement of conclusions.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078124/manifest

Comment

Related Items