In the collaborative writing intervention, students were actively engaged in discussing the meaning of data, observations, textbook passages, and instructor information. Students frequently used scientific reasoning skills as they attempted to assess
their own prior knowledge, generate new models for scientific events, and extend
their models to new situations. In contrast, other studies of student laboratory work
have documented a conspicuous lack of discussion about the meaning of observations and data .There are many features of the collaborative
writing intervention that distinguish it from traditional laboratory reports and may have contributed to its positive impact on student reasoning discourse. First, since the reports were written collaboratively, students needed to negotiate meanings and come to consensus, resulting in active discussion around conceptual understandings. Second, the writing task gave students a specific focus for their talk, as they deliberated over text composition. Third, the guideline prompts encouraged students to consider all the relevant sources of information and to synthesize explanatory models of scientific events. Fourth, the investigation problems were challenging, and authentic in the sense that students were required to explain their own observations. Instructors emphasized the generation of reasonable models over scientifically correct ones, resulting in decreased pressure to obtain the “right” answer. This was reinforced during instructors’ interaction with student groups and by using the criteria of support of claims rather than correctness in grading the laboratory reports. Fifth, a constructivist environment for learning was established in the classroom over a period of time which fostered students’ interest in making meaning, solving problems, and “talking science.” Instructors showed their respect for students’ ideas, encouraged students to use all available resources, and promoted active discussion with collaborative partners.
Students who were initially reluctant to talk about the meaning of scientific concepts in this study, Noelle and Amy, demonstrated the greatest amount of change in
reasoning discourse over time. Noelle and Amy appeared to respond to a constructivist environment by undertaking more risks in conversation and by gradually gaining confidence in their own laboratory findings as a source of information. They also
developed their ability to integrate knowledge from other available resources into their writing. In contrast, Sabrina and Jill were comfortable expressing their intuitive knowledge verbally from the beginning of the study. They continued to use intuitive knowledge as a basis for both discussion and model formulation.
参考资料：金山快译