Staff

Publication details for Prof Lynn Newton

Newton, L.D., Newton, D.P., Blake, A. & Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding? Research in Science & Technological Education 20(2): 227-240.

• Publication type: Journal papers: academic
• ISSN/ISBN: 0263-5143, 1470-1138
• DOI: 10.1080/0263514022000030471
• Keywords: Concept formation, Educational strategies, Elementary secondary education, Foreign countries, Knowledge base for teaching, Preservice teachers, Teacher education curriculum, Teacher effectiveness, Teacher qualifications, Textbooks.
• View online: Online version
• Durham research online: DRO record

Author(s) from Durham

• Prof Lynn Newton

Abstract

Explanatory understanding is a valued goal in science education and yet research evidence suggests that, for a variety of reasons, it is not always a major concern of primary science teachers. Do primary science books show a concern for explanatory understanding? Using a structured analysis schedule, this study explored the extent to which 76 current primary science textbooks, intended for use with older primary children (7-11 years), showed a concern for explanatory understanding. The results indicated that the majority of the books did not reflect such a concern. Nevertheless, some books did include causal and intentional explanations. These could be a useful resource in that they could help shape both teachers' and children's conceptions of what counts as understanding in science.

References

BECK, I.L., MCKEOWN, M.G., SINATRA, G.M. & LOXTERMAN, J.A. (1991) Revising social studies
text from a text processing perspective: evidence of improved comprehensibility, Reading Research
Quarterly, 26, pp. 251–76.
BREWER, W.F., CHINN, C.A. & SAMARAPUNGAVAN, A. (2000) Explanations in scientists and
children, in: F.C. KEIL & R.A.WILSON (Eds) Explanation and Cognition (Cambridge, MA, Bradford
Books, MIT Press), pp. 279–298.
BRITTON, B.K. & GRAESSER, A.C. (Eds) (1996) Models of Understanding Text (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates).
BROWN, G. & WRAGG, E.C. (1993) Explaining (London, Routledge).
CAINE, R. & CAINE, G. (1994) Making Connections (Alexandria, VA, Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development).
CHAMBLISS, M.J. & CALFEE, R.C. (1989) Designing science textbooks to enhance student understanding,
Educational Psychologist, 24, pp. 307–322.
CHAN, C.K. & SACHS, J. (2001) Beliefs about learning in children’s understanding of science texts,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, pp. 192–210.
COHEN, S.A. & STEINBERG, J.E. (1983) Effects of three types of vocabulary on readability of
intermediate grade science textbooks, Reading Research Quarterly, 19, pp. 86–101.
COLBURN, A. (1998) Constructivism and science teaching, Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks, 435, pp. 7–44.
DAS GUPTA, P. & BRYANT, P.E. (1989) Young children’s causal inferences, Child Development, 60, pp.
1138–1146.
DEE-LUCAS, D. & LARKIN, J.H. (1991) Equations in scienti c proofs, American Educational Research
Journal, 28, pp. 661–682.
DRISCOLL, M.P., MOALLEM, M., DICK, W. & KIRBY, E. (1994) How does the textbook contribute
to learning in a middle school science class? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, pp. 79–100.
DUNN, J. & BROWN, J.R. (1993) Early conversations about causality, British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 11, pp. 107–123.
GARDNER, H. & BOIX-MANSILLA, V. (1994) Teaching for understanding in the disciplines and
beyond, Teachers College Record, 96, pp. 198–218.
GARNER, R. & ALEXANDER, P.A. (1994) Beliefs about Text and Instruction with Text (Hillsdale, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum).
GLYNN, S. & TAKAHASHI, T. (1998) Learning from analogy-enhanced science text, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35, pp. 1129–1149.
GOPNIK, A. (2000) Explanations as orgasm and the drive for causal knowledge, in: F.C. KEIL &
R.A. WILSON (Eds) Explanation and Cognition (Cambridge, MA, Bradford Books, MIT Press),
pp. 299–323.
GREENBAUM, S. (1996) The Oxford English Grammar (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
GUZZETTI , B.J.,WILLIAMS,W.O. & SKEELS, S.A. (1997) The in uence of text structure on learning
counterintuitive physics concepts, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, pp. 701–719.
HALFORD, G.S. (1993) Children’s Understanding (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).
HAMILTON, R.J. (1985) A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and
objectives, Review of Educational Research, 55, pp. 47–73.
HANNUS, M. & HYO¨ NA¨ , J. (1999) Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook
passages among low- and high-ability children, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, pp. 95–123.
HARLEN, W. & HOLROYD, C. (1997) Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science:
impact on con dence and teaching, International Journal of Science Education, 19, pp. 93–105.
HUBISZ, J.L. (2001) Report on a study of middle school physical science texts, The Physics Teacher,
39, pp. 304–309.
KITCHER, P. & SALMON, W.C. (1989) Scienti c Explanations (Minneapolis, University of Minneapolis).
LEO´ N, J.A. & PEN˜ ALBA, G.E. (2002) Understanding causality and temporal sequence in scienti c
discourse, in: J. OTERO, J.A. LEO´ N & A.C. GRAESSER (Eds) The Psychology of Science Text
Comprehension (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 155–178.
LINKHOUS, V. (2000) Simply speaking, Childhood Education, 76, p. 161.
MAURICE-NAVILLE, D. & MONTENEGRO, J. (1992) The development of diachronic thinking, British
Journal of Developmental Educational Psychology, 10, pp. 365–383.
MAYER, R.E. (1989) Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scienti c text, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, pp. 240–246.
MAYER, R.E., STEINHOFF, K. & BOWER, G. (1995) A generative theory of textbook design,
Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, pp. 31–43.
MCNAMARA, D.S., KINTSCH, E. & SONGER, N.B. (1996) Are good texts always better? Cognition and
Instruction, 14, pp. 1–43.
MCWHIRTER, N. (1999) The Book of Millennium Records (London, Virgin).
MILLAR, R. & OSBORNE, J. (1998) Beyond 2000: science education for the future (London, University of
London).
MINTZES, J.J.,WANDERSLEE, J.H. & NOVAK, J.D. (1997) Teaching Science for Understanding (San Diego,
Academic Press).
NEWTON, D.P. (1990) Teaching with Text (London, Kogan Page).
NEWTON, D.P. (1994) Supporting the comprehension of tabulated data, British Educational Research
Journal, 20, pp. 455–463.
NEWTON, D.P. (1995) Support for Understanding: Discourse Which Aids the Construction of a
Functional Mental Model of Causal Situations, Research in Science and Technological Education, 13,
pp. 109–122.
NEWTON, D.P. (2000) Teaching for Understanding (London, Routledge/Falmer).
NEWTON, D.P. (2002) Talking Sense in Science (London, Routledge/Falmer).
NEWTON, D.P. & MERRELL, C.H. (1994) Words that count, International Journal of Mathematics
Education in Science and Technology, 25, pp. 457–462.
NEWTON, D.P. & NEWTON, L.D. (2000) Do teachers support causal understanding through their
discourse when teaching primary science? British Educational Research Journal, 26, pp. 599–613.
NEWTON, D.P., NEWTON, L.D., BLAKE, A. & BROWN, K. (2002) Is understanding a priority in
elementary science teaching?, in: Progress in Educational Research (New York, Nova Science), in
press.
NEWTON, L.D. (1997a) Teachers’ questioning for understanding in primary science. Paper presented at the
Third Conference on Primary Science Teacher Education, University of Durham, Durham,
England, 9 July.
NEWTON, L.D. (1997b) Teachers’ questioning for understanding in science, British Journal of
Curriculum and Assessment, 8, pp. 28–32.
NEWTON, L.D. (2001a) Teaching for understanding in primary science, Evaluation and Research in
Education, 15 (3), pp. 143–153.
NEWTON, L.D. (2001b) Supporting understanding: using teachers’ questions in the elementary
school, Teachers and Curriculum (NZ), 5, pp. 6–10.
NICKERSON, R.S. (1985) Understanding understanding, American Journal of Education, 93, pp.
201–239.
OFSTED (Of ce for Standards in Education) (1994) Primary Matters (London, HMSO).
OFSTED (Of ce for Standards in Education) (1999) Primary Education, 1994–98 (London, The
Stationery Of ce).
PEACOCK, A. & GATES, S. (2000) Newly quali ed primary teachers’ perceptions of the role of text
material in teaching science, Research in Science & Technological Education, 18 (2), pp. 155–171.
PIAGET, J. (1978) Success and Understanding (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).
ROBERTS, H.C. (1969) The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus (New York, Nostradamus Inc.).
ROBERTSON, I. & KAHNEY, H. (1996) The use of examples in expository text: outline of an
interpretation theory for text analysis, Instructional Science, 24, pp. 93–123.
RODRIGUES, S. & THOMPSON, I. (2001) Cohesion in science lesson discourse: clarity, relevance and
suf cient information, International Journal of Science Education, 23, pp. 929–940.
ROSSI, J.P. (1990) The function of frame in the comprehension of scienti c text, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, pp. 727–732.
ROYER, J.M. (1986) Designing instruction to produce understanding, in: G.D. PHYE & T. ANDRE
(Eds) Cognitive Classroom Learning (San Diego, Academic Press), pp. 83–113.
SIERPINSKA, A. (1994) Understanding in Mathematics (London, Falmer Press).
SIMON, H.A. (2000) Discovering explanations, in: F.C. KEIL & R.A. WILSON (Eds) Explanation and
Cognition (Cambridge, MA, Bradford Books, MIT Press), pp. 21–59.
STRAUSS, S. (1993) Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge about children’s minds and learning,
Educational Psychologist, 28, pp. 279–290.
TRABASSO, T. & SPERRY, L.L. (1985) The causal basis for deciding importance of story events,
Journal of Memory and Language, 24, pp. 612–630.
UNSWORTH, L. (2001) Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high
school science texts, International Journal of Science Education, 23, pp. 342–352.
VACHON, M.K. & HANEY, R.E. (1991) A procedure for determining the level of abstraction of
science reading material, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, pp. 342–352.
VAN DEN BROEK, P.,VIRTUE, S., EVERSON, M.G.,TZANG, Y. & SUNG, Y. (2002) Comprehension and
memory of science texts, in: J. OTERO, J.A. LEO´ N & A.C. GRAESSER (Eds) The Psychology of Science
Text Comprehension (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 131–154.
WALPOLE, S. (1998) Changing texts, changing thinking, The Reading Teacher, 52, pp. 358–370.
WEBER, R.W. (1990) Basic Content Analysis (London, Sage), pp. 39–74.
WELLINGTON, J. (2001) School textbooks and reading in science, School Science Review, 300, pp.
71–83.
WHEELER, A.E. & HILL, D. (1990) Diagram-ease. Why children misinterpret diagrams, The Science
Teacher, 57, pp. 58–63.
WILDY, H. & WALLACE, J. (1992) Understanding teaching or teaching for understanding, American
Educational Research Journal, 29, pp. 143–156.
YORE, L.D. (1991) Secondary science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading
and science textbooks, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, pp. 55–72.