1. The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) [1] is an inquiry-based approach that links writing, reading, and science laboratory activities. The SWH emphasizes the relationship between theoretical assertions (claims) and empirical data (evidence). In this study we compared Grade 7 students’ performance on biology unit tests, and analyze their written documents for treatment (SWH) and control (traditional reports) groups. We also assessed students’ awareness of their learning process through their responses to a survey. The statistical and qualitative analyses indicated that low achieving students in the SWH group had a richer conceptual understanding compare to their peers in the control group. Bruna Irene Grimberg, Sozan Omar, Murat Gunel, and Brian Hand Iowa State University, Curriculum and Instruction, Center for Excellence in Science and Math Education Ames, IA 50011 Text Analysis Students’ Reports Clues for reading the graphs Blue trace: low achievers Pink trace: high achievers Black bars: metacognitive event 1: Hand B. and C. Keys (1999) “Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports”. The Science Teacher, 66:27. 2: Ennis R.. (1985) “Goals for a critical thinking curriculum” Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking. SWH ReportsControl Reports Future Work Replicate this analysis across disciplines and grades Correlate the results of the text analysis with test performance Correlate the results of the text analysis with retention of scientific concepts From the coding of students’ texts, cognitive categories emerged. The text analysis is based on the sequential appearance of the cognitive categories in the text. The cognitive categories, arranged in increasing complexity [2], are 1. Observation8. Inference/causal 2. Compare/ similarity 9. Induction/generalization 3. Compare/contrast10. Deduction/logic 4. Compare/analogy11. Investigation/design 5. Clarification/question12. Negotiation/authority 6. Clarification/argument13. Negotiation/peers 7. Claim/belief The analysis was done on two lab reports corresponding to different experimental activities, one was an observation (Cell) while the other aimed to explain the diffusion process (Iodine). Also students’ unit summary report was analyzed. The text analyses of both treatment and control groups for low and high achieving students are the following, Students’ Performance Analysis Statistical analysis of students’ scores of their baseline test (Iowa Test for Basic Skills) was not significant for control and treatment groups prior to the research (F (1,156) = 0.351, p = 0.554). Students’ performance analysis was based on the improvement scores for multiple choice and conceptual questions from pre- and post-tests on the unit. The improvement score (IS) was calculated as, IS = (PostS – PreS)/(T – PreS) where PreS: pretest score, PostS: post test score, and T: total score. Low achieving students’ improvement mean scores High achieving students’ improvement mean scores The mean differences between treatment and control in relation to the overall variance (effect size), for low and high achieving students are, The IS for low achieving (base line test score 1-36) and high achieving students (base line test score 95-100) in treatment and control groups are, Improvement mean scores Effect Size Conclusions The IS of low achieving students in the SWH approach is higher than low achieving students in the control group for both multiple choice and conceptual questions. The IS of high achieving students in the SWH approach is higher only for the conceptual questions but lower than the control group for multiple choice questions. The SWH approach had more of an impact on low achieving students’ writings than high achieving students, promoting a larger number and higher level of cognitive codes relative to the control group. Low achieving students replicated the cognitive activities of high achievers in SWH classes. This trend was not displayed for the control group. Control % Treatment % Yes54 91 No 46 9 Analysis of Students’ Survey At the end of the unit, control and treatment students responded a survey regarding their attitude towards the instruction. Here we report the results of two questions for control and treatment respectively. Question 1 (Control): Did writing your hypothesis help you learn better? Question 1 (Treatment): Did answering your own questions on the SWH help you learn better? Question 2 (Control and Treatment): Were you learning as you were writing? Control % Treatment % Yes54 80 No 46 20